Mr. Einstein came to this conclusion after the creation of the atomic bomb, but he wasn't the first. The idea of global governance dates back to the Greeks and Romans, and was furthered significantly by Hugo Grotius, who is credited with creating the concept of international law in the 17th century. Philosophers from Hobbes to Kant made compelling arguments that such a structure was mandatory for ending the perpetual state of war that exists in the world. However, this idea isn't just the province of obscure intellectuals . Ulysses S. Grant commented, "I believe at some future day, the nations of the earth will agree on some sort of congress which will take cognizance of international questions of difficulty and whose decisions will be as binding as the decisions of the Supreme Court are upon us". Following World War II there was a "World Citizenship" movement, famously founded by Garry Davis who gave up his citizenship in any nation and became a "World Citizen". That movement is still alive today, evangelized by his son, Troy Davis with tireless dedication (check out their site http://www.worldcitizen.org/).
Today, the idea has only become more pressing. I was at a conference recently where Tom Friedman , the three time Pulitzer prize winning journalist and author http://www.thomaslfriedman.com , was speaking. Tom has written two books on 'Globalization', The Lexus and the Olive Tree and his most recent, The World is Flat. When asked about some of the most difficult problems that face the world such as global warming, curing preventable diseases and the like, he commented that the only solution was "global governance". Indeed, with the advent of a more connected world, facilitated by technology, I posit that our economic system has outstripped our system of government. There is no reliable international structure of governance, but there certainly is an international system of commerce. Global commerce is a dominant global force, driving international relations and strongly impacting national economies while largely operating outside of our systems of governance. We do have trade organizations, import/export controls and weak international law but they seem to have limited effect on the flow of goods and capital around the world. This phenomenon is having a huge impact on people and nations. Whether it's the loss of a good paying IT job in New Jersey to a software developer in Bangalore India who works for 1/10th the cost or the manufacturing of goods in Chinese prison camps, we all feel the effects and inequities of the current environment. Economic "globalization" puts into stark relief the uneven economic playing field that the global polyglot of nations is.
Regardless of where you come out on Globalization (me, I'm a huge fan), it only makes more clear the need for global governance. Just consider the absurdity of hundreds of millions of people in the world doing without clean water daily, while a billion or more worry about missing their favorite tv show. Or consider the advent of another 1.5 billion consumers entering the modernity over the next fifty years in nations with very poor environmental controls, belching their pollutants into the world with little regard for the global consequences. Perhaps you are a pacifist, decrying the warring ways of man. With most nations preserving the right to go to war, and no binding way to reasonably arbitrate disputes between nations, we are very likely to maintain a perpetual state of war in the world. In fact, war is a logical course of action in some instances due to the current organization of the world as a collection of independent nation states. Let's get Hobbesian again, for a moment. Imagine that we lived in a state of anarchy where there were no nations. How would we as individuals resolve conflict? Without recourse to the rule of law, we would be back to tribes, warlords and a tremendous amount of violence against each other in our day to day lives. But since we have this recourse, the most vicious doesn't usually prevail and we resolve conflicts largely in peaceful ways within liberal, democratic nations. Unfortunately, nations relating to other nations don't have this recourse so they have to resort to other means.
I could go on and on. If you still don't agree, just Google global governance or world government and you'll find very compelling reasoning that may get you there. It may be that you find this concept objectionable in other ways. Am I proposing to subject the U.S. to a higher governance?No, what I mean is something that looks more like the United States of Earth. We don't need another layer of government, we need to expand the model works. A global federation of states. If you find the notion of the U.S. of Earth offensive, then use the European Union as a model but I wouldn't sign up for what they've done as I believe that another layer of government would run counter to the true tenets of liberty.
Most importantly, I ask you to consider whether it's humane and sensible for us to ignore the plight of the rest of the world? As a human being I cannot just sit by as so many human beings suffer so much deprivation, repression, exploitation and hopelessness. Do we really want to let our nationalist sentiments trump our concern for our fellow man? As well, is it smart for us to watch others suffer so while we grow more and more prosperous and free? At what point will the 'have nots' rise up? Or will their resentment be harnessed by power hungry despots? Is it possible that this is already happening? If compassion doesn't get you there, then self interest surely will.
