HOW IT MIGHT BE…
It is not our intent here to lay out the definitive structure of unified world government—the following is merely one possibility. Others certainly exist and it will take time, compromise, cooperation and the commitment of people of good will and intent to formulate a workable solution.
There is no absolutely perfect political philosophy—as we are imperfect, so are our governments. We are only as good as we strive to be and the effectiveness of any human endeavor is directly proportional to the energy we put into it. It is possible to conceive and implement such a system—IT ONLY AWAITS OUR WILL TO DO SO!
Whether or not we get the chance to do so is entirely up to you…
We neither advocate the elimination of established national borders, nor the sublimation of our unique national identities in the name of some homogeneous world hive of interchangeable parts—it is those very differences which gives us our dynamism and vibrancy as a species.
History has shown us the many faces of civil government. They span the scale from the Totalitarian Dictatorships of the ultra right, where all power is concentrated in one individual and personal freedoms are severely suppressed, through Communism on the far left, where political power is held by a single central party and the benefits of society are supposedly shared equally by all. Midway between these contrary systems are the myriad forms of Democracy, whose power is vested directly in the individual, or in duly elected representatives of the voting citizens.
At first glance, Communism and Socialism would seem to be able to provide a basis for a fair and equitable system of government; one where wealth is shared equally and the base needs of the populace is maintained by the state. Hindsight and history have proven otherwise. With a single party controlling political power, and no incentive toward efficiency, a rigid bureaucracy entrenched itself and formed an elitist class at the expense of the general public. As lamentable as it may be, we are, for the most part, much closer to being sinners than saints, and in a system with little or no checks and. balances, gross abuses of power are bound to exist.
Dismissing any form of right-wing Totalitarianism out of hand leaves us with some form of Democracy as the system most able to balance the needs of the majority with the rights of the minorities in the most fair and equitable manner.
Some form of Representative Social Democracy in a capitalist, free-market environment would seem to us to be the rational choice for the basis of a new world order. Under a system of this nature the provisions for providing the basic necessities of life are taken out of the private sector and given to the control of the elected bodies of government, while the engine of economic growth and prosperity is left relatively unfettered. Such functions as the furnishing of adequate and accessible health care, educational opportunities, affordable and sufficient housing, the maintenance of essential industries and infrastructure, and the equitable allocation of scarce resources, should be the responsibilities of the central governmental structure. It is less expensive for us as a society to furnish these basic necessities to those that need them then it is to deal with the ramifications of a perpetual class of under-educated, under-employed, marginally malnourished and criminally prone people.
Capitalism, however, has certain inherent drawbacks and its negative potential must be contended with; unrestrained, it can lead to the perversion of the governmental system through political manipulations via the power of money and the influence money can buy. Free enterprise, however, is a fundamental necessity in a healthy economy—it provides the impetus for growth and change, rewarding the innovative and culling out the inefficient. It’s the pump which primes progress in the fields of technology and science and helps expand the bounds of our knowledge. Free enterprise is the means for us to improve our personal financial situations and helps us to realize our economic potential.
A crucial part in the implementation of this idea, and one that is absolutely vital to getting this accepted, both on the local and national levels, is that there must be a way to ensure that the current relative status of all the nations on earth are preserved throughout the transition from here to there and into the world which follows. Maybe someday in our enlightened future the question of national sovereignty and all which it entails will be only a footnote in history. But the reality of the world today is that no government, anywhere, at this stage anyway, is ready to give up any of its perceived sovereign power to achieve this dream.
Human nature precludes our ability to do what’s right merely because we know it’s the right thing to do—and to think that the nobility of a cause will prove otherwise is both naive and foolish. There is an established hierarchy of power in the world which must be kept in balance in order for us to succeed in changing the current established system.
Russia will not allow itself to be a party to anything which could possibly diminish its relative power, both nationally and internationally, neither would China, Japan, the EU, India nor the United States. Without the means of maintaining the established pecking order we have no hope of making this work.
