“I'd put my money on solar energy. I hope we don't have to wait 'til oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”

Thomas Edison, in conversation with Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone, March 1931

1. Possible or impossible?

World Governance

"True World Peace can only come,
when we erase borders and, sharing everything,
live for the sake of others."

It is not a big jump from a nation like the United States or Europe to a world government. The only difference is scale. Throughout history, From Alexander to Napoleon great personalities have gone to great pain to realize an ideal of unified government. It has never worked, not so much for lack of effort, or even opposition; but for a unifying system of communication and “cultural” adhesive.

In this day and age we not only have instant communication on every level from the individual through to trans-governmental bodies; but we also have a unifying system of “culture”: Hollywood: movies, TV, video, "the pop culture", etc. and the Dollar (substitute EU if you like) a universal currency/financial system.

It, then, is only a matter of time before the present governmental bodies become superfluous.


___________________________________
1 “Sapor” See Merriam-Webster definition for “culture”
(not to be confused with the Bismarckian “Kultur”)



___________________

2. Why? How would it be implemented? What prevents it being implemented?

"We better learn to live together first,
think globally second,
and quit killing each other.
"Together we stand, divided we fall."
If not we all go up together in a mushroom cloud."

Dangling Fury (A Philosopher from Montana)

As stated above, it seems that the natural progression of ever more inclusive models of governance has been moving forward throughout history. The only thing preventing it from reaching a conclusion previously were the cohesive elements. They have arrived. Not only that; but the advance of science and ever more effective worldwide distribution systems have allowed everyone from pole to pole to participate in the “good life.” There are certainly pockets of poverty and disease as well as unrest but these are becoming smaller every year. Even in the case of natural disasters a united world level response cleans things up quickly and effectively.

On the other hand, Hollywood has never made a movie that represented a world government in glowing terms. It is usually always (except maybe “Star Trek”) displayed as an evil, big brother construct. I don’t know many evangelicals who run Hollywood, so other than some websites run by immature Americans, I wonder why the staunch cultural rejection of a world government? Perhaps we need to reflect more deeply on the negative connotations of Bismarckian “Kultur” in our "liberal" and "free" cultural media.

I would say that if people were nervous about a world government it would be for a more practical reason: Washington didn’t understand nor care about us after hurricane Katrina so how much harder would it be if the government were in Geneva? Even is a country as advanced and homogeneous as Japan the ineptitude of government in dealing with local natural disaster is staggering; and the over inflated self-pride that prevents others from picking up the ball slanderous.

Of course, conversely, the local leaders in Myanmar don’t seem to care about the people in Bogalay from Cyclone Nargis so a world government might be something the local people would very much appreciate. And the governments of the Indian Ocean, in desperation, reached out for immediate outside assistance after the Tsunami of December 26, 2004.

Frankly, if I were an Evangelical Christian and believed that a world government would facilitate the second coming of Christ, I would be in the front of the united world bandwagon. Unless, of course, unless I wasn’t so sure of what Christ might think of my lifestyle. Hmmmmm.

One road block to world governance being implemented, is not an imaginary devil but a real one: the patriotic feeling attached to smaller government units.

A second road block, and one ever so much more dangerous is religion.

There is one possibility for a model of government. This model, though very practical and a proven workable model, is perhaps the most dangerous to its neighbors and the world community. It is the Theocratic State. There have been many in history: Tibet, The Roman Catholic Empires (the sponsors of The Inquisition – not to be confused with the ever popular witch burnings of their Protestant imitators) which now only reside in the Vatican and of course the Islamic State. One may argue that the Islamic state is a democratic republic model with a president or king and parliament. I would suggest to them that they are quite naive and should look more closely at the history of Islam and the governmental system.

Sunni and Shiite squabbles have gone on for centuries and will likely continue and may become more openly hostile to each other. I believe that this open hostility is becoming more dangerous as the result of outside forces playing one against the other, esp. now in Iraq, the birth place of the Shia. Iran would surely like to recover its most holy places, which the "Americans" are responsible for desecrating.

