We live in a world where, like it or not, economic and political governance is in the hands of the Group of 20 nations (G20). This is historic because, unlike in the G8 world, for the first time "systemically important" emerging countries - growing states that are crucial to the international economic system - have been given a voice in the core of global governance.

The G20, however, is not perfect and, among other things, continues to be dogged by questions of "input" legitimacy. Its exclusive nature, and lack of broader inputs from the wider world, is undermining its legitimacy.

First, it comprises 19 countries plus the European Union, selected in 1999 without using any objective criteria; Europe is clearly over-represented. Five representatives of Europe - the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Spain - and the presidents of European Commission and European Council sitting around the high table along with the 19 other members of this "self-select" group.

But as we know, this is not new and mirrors a similar composition of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank boards. Given that we are moving from a unipolar to a multipolar world, this over-representation has to go. In this context, the bold decision of South Korea not to invite the Netherlands to the G20 summit in Seoul last year was a step in the right direction.

Second, how the voice of other countries - accounting for more than 60 percent of the world's population - can be heard when they are not sitting at the high table? Something has to be done.

The G20 practice has been to invite regional organizations on an ad hoc basis at the discretion of the host. For example, the UK invited ASEAN and the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), Canada added the African Union (AU), South Korea brought in the Global Governance Group (3G), and France brought in the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC) for the G20 summit in November 2010. Strictly speaking, 3G is a Singapore-led coalition of small- and medium-sized states from across the world left out of the G20; it is not a regional organization.

But it was nonetheless invited under the ad hoc invitation system.

Regional organizations had a choice. Either they could resist, call for a more representative system and wait. Or they could go along with the G20 practice and engage pragmatically and constructively to promote their region's voice. Although not fully satisfied with the G20 practice, many regional organizations have chosen the latter option of constructive engagement. For example, the leaders' statement from the 2010 ASEAN Summit stated: "ASEAN strongly believes that it can contribute to the deliberations of the G20 through continued participation of the ASEAN Chair and the ASEAN Secretary General."

Also, at the time of the first summit in 2008, the head of AU's executive committee appealed to the organizers of the G20 meeting to think of Africa's right to be an active player in the process and "not to suffer, as always, the consequences of other people's mistakes". This has since been rectified.