We world federalists are a diverse bunch. We are scientists, teachers, veterans, journalists, students and more. To assume some sort of uniformity in our beliefs would be a mistake, especially considering that a well-governed world, at best, is in its infancy. We encourage you to email us any questions that you might have and to read our quarterly. We recognize that our ideas, necessary though they may be, are widely viewed with skepticism. We would like to take this opportunity to show that a world federtion is feasible, reasonable, and humanity’s only salvation.
What is a world “federation” and how does it differ from other concepts of world government?
Isn’t the idea of national sovereignty an unchangeable part of world order?
Aren’t dif ferent countries just too different to collaborate on this project?
Would the formation of a world government mean the end of our country?
Is it unpatriotic for citizens of a country to support a system of global government?
I want my country to be strong. Wouldn't subordinating my country to a global government weaken it?
RE: Conspiracy theories, including "New World Order" and "One World Government"
What would world government look like?
How would a democratic world government benefit me?
What would prevent the world government from becoming tyrannical and oppressive?
Will world governance squash local culture?
Is world government inevitable?
I have another question about democratic world governance.
1. What is a world “federation” and how does it differ from other concepts of world government?
Merriam-Webster defines federalism as “an encompassing political or societal entity formed by uniting smaller or more localized entities.” World federalism advocates the existence of many levels of government, including the current national level. For problems beyond the scope of national government, however, there would be increasing levels of authority to address these issues. These broader levels of authority, be they regional, continental or global, would have the opposite of unlimited power: they would have constitutionally-delineated jurisdiction over only the few issues that cannot be handled by a more local government.
2. Isn’t the idea of national sovereignty an unchangeable part of world order
On the contrary, the idea of fixed international borders and absolute national sovereignty is a relatively new concept, created in 1648 in Europe, with the Treaty of Westphalia. The major European powers formalized this concept stating that domestic affairs were to be completely free of external forces and there was to be complete equality of all national actors. Of course, from the very outset, this has obviously not completely been the case in practice. This has given rise to an international system of anarchy, where every state – especially large and more agressive ones can behave like an individual person hindered only by the actions of other states. The world has essentially become two hundred persons attempting to live together without a single police officer.
Ironically, it is the European Union that has also first shown the possibility of effective supranational authority. Note that the EU countries have been peaceful with one another since the creation of the European Community after the Second World War.
Currencies have value and national laws have authority primarily because we all believe in them. They are socially constructed, and yet this construction does not necessarily make them undesirable. Rather, it makes them real. It is important to remember that the structure of national institutions are controllable and that we, as a society, are fully capable of modifying them.
3. Aren’t different countries just too different to collaborate on this project?
World problems transcend national culture. There is nothing particularly Lithuanian, Mexican, Scottish, or Vietnamese about reducing global pollution levels or attempting to eliminate world hunger. Craig Campbell, in his article in Ethics & International Affairs, clearly explains this argument:
"The history of state formation from the days of city-states to the present era is precisely the history of warring groups with different ideologies and cultures coming together under a larger entity. While the European Union is not at all yet a state, who would not have been denounced as insane for predicting a political and economic union among France, Germany, and other European states seventy years ago? … Smaller political units have always merged into larger ones when technology has made the violence among them unsustainable. The surprising thing … would be if this did not happen at the planetary level.”
4. Would the formation of a world government mean the end of our country?
Absolutely not! When 13 independent states joined together to form the United States of America, as a new type of government – a federal republic, it did not mean they went out of existence. In the same way, if our country were to join a global government organized as a federal union, it would not mean the U.S.A. would cease to exist.
The concept – a democratic federation – stipulates that powers based on the authority of the citizens are delegated appropriately to different levels of government. In this way, global law would not replace current city, state, and national laws; it would merely supplement them by adding a final tier to that system – one limited to providing order only in fields that those self-governing countries, provinces, and cities cannot adequately manage on their own.
5. Is it unpatriotic for citizens of a country to support an to support a system of global government?
No. For example, the Founding Fathers of the United States, America's original patriots, created a country based on the concepts of citizenship and individual sovereignty. They stressed that it is the right and duty of citizens to create governing bodies that best serve their interest. Civic participation, not blind obedience to a particular incarnation of government, is the truest patriotic calling. For proof, just look to the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which reads:
“...To secure these rights [of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness], Governments are instituted by Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. … it is the Right of the People … to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
And recall the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen:
“…The aim of all political associations is the preservation of natural and inalienable rights of man. These are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression…The law is an expression of the will of the community. All citizens have a right to play a role, either personally, or by their representatives, in its formation…”
If we, as national citizens feel that our interests are best served by building a world-level governing structure (in addition to our national government), then it is in each of our country's interest to do so as well.