As for Turkey and its historical hegemonic role, this could go either way. Would they join Europe? This would not solve and might even serve as a fuse to ignite more Kurd and Armenian resentments. Would they join The Islamic state? They in concert with their “brothers” would likely put their infighting to rest but is would possibly cause tension in Southern Europe where there is no reason to assume that Albania and Kosovo might not want to join the Islamic state as well. With Turkey in Europe, Europe is secure. With Turkey in the Islamic group things could ultimately be dicer. Either way, you still have Israel added to the mix, so the Middle East is a sensitive issue in any scenario for some time to come. (See Addendum 1)

Again we need to remember that in Islam there is no separation of religion and state. A king or president is only the head of a central organizing tool of state used as necessary to confront an outside force. The Saudi rule Saudi Arabia but the real powers are the religious leaders and Sharia court. For the neighbors of the Islamic state, this could possibly lead:

"... as in the case of the creation of the United States, a completely new form of governance may be presented. I would suggest, however that this would not happen unless, as in the creation of the United States, a traumatic event occurred that the human race fervently wished to avoid in the future."

Addendum 1:

The Guardians of the Rock (Tradition!) vs. The Followers of Ali (THEM!)

Sunni and Shia are like twin brothers, one older by only a few minutes. One day the elder waylaid the younger whilst praying. The younger trusted the elder completely but was deceived. This younger brother never forgot and never forgave.

For the rest of their lives they have used every device and every neighbor to avenge the act and gain final victory over the other. The two brothers will never see eye to eye and will never support each other. They will never recognize the legitimacy of the other. The younger will never honor the elder until the elder apologizes and submits.

So, why doesn’t the older just apologize? He cannot because in so doing he must admit that he is NOT the older but the younger, in fact, is the rightful elder.

Thus, the neighbors (China, India, the US, Europe, Russia) are all played against each other as tools of revenge and one-upmanship. The errant uncle (Judaism) is irritating to them both and due for a good back-hand, but not actually germane to the struggle.

The Shiites believe that the descendents of Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib are the rightful leaders of Islam and the the House of Āl Suʿūd are the usurpers. Obviously, the Sunni do not.

An interesting note: Because of this split, the Shia have a “Second Coming” tradition. This leads to another interesting note: the Bahai are a “Second Coming” Shia heresy.

3. Can a paradigm be worked out? What kind?

3 Models of World Governance:
Regardless of these “stumbling blocks,” we can see in Europe, where most of the strongest willed nationalists reside, borders are breaking down. And with the emergence of level heads in Islam, the step by step process of being cured of the disease of separation will move forward. Yes, there may be a few relapses, but the tide of history is moving forward in the recognition that the family of man lives in a very small house that needs to be properly cared for with everyone healthy, happy and hopeful of a safe future.

1. The United States model: Out of an initial few; a central government was formed. The new central government asserted authority over the few with limited success but with each additional state accrued more power to itself. Consolidated power to become a strong central government, constitutionally sharing power with the states; but for sake of argument, less and less. Human rights protected by the Bill of Rights. It is very hard to change the constitution. Three balancing divisions of central government.

2. The EU/UN model: A weak central government competing for power with the constituent parts. Each new state retains its independent government. Strong Legislative and Judicial but weak executive. The Legislative and Judicial bodies can effect changes in the constituent states, but the executive powers of foreign policy and defense are atrophied; little more than ceremonial. Human rights are protected in theory and tradition but practically by a mediocre constitution.

3. The Soviet Union/Peoples' Republic model: A strong hegemonic power asserting control over its clearly defined sphere of influence as recognized by hegemonic powers of equal influence. Any new states added have very little control over their internal affairs. The central government controls the state and the Legislative and Judicial are weak compared to the Executive. Constitutional protections and Law enforcement are directly affected by the Executive. Human Rights are protected but often diluted.

Any combination of the three is possible, including all three models competing in a hegemonic relationship with each other.

