The idea of a World Government has been in currency for more than half a century. Though very idealistic, many practical geo-political considerations and private economic interests have come in the way of its fulfilment. The subject continues to be debated in academic institutions in North America and Europe, with various proposals being made for its constitution and regulation. But so far, all of these have remained theoretical and academic rather than concrete implementations. The United Nations, which was founded on the aftermath of the Second World War, is the closest we have to an international organization with a broad-based agenda. But in terms of its powers and influence, it doesn’t serve the role and function of a World Government. (Cronkite, 2000, p.45) There are many advantages and disadvantages to forming a World Government. The rest of this essay will explore both sides of the debate.
The idea of a world government, in the more informal sense, can be traced back to several centuries ago. Often related to such notions as ‘a world without war’ or ‘of government without tyranny’, the idea has been mooted and discussed since class Hellenistic Age. In modern history, the Italian poet Dante articulated his vision of a Utopia based on world governance. The Dutch intellectual Hugo Grotius, who is deemed the founder of International Law, believed that a world government is necessary to enforce those laws. More recent philosophers and thinkers, including Aldous Huxley and H.G. Wells and Wendell Willkie, have expressed their desire to see the implementation of world government. Their books One World and Brave New World serve as graphic and detailed visualization of a future society under world governance. (Craig, 2008)
Discussions about forming a World Government have become more rigorous in recent years with leading International Relations theorist Alexander Wendt suggesting that a world government is unavoidable in present circumstances. Some of his colleagues have proposed a more formal world state, while others have backed a structurally and functionally more flexible system of global governance. But there is broad consensus as to the basic nature and role of the world government, namely, “an international authority (or authorities) that can tackle the global problems that nation-states currently cannot.” (Craig, 2008)
The United Nations comes closest to the idea of a World Government, although its military and economic powers are very limited compared to its diplomatic programs. When the UN was first created, it was designed to serve as a world government, but it has since descended into a series of scandals that has harmed its reputation and credibility. The ‘oil-for-food’ bribery scandal is the most recent. A little further back, the UN’s passivity and complicity in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda has lost it a lot of admirers. In the biggest human massacre of late twentieth century, close to one million people were killed in a matter of 3 months. That it happened under the watch of a purportedly peace-promoting organization speaks ill of the UN. Those defending the UN argue that
“the lesson of the Rwandan genocide and other large-scale tragedies and scandals is that the UN requires more power and money to provide “human security” on a global scale. In other words, the UN, a would-be world government, like most other governments in history, should capitalize on its failures as a means of growing larger and stronger.” (Grigg, 2005)
One of the main advantages of a World Government would be its potential to galvanize and organize disparate political and economic interests. When one looks at the history of twentieth century, there are numerous examples of how global organizations have found success in this regard. Prominent among them are “the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the World Trade Organization, the G-7 group of industrialized countries, the World Court, the International Labor Organization, the North American Free Trade Association, and so on, including, as it were, a variety of so-called Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).” (Samuels, 2001, p. 273) Hence, there is the advantage and security of historical precedence in venturing to form a World Government. The success of these global organizations in addressing common issues across continents and cultures makes the case for the formation of World Government. But the flip side of their success is the alleged partiality and favouritism offered toward First World countries in making common policy. For example
“The economic organizations have had several putative overall functions, including: solving international economic problems, organizing the world monetary and borrowing-lending system, establishing markets along desired lines rather than others, imposing certain conditions for domestic reform upon some countries, controlling the nations of first the Third World and more recently the Second World (the former Soviet bloc) in the interests of First-World countries, promoting the spread of the international corporate system, addressing particular problems with the interests of certain nations or groups of nations and/or certain businesses or groups of businesses and not others…” (Suter, 2003)
So, while existing international organizations have achieved certain difficult goals, their policies and operations have proven to be biased toward global elite interests than the interests of a vast majority of the human population. Considering that these organizations touch the lives of most of the human population, one has to approach carefully the process of consolidating their powers (as in building a World Government). Based on their performance record, existing international organizations take decisions for a select global economic minority, but their decisions affect a vast majority of people, “whose opportunity sets and lives are affected by the decisions of these organizations typically have no direct and/or indirect participation in the organizations.” (Samuels, 2001, p. 273)
The bigger the size of any institution, the higher the dangers of homogenized laws, rights and regulations, which could be detrimental to maintaining cultural, linguistic and political diversity. Such an arrangement also lacks the immediacy and flexibility of smaller institutions. For example,
“in the context of small homogenous groups, private, informal institutional arrangements enable people to realize the benefits of trade by supporting self-enforcing exchange and preventing potential conflict. These arrangements, such as the use of multilateral punishment among small groups via ostracism, boycott, or the emergence of conflict inhibiting social norms, operate primarily through mechanisms of reputation.” (Leeson, 2007)
In this context, such time-tested methods of trial and justice delivery will be altered under a World Government. It is as yet difficult to ascertain, if these changes are for the collective good or not. Those in favour of World Government argue that it can only be beneficial for, “by introducing formal enforcement then, it is usually reasoned, individuals will be secure in engaging in trade with agents outside their social networks. In this way, formal enforcement promotes cooperation and leads to increasing social wealth.” (Leeson, 2007)
Finally, the larger an institution, the bigger the costs of running it. The costs of running a world government can be broken down into three categories. Foremost is the costs related to bureaucracy and infrastructure. In the first category, we can also add the cost of organizing collective action, which includes “(a) the decision-making costs of arriving at the specific set of rules the state is to enforce (1) and (b) the external costs of collective decision-making, which result from the fact that the group may sometimes makes choices that are contrary to the interests of the individual. The organizational cost of government thus depends upon, in addition to other possible factors, the form of government or decision-making process that is followed in determining what set of rules the state is to enforce.” (Leeson, 2007) Since democracy is the best method for ensuring fair representation and participation, it adds to the cost of running the government as well. In other words, the democratic world government would require
“the consensus of multiple citizens rather than the will of one individual, the decision-making cost of democracy is higher than that of an authoritarian arrangement. Clearly, how much higher this cost is depends upon how difficult it is to create laws under democracy. Thus, a democratic government that requires potential rules to receive a supermajority of its citizens’ approval before becoming effective, for example, will have a higher decision-making cost than one that requires only majority approval.” (Leeson, 2007)
References
• Craig, C. (2008). The Resurgent Idea of World Government. Ethics & International Affairs,22(2), 133+. Print.
• Cronkite, W. (2000, Summer). The Case for Democratic World Government. Earth Island Journal, 15(2), 45. Print.
• Ewing, A. C. (1947). The Individual, the State and World Government. New York: The Macmillan Company. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com
• The Goal of World Government. (2005, February 7). The New American, 21(3), 22. Print.
• Grigg, W. N. (2005, July 11). World Government, Take Three: Those Who Wish to Empower a Global Institution with the Authority to Govern All People and Countries Have Suffered Repeated Setbacks, but They Are Forging Ahead. The New American,21(14), 17+. Print.
• Leeson, P. T. (2007). Does Globalization Require Global Government? Indian Journal of Economics and Business, 7+. Print.
• Samuels, W. J. (2001). The Political-Economic Logic of World Governance. Review of Social Economy, 59(3), 273. Print.
• Suter, K. (2003). Global Order and Global Disorder: Globalization and the Nation-State. Westport, CT: Praeger. Print.