Once we've agreed that global governance is a good idea, the next question is what form of governance should we choose? I argue that liberal democracy has demonstrated the ability to deliver the best results for its citizens in the history of civilization. Consider the dramatic jump in lifespan, health, protection 0f individual rights, innovation, creativity and wealth that the world has experienced in the past two hundred years as this form of government has been adopted by one hundred plus nations. No other system of governance even comes close by those or many other measures.
So, if we were to create a global democracy, what should it look like? Let's consider the elemental principles of a liberal democracy:
Individual Sovereignty - The principle that the individual exists independent of government. That rights are not granted to individuals, but that the individual grants certain rights to government to protect the common good and that government protects an individual's rights from being transgressed by others. It places limits on government, not individuals unless they infringe on others individual rights.
Self Determination - Leaders are elected freely by the citizens of free democracies without coercion.
Government by the rule of law - Decisions involving adjudication of disputes are made according to laws created by representatives elected by citizens and these laws are the ultimate authority in society with respect to the domains that they govern.
Private ownership of property - The right to own property and to do with that property what one wishes is guaranteed by law.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." ~ Albert Einstein.
You just have to love Einstein. As a seeker of wisdom, I can think of no other modern man who even comes close. Just imagine for a moment what a world with this system of global governance would look like? Imagine 7 billion people free, creating, communicating, producing, consuming and cooperating. Darfur or Rwanda simply wouldn't be tolerated - law enforcement would intervene. The need for standing armies to protect nations from one another would be eliminated. A level playing field in terms of environmental regulation, human rights, social welfare and commerce would be feasible to implement. Just imagine a single currency? Where a dollar (or a euro or a reais) is worth the same everywhere. Overnight, the exploitative practice of national "arbitrage" would be taken off the table as a business strategy. We could tackle effectively such problems as access to clean water, starvation and death from preventable diseases. Attempts at the repression of individual rights would be met with the conscience of the world enforcing freedom with the of rule of law. It's impossible to estimate the leaps forward humanity could make with the creative energy of all human beings being free.
Let's go even further. Imagine a world where national, racial and ethnic identities were less and less important. Where we care just as much about the suffering of a child prostitute in the favela's of Recife Brazil as we do about our next door neighbor because we would be united as human beings versus divided by nationality. A world where there is no "them", only an "us".
"A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." ~ Margaret Mead
So, what to do? The first thing I ask is that you actually think about the idea of Global Democracy for a moment. Do you agree that it's a good idea? If so, then I'd ask you to share the idea with as many people as you can (maybe send them a link to my blog?). I'd also like you to vote at the following site http://www.voteworldgovernment.org/ on whether you support the notion of a Global Government. I do believe that their "referendum" (which I think of more as a petition) is a useful vehicle for raising awareness. I don't agree with all their proposals but they are promoting useful thinking about how a global government might start.
Most of all, I want you to see the possibilities of a global democracy. It's a hopeful vision for humanity and I think we could all use a little more hope.
Posts
1 comments:
Glenn,
I find your views facinating and compelling. Thank you for all of the work and research you have presented to support the case.
I do have a comment:
1. The reality of a world government may manifest itself other than the imaginary ideal you have painted so well. Given our own experiences with the slowness of our own government in the U.S. with respect to change, how could a world government possibly adapt to the specific needs of geographic regions quickly enough? Perhaps the solution lies in a practical collection of agreements and treaties which secure global trade, while enabling nations to manage thier citizens more flexibly on their own. In fact, I believe this is the natural evolution and future of humantity. Countries which cannot follow the international treaties and laws, due to their irresponsible actons, will be excluded from all trade (e.g. North Korea, Iran). This would have a carrot and stick effect to bring about change. Once these leaders are thrown off of the gravy train, their attitudes and behaviors will change. Hence you see would see the continued emergence of nations who wish to peacefully co-exist with the rest of the world and benefit through trade (e.g. India, Estonia, Romania).
Respectfully,
Paul Pakalnietis
Post a Comment