"Global markets, yes. Global competition, yes. Global group hug – nope. All soverign nations look after their own interests first. Yours, mine, Haiti's.” JT Philips, Mozambique
Nations are like families. You have some very prosperous and successful, some pitifully slow; but most are just roaming the middle going from day to day – the middle class of nation states.

A global “group hug” will not likely come all at once. Neighboring nations have issues with each other. Just ask Mexico about the US and China about Japan; Greece about Turkey. But it will come in increments sooner rather than later. After all, if ALL of Germany's neighbors can get along with Germany then the other relationships will work out too, eventually.

The "hegemonic" model requires on state powerful enough to provide the impetus to motivate the uity in the group. In today's world that impetus is likely to be economic rather than power, though power cannot be ruled out as an option. The "hegemony" may fade in time much like in the United States where in the beginning a few states held power over the smaller, but over time, that power was dispersed throughout the nation.

The regional hegemonic model, (each region initially centered on one causal state) with 6 or 7 hegemonic powers made up of the present "traditional spheres" will certainly come first. Some prosperous spheres will form first: North America (Canada-USA-Mexico) and Europe (West-East-Russia); with the middle class next: East Asia (Sino-Korea-Nippon), and the Indus region (India-Nepal-Southeast Asia) forming to counter balance the Sino-Korea-Nippon group with Latin America centered on Brazil following along. The Islamic group (Middle East-Central Asia-North Africa?) will take a bit longer and be a little trickier, and Turkey has to decide where to jump. The poor family of Africa, much like the Germanic states in Europe will take the longest but could potentially be strongest.

Some of these unions will be, perhaps more out of survival than desire: Russia with Europe as it will be otherwise caught between a resource desperate Sino group and an Islamic Central Asia. Japan will go with China as Taiwan and Korea fall in line and the USA bows to China’s wishes. Egypt and the North Africa Islamic states will join the Middle East, dividing Africa in half.

One very interesting possibility is that Mexico and the Hispanic migrant population in the USA could be the glue that binds all of North and South America into a single unit. If this happens, Europe and Africa could quickly join them. Then the single world government would be all but complete.

These powers will make alliances for their own benefits and may squabble like neighboring families but they will set up fences and agree not to steal each other’s apples. The beginnings of a global nation.

4. What about the EU, UN, Nato, IMF, WTO, ASEAN? What happens to these, can they be reformed to fit a one world paradigm?

In a unified world civilization it is unlikely that these organizations would be necessary, though some might take on the status of “NGO.” Most, Like the IMF and WTO would probably be rolled into government departments.

If, however, we are looking at the hegemonic model, it is quite possible that the 6 or 7 hegemonic powers (possibly made up of the present "traditional spheres") in relationship with each other, may use many of the above organizations as they now function . Even the UN may continue, perhaps constituting only a “Security Council.”

5. What about leadership and the rights of people?

The American model of the division of the three arms of government seems to be the safest. It is the most balanced. How the executive is constituted, whether a “presidential” system or prime minister or both a head of state and prime minister I leave to others.

The rights of the people are probably a thornier issue. While we might all agree that murder and racism are bad, do we all agree on freedom of the press? Freedom of religion (what is religion?), freedom of expression (how much is too much?)?

These rights, when agreed on, must be protected by a strong judiciary and rule of law (as well as respect for law) to prevent the whims of an executive from stepping on them.

6. Will this lead to collapse and therefore national paradigm again?

I would assume, if the government respects the value of human rights, people will be free to follow their hearts and express themselves through “culture”1. If human rights are broad enough; if people are free to home school or independently community school and raise their children in whatever surviving sapor are left then the world civilization will hold. The problem and breakdown will come when the rights of the minorities are trampled. These rights MUST be respected regardless of what the majority is comfortable with.

"For this reason, the success of a world government, or any government is directly relational to the percentage of the “image” of human rights that it puts into the “form” of law and practice." – LM Shea

As stated above, the acknowledgement of human rights in the constitution is probably the thorniest issue and their debasement will be the most likely cause of the collapse of a unified world civilization, or at the very least, the chipping away at the edges –the ebb and flow of a united governance.