World Government? Yay or Nay?
- Kuek Chue Eung (25-O1)
- 11 minutes ago
- 9 min read
Written by: Chue Eung (25-O1)
Designed by: Vivienne (26-E6)
Towering silver spirals that reach for the heavens as far as the eye can see, each spiral accommodating thousands of people whilst evergreen trees and vegetation dot the pavements and skylines imbuing the scene in front of you with a solarpunk-esque aesthetic. A utopian metropolis rooted in nature that spans not just a city, not just a nation and not just a region. But a global metropolis, built on the idea of a shared prosperity for all mankind and spearheaded by a world government. Its people live meaningful and fulfilling lives, dedicate themselves to their passions and crafts without fear of wars or instability in the government.
But of course, a utopia is often paradoxical in nature, where in mankind's pursuit for the ‘perfect’ society it has more often than not brought unto us more suffering and chaos. From a global government controlled by a cruel dictator and leaving no room for alternatives to the erosion of individual state or regional cultures, a world government may well turn into a hell-like authoritarian regime where individual freedom and rights are completely suppressed. Yet the establishment of a world government would still inevitably usher in great change be it positive or otherwise. It could, in essence, also effectively enforce global peace through the disarmament of national or regional armed forces, diverting funds to generate greater prosperity for all; ensure equality for all by crusading against social disparities; and enact and carry through climate mitigation and adaptation strategies on a global scale. A world government could, in theory, create a true utopian paradise. For all.
What is a world government?
Let us first define world government. There are two distinct types of a world government as suggested by Immanuel Kant (a German philosopher). Firstly, Völkerstaat, that constituted a true world state where power is centralised in a single global political and policy-making body. Secondly, Völkerbund, that constituted a federation of independent and sovereign states that retain part of their sovereignty whilst giving up other aspects such as their militaries in exchange for peace and protection. The former represents a single unified political authority with jurisdiction over all humanity, culture and law ensuring that no other proponents threaten its rule. This is replicated exactly in the science fiction novel ‘1984’, where a totalitarian global government establishes complete control over all its citizens, stripping them of their rights, humanity (ironic isn’t it!) and autonomy, making it most definitely not an ideal world to live in. The latter however has a slightly brighter future in science fiction, with the United Federation of Planets of Star Trek (let us take each planet as a sovereign state in this context) having representatives from each ‘state’ chosen to represent them in a global parliament, reminiscent of how Ministers of Parliament (MP) represent their constituents in the Parliament of Singapore regarding issues their people face. This provides checks and balances in the political system, where not a single tyrannical leader can steer humanity down a spiral of insolence or depravity but where the diverse needs and voices of all of humanity are heard and acted upon. Closer to real life would be the European Union (EU), where as a supranational entity with its own parliament, legislature and power of veto over constituent states; it acts more as a federation of European states that plays a major role in the decision making of individual states. This represents the giving up of part of a state’s sovereignty in exchange for trade advantages (being a single entity in trade negotiations), parts of their judicial processes (overriding national laws in exchange for EU laws) and monetary policy (giving up the national currency of each state for the Euro). In this exploratory essay, we will classify a world government as a contractual federation of independent states, Völkerbund, that spreads political authority out at multiple levels.
Pros of a world government
What are some advantages that Völkerbund may have over the usual state you may ask? Well let us start with the effective and continuous enforcement of world peace. The dismantling of national armies and regional military alliances in exchange for an armed force that defends all states would theoretically ensure that each state does not have the hard military power to pressure or threaten other states, ensuring ‘equal’ sovereignty for all states in this federation. This also means the centralisation of all military hardware and technology to this federal government’s military, providing it with the necessary manpower and projection to truly enforce international regulations. Such regulations such as the Geneva Convention or Universal Declaration of Human Rights on all states, cannot, with the lack of sufficient technical and tactical knowhow our current United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) UN Peacekeepers possess, be enforced in its totality. In the face of the pooling of all military resources, manpower and military doctrines, it would greatly increase the efficacy and reach of these peacekeepers beyond just enforcing mandates in CLLDs but in CHLDs as well. This however also aptly leaves open the problem where the act of overwhelming physical coercion over member states degrades the legitimacy of a world government, becoming no different from the biggest bully in the park claiming to ‘protect’ you from others when they would turn on you the moment you protest otherwise.
Thus in addition to hard power projection, let us focus on the soft power aspect of this government, where it now has the capability to work towards the UN framework of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 10, Reduced Inequalities. Currently, countries with high levels of development (CHLD) have a larger advantage in working towards this goal in comparison to countries with low levels of development (CLLD) due to the implementation of welfare or social schemes (eg. Enhanced CPF Housing Grant in SG to Universal Healthcare in the UK) that CLLDs cannot afford to. This results in CHLDs being more able to work towards reducing inequality due to a larger and more prosperous economy that lends their governments greater leeway for expenditure and spending on welfare programmes and other social spending measures. Having a federal world government overseeing the overall social welfare of its people however eliminates most disparities in a state’s social spending by implementing centralised welfare schemes and providing more direct transfers of funds to the lowest-income citizens. Not only would it potentially raise the social economic status of its least well-off citizens and closing the income gap, it could also through the making of all of humanity into citizens of this federal world government. This erodes away the notions of citizenship supremacy or stereotypes of ‘inferior’ citizenships compared to others, currently established and perpetuated by uneven passport power across sovereign nations for instance, ensuring each citizen is truly equal.
