Global Rule: Is It Feasible?

Shot of the earth from space doctored to show half of it engulfed in flames.

In last week’s instalment of “Let’s Talk!” entitled “Nationalism: Have We Outgrown It?”, I explored the concept of national pride and briefly pointed out some of the positive and adverse effects of nationalism. In my view, nationalism has been a disservice to the world in that it has thrown up roadblocks that have prevented substantive steps being taken that can halt the process of global warming and the catastrophic results of unchecked environmental damage. As well, human suffering in many parts of the world caused by wars of aggression, civil wars and other forms of human conflict needs to be addressed and alleviated. Unfortunately, political agendas at the UN and within national governments have militated against effective solutions. I also promised to put forward some suggestions for a course of action we might work toward. As I write these words, I realise that time is of the essence.

Canadian-born author Marshall McLuhan put forward the concept of the “Global Village” in his books The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man (1962) and Understanding Media (1964). The shrinking of the world by electronic technology and the instantaneous movement of information has revolutionised human communication. It is time for us to take this concept of Global Village to the next logical level – a world government.

The great lesson to take from the United Nations experiment is that its very essence doomed it to fail. The UN did not stop World War III from happening, but the fear of nuclear holocaust proved to be the ultimate deterrent. The UN might have been able to address global warming and the suffering of human dislocations if it had not been hampered by the political agendas of national governments which make up its membership. The UN has no real authority over national governments, so it was doomed from the beginning. Not unlike the very first federal government, the US put in place after their successful war of independence. They failed to create a chief executive to run the machinery of government, and it was soon replaced with the present structure.

We have several blueprints for a World government in place and working well in different parts of the world. Considering that nationalism is not going to disappear overnight and it does have some benefits, I believe that a confederation will work well on the global stage. This would not necessitate the removal of national governments as they exist today but would eliminate the United Nations and replace it with a World Government.

The current national administrations and legislatures would remain in control of their own local affairs: law and order, education, domestic economy, social agencies, etc. The world level would control environmental policies, global security, space exploration, a world judicial branch, and the military power to enforce its laws.

I see the world government as a democratic organisation whose elected officials represent every nation on Earth. I think an effective system of checks and balances between executive, legislative and judicial branches would serve everyone well. A lot of people today are expressing disillusionment with elected officials and democracy in general. I get that and feel the frustration too. What’s the alternative? Dictatorship, absolute monarchy, religious oligarchy… we’ve tried them all down through history. None of them was free of corruption, and none served the common good. The ancient Greek philosopher, Plato, despised democracy and in The Republic, he wrote about the ideal state governed by a philosopher king. This person would rule with wisdom and compassion. Certainly, government by a single ruler is efficient, but to my knowledge, humanity hasn’t been blessed with many of these. Democracy will always be flawed because people are flawed. Yet the voters can retain control if they take their citizenship responsibilities seriously.

The title question is the problem at hand. Is a world government feasible? My answer is a “yes” and a “no”. If we could put a world governing body in place, it would have the best chance of dealing effectively with our environmental, economic, humanitarian, and security problems threatening to destroy us all. On the other hand, I don’t envision many (if any) national governments lining up to give up their sovereignty to a global body. What would it take to make this happen? The lessons of history provide us with the most likely scenario: fear of a common enemy – most likely, from another world. It is absurd to think that we are the only intelligent life in the universe, and it’s only a matter of time before we are visited.

Judging by the political decisions made by electorates last year in the United Kingdom and the United States, the shady side of nationalism is alive and well. Many are turning to economic protectionism and stricter immigration policies to build walls that separate people. All of it is fueled by fear, and a lot of that is manufactured by political leaders to further their own agendas. In my view, the planet’s environment doesn’t have time for this nonsense, nor do we have the luxury of unlimited time to wait for an alien invasion to unite us. We are better educated and more aware of events worldwide today than at any other time in history. I don’t presume to have all the answers, but we need to work toward making humanity better!

In the meantime… let’s talk!

Advertisements

Author: John Fioravanti

I'm a retired History teacher (35 years), husband, father of three, grandfather of three. My wife, Anne, and I became business partners in December, 2013, and launched our own publishing company, Fiora Books (http://fiorabooks.com), to publish my books. We have been married since 1973 and hope our joint business venture will be as successful as our marriage.

25 thoughts on “Global Rule: Is It Feasible?”

  1. Hi John. Brilliant, insightful post. I agree with you about the negative aspects of nationalism. South Africa was detrimentally affected by it under ‘apartheid’ and is continuing to be pulled to pieces by the advent of Black Nationalism. But whatever our race or political beliefs, nationalism seems an inherent characteristic of being human to some degree or other. A world government is a great idea but I don’t think it will ever happen. Nations can’t seem to rid themselves of the desire to be superior or better than others.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I agree, Kim, nationalism is so strong that there won’t be a stampede of nations ready to sign up to establish a world government. Unfortunately, it will likely take some kind of disaster to make this happen – and then it might be too late. Your last statement about nations wishing to prove their superiority over others is totally apparent in the international sports competitions – like the Olympics. Who cheers a great game if “our” team loses? Thanks for sharing your thoughts here, Kim!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. John. Good thoughts. But here is the truth about the situation that we are in.

