Democratic World Government – An Outline Structure Essay Example

and accommodate up to 1000 elected representatives known as Members of the World Parliament (MWPs). MWPs would be elected from national or supra-national constituencies with representation allocated based on population size (although there may be a minimum requirement of at least one representative per nation initially). Currently, there are around 200 nation states globally with populations ranging from 50,000 (St Lucia) to 5,000,000,000 (China).

The large difference in representation, which is equivalent to a ratio of 100,000, cannot continue to be accepted. At some point, it will be necessary to establish collective MWPs that are utilized by smaller countries with similar cultures. These MWPs should undergo new elections every 5 years. The suggested global government would not possess a military and would only need limited administrative assistance, resulting in reduced expenses.

Instead of raising taxes, the world government would be funded through contributions from nation-states, similar to the current funding of the United Nations. The nation-states would still exist in the new system and would act as a balancing power to the world government without losing significant sovereignty. Membership in the world government system would be voluntary for all nations, just like membership in the United Nations today (some democratic nations, such as Switzerland, choose not to join the UN). Joining would require signing a world treaty, which would need to be ratified by the country's population through a referendum.

Only when a country joins the 'club', its people gain the right to vote for one or more MWPs in the world government. In return, the world government can only take actions that involve countries within its membership. Leaving the system can only be achieved by

a majority vote in another referendum. The purpose of the world government is to pass laws through majority voting in its chamber, but these laws would be broad in nature. By being broad, the laws would allow individual countries to maintain or establish their own culturally-based laws and social practices, as long as they do not conflict with the general world law. Although the laws are broad, they hold significant weight. A World Court would also be established to serve as the highest level of appeal for individuals after exhausting their domestic justice systems, if they believe they are innocent under the general world law (much like how we in Europe can appeal to the European court as a final resort).

But what would the powers of the world government be? The new system must not permit the world government to enforce its desires in an absolute way upon the world population because that would immediately raise the twin dangers of global dictatorship and imposed cultural uniformity.

World Government's Only Power - Enforced Referenda

Instead, nations would be allowed to transgress world-laws - to pass local laws, or otherwise operate, in contradiction to them - but only where the population of that country was in agreement with its government in that course of action. The principal element of the new world constitutional system would be the provision of just such a check that any country which went against a world-law was expressing the will of its people. So the world government's one and only direct power would be that of requiring any nation within its membership to undergo a binding referendum on any issue, and ultimately

if necessary a general election, which would be conducted according to a set of internationally agreed standards.

These standards, incorporated in the world treaty, would establish that the world government should have an equal chance to present their arguments to the host government's people. For instance, suppose a general human rights law had been passed by the World Parliament. Later on, a majority of MWPs might believe that a certain member country was violating this law, either through its current activities or through a new locally enacted law. In such cases, the world government could demand a binding referendum in the offending country. This would allow the people of that country to democratically decide whether they want their national government to adhere to the world-law on this matter. If the referendum result favored the local government, they could operate as they chose and no further action would be taken.

Alternatively, if the world government's perspective prevailed, its overarching legislation would supersede national laws. Failure to promptly act on this reality could result in the intervention of a general election by the world government. Consequently, the population of the country would ultimately determine the resolution. The implications of such a system are quite evident.

The imposed referendum would prevent dictatorial governments from advancing on issues that have widespread agreement among human individuals, such as the immorality of torture. However, if a global law was based on cultural biases, the local population would likely support their own government's decision to disregard the global law and vote in favor of the local decision. This would effectively remove their nation from the world system on this particular issue and deny them access

to the World Court for that global law. The world government would be limited in passing laws with specific details since they would likely be rejected by many populations who support their domestic governments through internal referenda. The concern over a high number of refusals would likely deter the world government from being overly precise on numerous issues.

To strengthen this idea, a constitutional mechanism would be included in the global treaty. This mechanism would subject the Member World Governments (MWPs) to a worldwide election in case a significant percentage of countries rejected a world law in national referenda. However, there is a concern about how a world government without military power would enforce referenda and elections and make them binding. What if a country's government, moving towards dictatorship, decided to disregard the world government's requests for a referendum?

The answer is straightforward and upholds the principle that the world government's sole direct power should be to enforce referenda. In the face of such a threat, the world government would be permitted by the constitution to initiate synchronized referenda in 5 randomly-selected nations. These referenda would serve as a representative sample of world opinion at a statistically significant level. The world government would present its suggestions for coordinated sanctions against the offending nation to these populations. The outcome of the vote would determine the collective actions that the world could take.

Initially, member countries might consider implementing an economic blockade as a response to the crisis. However, if the situation worsens, there is a possibility that a joint invasion of the offending country could be pursued. The decision regarding these actions would be made by the polled

populations, functioning as a global jury, representing the entire world. Their vote would determine whether the principles of world government should be upheld through imposing sanctions or whether the world would regress into its disorderly and hazardous past. In practical terms, the mere threat of comprehensive worldwide economic sanctions, accessible through this approach, would often promptly compel a defiant member country to comply. Alternatively, if necessary, such sanctions could be swiftly implemented following the sampling referenda.