What would seem, to us, the most logical means of achieving such a balance would be to divide the world as it stands today into nine specific “Influence Groups” (IG’s): US and Canada; The EU; China; Russia and the former members of the Soviet Confederation; India; Japan, S.E. Asia and the Pacific Rim; Sub-Saharan Africa; Northern Africa/Near East; Latin America. Covering all the major participants—roughly equal in population and resources—these groups would form the basis of a transitional United Nations.
In the Security Council each IG would be allotted three seats. In their respective groups two seats would automatically given to each of the “Super Powers” in the world today: the U.S., Russia, China, India, The EU, and due to their economic standing, Japan, with the third seat in their respective IG being guaranteed to another member of that group. The seats of the remaining IG’s would be appointed by a vote of the General Assembly representatives aligned with each group. By doing this we allow all the old-line powers the guarantee of voting their weight as well as benefiting from the input of a representative sampling of other diverse views.
As a further assurance that the general balance will be maintained, and of singular importance, is that the decisions of the Security Council would have to be unanimous. This means that each individual IG will have the power of veto over the findings and edicts of the Security Council as a whole and, by having the majority in their respective IG’s the “Super Powers” will again have their say.
In a General Assembly, apportioned proportionately, the recognized major powers of today would be able to maintain their interest through the number of representatives they were able to send. No one is threatened, no country has its borders violated, no advantage is gained or lost.
We would hope that given time, the power of absolute veto could be laid aside and a simple two-thirds majority would suffice—but for now it is essential that national sovereignty and the established balance of power be maintained.
In the ideal scenario, an international body of elected representatives, answerable and accountable to their respective electorates, would deal with those questions of a supranational nature while more regionally directed problems would be the concern of localized assemblies of diminishing authority—all the way down to that bastion of democratic involvement—the town meeting.
The function of any policy-making body is to formulate those programs and decisions which promote the well-being of the charges they represent. In a sane and rational world, the “new” United Nations would serve such a charter. Using the United States’ system of a Federal Republic as a pattern, a workable system of executive, legislative and judicial bodies can be implemented with the same basic levels of checks and balances instilled to insure fairness and impartiality.
The Executive branch, those charged with formulating and effecting policy, can be incorporated into the present day Security Council. Members, appointed by the freely elected representatives of the General Assembly, would have, as their major concern, the safety, survival and success of the planet as a whole. Their outlook would supersede the regional and focus on the aggregate world society. Two important functions the Council would serve would be to have the power of veto over bills presented by the legislature and to oversee and direct the peace-keeping forces in the inevitable event the use of their services were required.
Legislative duties would fall under the auspices of a revamped General Assembly and a newly commissioned World Senate. Rather than having the respective national entities appoint members to either of these two chambers, as is the case in the present General Assembly, Representatives and Senators would be chosen by freely held and secret ballot on a local precinct level—thus insuring the widest participation and broadest support among all the world’s people.
The three primary responsibilities of the General Assembly would be: to make laws, serve as a representative congress, and oversee the administration of public policy. Legislative duties would be shared with both the new Senate and the Security Council. All bills passed by the General Assembly would require the concurrence of the Senate and the signature of the members of the Security Council (or an override of the Council’s veto by both the Assembly and the Senate) before becoming law.
The new World Senate would operate in much the same capacity as the Senate in the United States Congress. Each member nation would be able to seat two Senators whose vote would carry equal weight, regardless of size or status of any given nation. An important task of this chamber would be to insure minority interests in the legislative process.
The third leg in the governmental triad is an unbiased and professional Judiciary. Appointed by the Security Council and confirmed by the Senate, their impartiality would guarantee everyone, throughout the world, protection of their rights and redress of abuse.
When we can get the original question approved and a mandate from the people of the world is given to form a new world government, then, under the supervision of this revamped Security Council, orderly elections can again be held to elect new Assembly and Senate members and we can all get on with the business of making this a more rational, just, compassionate and functionally viable society; a society where none will starve or go unsheltered, where none will suffer needlessly at the hands of others, where scarcity will not mean monopoly and technological development will be shared by all, a society of the healthy, happy and free.
Comments