    Religion IS harmful and dangerous in many ways and on many levels. It was created by ancient royalty as a form of psychological warfare.

    And those royals used it to keep and maintain their rule over the masses. Today, their descendants still ruler our world as “The Oligarchy” or the 1%, if you prefer.

    This is what everyone needs to know and understand. It is why the world is the way that it is.

    Like

    1. Hello, Roman, thanks for stopping by to share your perspective on this important topic. To begin, I do not subscribe to the idea that any interpretation of history should be categorically deemed “the truth”. It is a point of view no more, no less. Even if everyone who ever lived subscribed to a particular view, it changes nothing. If you wish to say that this is your truth, I have no problem with that. I agree that world governments have always been controlled by the few wealthy and powerful members. The past is not my concern – it is the future that we need to address.

      Like

  3. This post is full of meaning and you sound like you have good intentions to bring about the betterment of the world. Some of the books you mentioned ring a bell to me as I minored in political science at McGill University. But that was years ago so I can’t remember everything I read 🙂 I’ve always been curious about history of the world. I may start picking your brain soon 🙂

    Like

    1. I’m pleased you enjoyed it, Shamim. Thank you for your kind words. I understand enough about the issues facing the world today, and the way in which national governments work to be very concerned about the future. My goal here is to provide people with some food for thought and perhaps get a dialogue started. Feel free to visit and pick my brain any time you like!

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Interest discussion, John. Too bad we can’t install you as President in America to help us recover from the separatism, divisiveness and rabble-rousing of Agent Orange.

    “In my view, nationalism has been a disservice to the world in that it has thrown up roadblocks that have prevented substantive steps being taken…” [my words: towards a world that works for everyone.]

    I’m totally with you on that one, John – we need to redefine what is meant by “nationalism” i.e., more Global Village and A LOT LESS “[Put your own COUNTRY name here] FIRST” – unless you want to be the first to step up toward global solutions to end hunger and homelessness & increase world health, or making sure that NO country has the ability to destroy the planet.

    ” . . .voters can retain control if they take their citizenship responsibilities seriously.” WHAT a concept! Democracy might well work IF we could get everyone of chronological voting age to *stop* behaving like truculent teen-agers and step into actions befitting educated adults — *especially* our politicians.

    Here in America we can’t even get millions of them to *vote,* for G-d’s sake – much less do what’s necessary to cast an *informed* vote (that was FACT CHECKED!!!) Many women voted anti-family in America’s most recent election, for example, because they believed the Party BS that they were voting pro (because, after all, the “good guys” are anti-choice – no matter what!). I *know* that none of them bothered to check out what was being proposed as alternatives to the swamp we were supposedly draining, because no platform was put forward to BE checked out.

    How can *anyone* with children leave their futures at stake like that? We need to put pro-humanity ethics back in and take religious beliefs OUT of politics and back into private lives.

    “All of it is fueled by fear, and a lot of that is manufactured by political leaders to further their own agendas.” YES!! And there doesn’t seem to be enough duct tape on the planet to close their soundbite spewing, crowd-mentality fomenting mouths.

    And you are SO right that we are running out of time to “wait and see.”

    xx,
    mgh
    (Madelyn Griffith-Haynie – ADDandSoMuchMORE dot com)
    ADD Coach Training Field founder; ADD Coaching co-founder
    “It takes a village to transform a world!”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I appreciate your comments on this issue, Madelyn. You know, the maladies I spoke about here and in my previous post on Nationalism, find very little traction among most people because of the very thing that you have been posting about… Empathy – or lack of it. I’m afraid I’d be a poor President or Prime Minister – I have zero tolerance for B.S. and I’d be dropping F-Bombs all over the place! The Media might not take kindly to that!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Maybe, maybe not, John. It would all depend on their viewer/reader-ship stats, I’m sure — “Whatever sells” seems to be the meme of the day anymore (here in America, anyway). 😦

        My Dad used to say that anytime he considered running for office he would worry most about the background check [lol] . BUT since nobody seems to do those anymore – or care much about them unless some mad tweeter can rouse the rabble with a few statements repeated as “facts” — Attila the Hun would no doubt be gold there (accent on “mad” – any way you want to define it).