If the current government proved ineffective and a global vote supported military intervention, a collective military force composed of units from various member countries would carry out the invasion. This force would be similar to the UN Peacekeeping forces. The planning alone might convince countries to cease resistance. However, if the global votes did not support the world government in such a crisis, an immediate election should be held. Alternatively, the entire world government system could be threatened, leading to its gradual dismantlement. The crucial aspect here is that ordinary people, rather than biased governments influenced by multiple "interests," would decide on economic and military actions. Each individual would hold responsibility for the future of the world.

The fact that it would reside with the people of the world would be a safeguard against a dictator assuming global power through the world government. The dictates of such a despotic world government would cause it to lose referenda, and it would not possess military power. The system of global governance, composed of the world government and nation states, would embody a balanced set of powers and checks. Nation states would retain much power, subject to the will of the world government. As

long as they acted in accordance with their citizens' wishes, they could implement any policies they pleased. They could also defy the world government to a small extent without citizen backing, but any larger revolt would be prevented by the need to carry a majority of the population.

If the world government were to pursue their defiance, they would be confronted with the ultimate threat of economic and military isolation. However, this scenario is contingent upon the world government's adherence to passing fair and impartial laws. The world government itself would encounter a formidable counterforce to its authority. In the event that it deviated from a widely accepted moral foundation, the numerous and independently-minded nation states would ensure swift consequences for violations of unpopular global laws. Local populations would likely partake in referenda, voting against the world government's stance, thus compelling its members to eventually face re-election.

The world government would only be able to function by adhering to a widely accepted moral code. After establishing a set of basic global laws, the world government would primarily focus on evaluating the practices of nations. While there may be occasional need for new laws or amendments, the mature world government would mostly monitor national compliance with global laws and decide appropriate actions for violations. The existence of the world government could potentially reduce military tensions by making unsanctioned wars between countries completely illegal. The government could enforce economic sanctions or deploy a collaborative army to restore peace in such situations. Essentially, this would be an active version of the passive UN Peacekeeping Forces currently in place.

A global governing body could implement regulations on military forces and weapons held

by countries, gradually decreasing these limits to achieve a stable world with minimal military presence. However, relying solely on defensive systems like the 'Star Wars' program would not suffice. To ensure effectiveness, nuclear weapons and other highly destructive technology would need to be collected and controlled collectively. This would prevent a single country from resisting the coordinated power of the world government, unless an equally powerful deterrent is swiftly deployed. As part of the world government treaty, countries possessing such weapons would be required to make a portion of their arsenal available for use in necessary situations. These weapons could potentially be stored in a neutral location like one of the polar ice caps, under the control of respective owning countries. In case a nuclear power resists the world government's authority, there could be coordination among countries possessing nuclear weapons through a global-sampling referendum to retaliate against any nuclear attack.

As long as the combined total of weapons owned by all countries surpasses those possessed by any single nation, it is not necessary for individual countries to have a large number of weapons. There is optimism that the world government can gradually decrease global weapon quantities to a minimum. This same world government can also tackle pressing international ecological issues like the overproduction of ozone-depleting chemicals and deforestation in rainforests. By implementing laws that are applicable to multiple nations and enforced through the global-sampling system, severe restrictions on rainforest destruction can be imposed and wealthier economies that promote it can face penalties.

The population of a country can neutralize a law, although the response from ordinary people is usually more positively altruistic compared to their governments. Governments

tend to react to public pressure rather than lead it. If a law breaks down due to high levels of veto, the world government may resort to a global-sampling referendum with the threat of economic sanctions. In this case, randomly-chosen populations would serve as the conscience of the world, determining the importance of the problem. Furthermore, an emergency procedure could be established for nations negatively impacted by their neighbors' policies, such as the Scandinavian nations suffering from acid rain generated by the United Kingdom. These nations could request the World Parliament to enforce a binding referendum involving all affected populations.

There could be a procedure where a petition signed by 0.1% of a country's population leads to a binding referendum on any issue via the World Parliament. However, it assumes that democracy is acceptable and desirable in all cultures. But there are two mitigating points. Firstly, membership in the world system is voluntary and depends on governments responding to public pressure and ratification through popular referendum. If democracy is not acceptable in a culture, there would be no internal pressure or membership would fail at the initial referendum stage, and the country would remain outside the system voluntarily.