Finally, through the centralisation of climate regulations, policies and frameworks under this federal world government would humanity be able to make a greater push for greenifying the world. Current frameworks such as United Nations Framework on Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and climate agreements conducted at Conference of Parties (COP) all rely on the individual state’s willingness and ability to adhere and attend to climate measures. From the pulling out of the legally binding 2015 Paris Agreement twice by the United States to the persistent inability of most states to hit their climate targets, these are just issues at the tip of the iceberg for such international agreements that are not governed by hard enforcement. By integrating all of these climate frameworks into a single cohesive agency under the government, it would carry out active climate advocacy and spearhead climate mitigation and adaptation projects on a global scale. Carbon capture, utilisation and storage technology once too costly to fund on a large scale now have the backing of the global economy, removing many economical obstacles and allowing for the rapid growth of these technologies . Similarly, legal protection over protected national parks and forests can now be supplied with sufficient manpower to enforce these legal obligations, reducing the instances of illegal felling of our silent protectors. Similar to the role of the Ministry of the Future in the novel Ministry of the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson, it can influence climate policies through bureaucratic enforcement, ensuring sustainable development where the needs of both current and future generations are prioritised and resources protected.
Cons of a world government
Of course, detractors would argue that the most obvious flaw of a world government would be that it serves as the perfect catalyst for the insidious rise of a totalitarian government or tyrannical ruler with no alternative political bodies with sufficient power to oppose. From an ideological viewpoint, if a majority of state representatives in this federal world government were to be ‘infected’ with a single ideology, it would be all too easy for this once democratic parliamentary system to fall victim to the suppression of political diversity and representation. This transition from a democratic federal system into a totalitarian one-party system that more often than not marginalises the minority whilst elevating the majority, creates social polarisation and injustice. With the jurisdiction of the armed forces under the beck and call of the world government, individual states would have no effective means of protest against the world government, relying solely on the political persuasion of its representatives leading to an outcome where compliance is imperative due to physical coercion. The result would be, well, a repeat of the indoctrination of the masses by the Nazi Reich mixed with George Orwell’s 1984, a situation that I know none of us would ever wish on our worst enemy.
In addition to the aforementioned, the erosion of individuality and culture may well be a possibility arising from the centralisation of all of humanity under a single banner. The fostering of a global culture driven by the world government may lead to the standardisation of most individual values and beliefs, resulting in global homogenization. This overriding of national identities, cultures or values that is already prevalent in today’s rapidly globalising world would no doubt be accelerated, resulting in further marginalisation of minority groups as this new ‘global culture’ is born in the face of this new world government’s establishment. Individuals may also realise a lack of relevancy in local political participation with the incorporation of so many levels of bureaucracy. In the face of an overwhelmingly large voter base and byzantine political landscape, they may think that their votes will be insignificant or even drowned out by masses with the opposing views, cultivating a sense of political apathy in the citizens. If and when this takes root it will inevitably cause lowered willingness of voters to vote and a growth in indifference towards political agendas leading to less than democratic elections that do not reflect the will of all citizens whenever they occur.
World government VS World governance
Hence to counter these issues raised, let us shift our focus away from a federal world government to world governance instead. This means that each state retains almost full sovereignty except for the dismantling of individual state militaries to ensure coercive military power projection cannot be used by any state. The development of a global inter-governmental organisation with decentralised institutions, rules and processes with an inter-governmental parliament relies on the power of persuasion to influence political decision-making in each individual state. This is not necessarily different from our current United Nations (UN) model, just more in depth and eliminating any physical coercive force that a state may have. This essentially deprives each state of the means to eradicate the other, instead relying on a trust-based approach where the continual enforcement of disarmament of both conventional and nuclear armaments by this inter-governmental organisation is effective. This allows each state to retain national sovereignty, statehood and identity, providing alternative and decentralised forms of governance that prevents absolute or totalitarian control over all states, which would have been easier to achieve in a federal world government. A real-life example of a regional, not global organisation would be the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), where regional cooperation through consensus, non-interference and diplomatic dialogue helped transform these member states from one of the poorest states into one of the most sought after states to invest and grow assets in. This focus on economic development through ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) allows for 0% tariffs on all goods and services amongst the member states, whilst ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) strengthens cultural ties and community belonging, with both communities striving towards an improvement in overall standard of living of its citizens. World governance then in a sense acts as impartial bridges amongst states, providing a chance for all states regardless of population size, economic weightage or landmass to punch above their weight class on the international stage and are not disadvantaged during inter-state negotiations.
‘For All Humanity’ ~ The motto of the recent Artemis II mission. In an increasingly globalised world today where regional blocs like the coalition of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) boast greater negotiating power and leverage over other states, smaller states grow increasingly vulnerable to being ‘bullied’ by these more economically or militarily powerful states. This runs counter to the motto of working for the betterment of all humanity by only consolidating wealth and power into a single group of people. Hence it is no wonder that notions of a world government or enhanced world governance have been propped up as potential counter-weights to these giants, manifesting as a hopeful direction for our futures. Ultimately, be it a federal world government or frameworks regulating world governance they remain optimistic and idealistic potential political scenarios moving forward and I, for one, would love to see the development of either one of them.
Literature:
Definition of World State VS Contractual Federation of Independent and Sovereign States + Globalisation VS Globalism: https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/diplomacy-and-international-relations/globalization-and-global-governance
World Government VS Global Governance: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/world-government
Difference between ASEAN and EU:
Advantages of a global federal government:
Pursuit of utopia:
Ministry of the future:
Erosion of culture and identity:
Comments