        I agree with the lack of empathy underneath, however:
        * lack of empathy for the planet and what the next generation will inherit from ours,
        * lack of empathy for the poor, sick, and elderly in our midst,
        * lack of empathy for anyone who looks different, acts different, speaks differently —
        * and a total lack of empathy for children unless they are still within somebody else’s body (here in the US – I have NO idea about outside our borders, but enforced breeding seems to be okay with the “right to life”ers here – as long as it is NOT the life of the woman, of course).
        xx,
        mgh

        Liked by 1 person

  5. I believe that the stumbling block to a world federation is our generation. We have seen attempts at partial global goverment such as the EU and that has not worked out so well. Creating additional layers of goverment that require funding and who interfere with our laws, lifestyle, taxation is just not sustainable. What you are proposing would only work if it was restricted to specific areas that you mention. For example space travel and global warming… and that means that countries that are only just flexing their muscles in that area such as India would be very reluctant to lose that vestige of being a global player. It also have to be funded which will mean that those countries that are already making efforts will be subsidising those that really could not give a damn.

    I do think that the UN at times has been toothless but I there have also been times us as in Bosnia and in parts of Africa where there intervention has prevents widespread genocide. I do think changes need to be made to their operating mandate and perhaps an increase in areas of influence.

    As I said in the beginning it is our generation who will be most resistant but in 50 years time it may be very different. Great topic for debate John.. get us together in one room and I think we might be there for most of that 50 years.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Sally. I realise the obstacles are easily overcome. The only time the UN has been able to act decisively was when no country with a veto in the security council used it. I believe global rule is inevitable, but I’m concerned that it may not happen in time to save this planet. Do we have another 50 years? I wish I knew! Thanks so much, Sally!

      Liked by 2 people

  6. The predecessor of the UN, The League of Nations, was also doomed to failure for being too much of a ‘club’ for powerbrokers whose faces ‘fit’ the perceived levels of fitness. The name now evokes a kind of international band of super-heroes dedicated to global peace-keeping. In comparison, the UN is at least ‘honest’ in being primarily a world-wide police force with demonstrably poor executive abilities.
    Maybe that’s the problem – peace being seen as an ideal to be defended or attacked depending on your world perspective. It panders to the ‘not us’ mentality and our propensity for violence and confrontation, so sets itself up for failure every time.
    A global threat from beyond the stars, given the vastness of the galaxy, let alone the universe, is perhaps a distant possibility, but what is the attraction of our world for extraterrestrials with the necessary technology and expertise to want to visit us? Humanity would either be below their notice (and treated as, at best, a pest species) or, more likely, regarded as too aggressive and barbarous to warrant much association, even if incapacitation/extermination was avoided.
    A world government in that latter scenario would at least show willing in wanting unity and a desire to foster and promote peace and prosperity. Giving the current western political climate there’s precious little evidence to give much hope of this. There is however, a trace of it emerging from the wake of current terrorist attacks. I’m listening as I write this to a memorial service for the dead and survivors of the recent Westminster attack. Included in the religious representatives are British Muslims, and other non-Christian philosophies, there to support and mourn those who suffered in the attack and to condemn the crime. There is also political solidarity at the service and tangible demonstration in EU countries such as France and Germany. who’ve also suffered from these suicide attacks.
    We do all crave world peace I believe. We just need to find a way to achieve that without resort to aggression and wanton violence on a local and global level. We definitely need to talk and talk until a way is found. An assembly of nations, on an equal footing might be the answer – we just need to commit to the concept of fighting people who are so similar in most respects.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks for chipping in with your thoughts today, Jan. I believe that some type of global government is the best way to address humanity’s most serious problems, but I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen. The UN depends on the political will and generosity of its member states – and that’s why it has limited effect. The vetoes built into the Security Council are absurd, although I understand why they were put in place in 1945. I agree that we need to get this conversation going.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. I dont believe there is anything inevitable about an invasion from another world. Such a possibility is, in my view pure hypothesis. It might well be that we are alone in the universe (so far as intelligent life is concerned) although that does not, necessarily preclude the possibility of there existing other universes in which intelligent species may exist.
    I agree that environmental and other issues require attention. We do, however need to be extremely wary of the danger of totalitarianism. Hitler, Stalin and Mao did tremendous damage within their own nations and in the case of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany within those countries unfortunate enough to come under their influence. The prospect of a world government imposing totalitarianism is truly horrifying and would be many times worse than anything yet seen in human history.
    We also need to guard against the danger of uniformity and the stiffling of diversity which makes mankind so vibrant and interesting.
    Lord Acton once remarked that “all power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Wise men heed his words.
    Kind regards, Kevin

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks, Kevin, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts about this issue. I couldn’t agree more about entrusting global governing power to a totalitarian regime – truly a recipe for disaster. However, I do think that a federation would ensure the preservation of cultural diversity. Perhaps alien contact is not imminent but I think it is highly likely. My deepest concern is the health of the planet. The status quo is not sustainable.

      Liked by 2 people

I love comments & questions! Please share your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s