In practice, it is highly unlikely that any cultures, except perhaps the most primitive ones, would reject the basic superiority of democracy over dictatorship if people were polled through a fair referendum. Additionally, the international standards for democratic practice do not have to be uniform and should not blindly follow the Western European or American model. Each individual nation can adopt any method approved by the standards, which would likely include a range of possibilities from the 'one person

one vote' method to various types of proportional representation. These methods would be applicable for electing their Members of Parliament (MWPs) as well as conducting internal referenda. It is perfectly acceptable to incorporate fair practices from other cultural backgrounds as long as they meet certain fundamental criteria for establishing the will of the people. One possible criterion could be ensuring freedom of expression without fear of reprisal and avoiding any inequitable influence on the outcome from minority groups [%f: For instance, certain procedures used in small tribal communities to reach a consensus, although they do not involve secret voting, may still be fair in this manner].

Indeed, it could be stated in the world constitution that any form of procedure would be acceptable as long as it was approved once by a member nation's population in a referendum carried out using an already approved practice. The interpretation of the standards and the arbitration on practices would best lie with the World Court.

Getting from here to there - Step 1

However, isn't this all just a pipe-dream? Could we achieve this seemingly ideal situation without force? Interestingly, it may not be too difficult. This system threatens the sovereignty of individual countries only minimally, making it challenging for them to resist popular pressure to join in. The full system could be achieved in three graduated steps over several decades. The process would start with the UN establishing an international organisation of Electoral Observers, similar to the current Electoral Reform Society but on a larger scale and with a more formal basis.

The goal is to create a global set of standards and procedures for democratic referenda and

governmental elections. These standards would cover various representation systems such as direct, proportional, and others. Important issues would be addressed, including maintaining anonymous votes, ensuring fair vote counting, and protecting voters from victimization. The UN Electoral Observers would be responsible for monitoring the implementation of these standards worldwide. This scenario is not unrealistic, as evidenced by the consideration given by Commonwealth countries in 1991 to establish such an organization. Many democratic countries would be open to having their practices monitored and reported by UN Electoral Observers. Eventually, they would become a familiar and accepted practice in numerous countries, while some countries may still oppose their presence.

Getting from here to there - Step 2

After a certain period, once the UN Electoral Observers were successfully established, the UN would create a voluntary treaty to advance the system to a second level. The treaty would oblige participating countries to utilize the Electoral Observers for all subsequent elections and referenda, and repeat any that the Observers deemed as failing to meet their basic democratic practice criteria. The already-established, primarily developed democracies would likely agree to this treaty and operate under its regulations if there was significant public support for reinforcing the fundamental quality of democracy. Consequently, other governments around the world would be under significant moral and public pressure to follow suit.

Gradually, other countries with any claim to democracy would be compelled, both internally and externally, to join the fold. Britain, after many centuries of cultivating democratic practices, has established a genuinely democratic framework. Implementing an international network of independent observers with enforceable standards could greatly reassure populations, particularly those in underdeveloped regions like Africa, South America, and Asia,

about the feasibility of true democracy in their respective nations.

Progressing from the present to the desired future - Step 3

Although it may take decades for numbers to significantly increase, a time will eventually come when a substantial percentage of the global population, residing in a much wider array of cultures beyond Europe and America alone, will experience governance systems operating under democratic safeguards. At that pivotal moment, a treaty for global governance would be formulated, encompassing the comprehensive framework of world government outlined earlier. Nations would once again voluntarily sign this treaty.

As an additional 'smoothing in' mechanism, for approximately the first 50 years of its existence, the World Parliament may utilize the existing UN as its 'upper-house', allowing for the review of laws and potential amendments. Additionally, it would be prudent to eventually incorporate global financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank into the world government. By doing so, these influential global powers would operate under direct democratic control, facilitating a more equitable distribution of the world's financial resources to underdeveloped regions. This would likely generate considerable popular pressure on national governments to support this final phase of development and join the world government system, resulting in a deeper and more comprehensive democracy worldwide. The initial core of member-countries might consist primarily of mature western democracies, but due to this pressure, the membership is predicted to expand promptly.

Conclusion

In recent years, we have observed the populations of various countries (such as the Philippines, China, the USSR, Eastern Europe, etc.) striving for local democracy.

In certain cases, such as Poland, the transition to a full world government system has been relatively smooth.

However, in other cases like the Philippines, the resulting government has always been precariously balanced and threatened by despotic forces from all sides. In countries like China, the population has not been successful in achieving a transition to a full world government. One of the main advantages of a full world government system is that populations would only need to pressure their governments to sign a voluntary world government treaty, using courageous popular actions we have witnessed frequently. This would ensure the future democratic well-being of their respective countries, and all other necessary actions would naturally follow suit. If their government were to deviate from the democratic path or be overthrown and replaced by a totalitarian regime, it would likely violate world government laws and face various sanctions imposed by the world government, which could rally other populations to take action.

Is a suitable plan for the early years of the 21st century conceivable? Maybe. If it were successful, such a global governance system would likely bring about a significant advancement in the amount of freedom experienced by impoverished individuals worldwide, and to some degree, by those of us in wealthier countries.