One American's opinion, and limited to the concept of "supranational entities."
The demarcation point of democracy is often a paper tiger. If democracy is good, at which point do you arbitrarily draw the line between which group is participating? In the United States, this often plays out in the struggle between the rights of States to determine what is good for their citizens versus the power of the Federal government to establish what is good for all citizens in the Country.
Interestingly, this battle becomes most focused in the area of civil rights. Historically, "States rights" has been synonymous with limiting the civil rights of minorities juxtaposed against the Federal government subverting the "will of the people" by establishing a common law of the land so that all can participate in and benefit from democracy.
In more minor ways the issue of local government "blue laws" provide the forum as smaller groups (than States) attempt to establish what is acceptable in their own community as opposed to adhering to a common standard of acceptability. Interestingly, both local groups that appear too stringent as well as local groups that appear too lenient to "outsiders" come under fire.
The dynamic expresses itself the same across these boundaries: "You're not gong to tell me what I can and cannot do."
Sometimes this expression is big (who gets to vote and who doesn't), and sometimes small (can a nipple be depicted in a photograph).
But the real question is, who gets to particpate - and will they be reasonable (or humble, or weak, or moral, of whatever term you wish to use) enough to take a peer position within the larger group.
Historically, the mindset of the typical male JW would be, No. There is too much pride, too much hubris, too much emphatic convicition of their own inerrant right to do just as they please. Only they have the true measure of things, only they have the authority to establish rule, only they may decide. The current President of the United States would have made an excellent JW.
Once a sovereign nation extends its participation into a larger world community, it must participate in government forms that are inclusive of other nations. If it cannot be reasonable (or humble, or whatever you wish to label it) and act as a peer among equals, it has no business participating in the larger forum of a world community.
It's time the United States realized its true role as a peer in a world forum and started behaving accordingly. The myopic, grandiose, narcissistic, self-indulgent bahavior it has exhibited especially recently does not serve its interests in a larger community.