Besides, you don’t have to make a choice between one or the other. In a federalist structure, people are free to participate as citizens on numerous levels of government without compromising their allegiance to any particular one. Just as being a patriotic American in no way diminishes your ability to be a good Californian, a good citizen of the Federal Union of Germany, a good Bavarian, etc., acting as a Global Citizen would not diminish your ability to be a good citizen of your own country. We should be eager and proud to act patriotically as active citizens in fair governing structures on all levels in which our interests are at stake.
6. I want my country to be strong. Wouldn't subordinating my country to a global government weaken it?
No more than subordinating Virginia to a federal U.S.A. or Uttar Pradesh to a federal India would. Real strength comes from the ability to accurately assess a changing situation and make the necessary adaptations in order to thrive. The world upon which most countries’ current foreign policy is based has changed. To stay strong, we must recognize the following:
The costs, measured in both money and lives, of the U.S. trying to maintain military hegemony over the world is slowly sapping its strength and the rights of its citizens. As if that weren't bad enough, this strategy is not even promoting real security. Instead, it promotes weapons proliferation and breeds terrorism.
Being the only dominant power in the world order also creates a situation in which the U.S. tries to act as a global policeman – a costly job that usually results in more international resentment than thanks. Its efforts to thwart the creation of world-level institutions of security and justice create global instability and limits international cooperation. These actions prevent humanity from collectively facing and solving its most deadly threats. Unless this situation changes, ecological damage, epidemic disease, international crime, and crimes against humanity will continue to endanger all humans, Americans included.
“Developed countries” – and their citizens – would benefit enormously by taking part in a pro-active and constructive global agenda. Because these wealthy countries have vast capital resources, a well-educated citizenry, and oftentimes a tradition of innovation, they have a great potential to profit from change. In terms of their nations’ collective consciousness, an undertaking of this kind would be just the kind of activity that could begin to lift the fear that has hung over our heads since the 9/11 tragedy, transform current suspicions of foreign cultures, and replace the sense of guilt and apathy felt by so many Americans about their ability to bring good to the world.
The United States would be better off as a key player in a safe and orderly world than as the leading bully in an unstable, anarchic world. The promotion of democratic global government is key to ensuring the ongoing strength and well-being of its people.
7. Why should we submit ourselves to someone else's laws? OR Wouldn't it be wrong to impose our laws and sense of justice upon the rest of the world?
That wouldn’t be the case. It is important to understand that a world government, and the world laws it would apply, need to be new creations, representing all the world's people through fair and democratic procedures. As a result, those laws would be the property of all humanity (including Americans, French and Indians), not just of an individual country or group.
What can we do?
- Teach others about the need for a well-governed world. It’s only when the people of the world understand this need and see the creation of a democratic federal world government as being in their collective interest that such a structure will finally emerge.
- Influence your elected officials. They need to know that you want them to support measures favoring law-based approaches to world problems over force-based measures and that you want our country to be a in efforts to restructure, democratize and empower the United Nations system.
- Visit our Take Action page
8. RE: Conspiracy theories, including “New World Order” and “One World Government”
The internet and fictional novels are filled with dystopian depictions of world government as well as ridiculous conspiratorial theories. A quick Google search can inform you about all kinds of hidden facts: apparently extraterrestrial aliens or the Trilateral Commission are behind this political movement. While we would like to roll our eyes and ask these people to grow up a little, we will instead address the psychological foundations of conspiracy.
Conspiracy theories can be addressed through these processes:
Occam's razor - "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." The more complicated the conspiracy theory is compared to the mainstream theory, the less probable it is.
Logic – Does the theory successfully employ logic to justify its claims? Are any logical fallacies committed? Example: Argumentum ad baculum: also known as appeal to force, is an argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification for a conclusion. It is a specific case of the negative form of an argument to the consequences. “Secret world government organizations exist because, if they do, they will take over the world and remove your freedom.”
Methodology - Are the proofs offered for the argument well constructed, i.e., using sound methodology? Is there any clear standard to determine what evidence would prove or disprove the theory?
Falsifiability - Is it possible to demonstrate that specific claims of the theory are false? If it is impossible to prove a conspiracy theory as false, it should be treated with greater suspicion.
We encourage you to look at everything, including ourselves, with a critical eye.
9. What would world government look like?
This is one of the more challenging questions to answer. The simplest response is: “It depends on how it comes about.” Does it occur through a grassroots mobilization of peoples around the world? Does it occur through a constitutional convention between sovereign nations, like the United States federation did in its own formation? Does it occur through the gradual strengthening of the UN? Does it occur through regional organizations (EU, ASEAN, African Union) banding together and then gradually increasing their supranational authority?
Each of these would yield a different-looking world government. Some of these would obviously yield a better functioning, more democratic world government than others. Others are more likely or would be viewed as acceptable by the world’s population (acceptability, of course, is a prerequisite for any sort of democratic government to form).
As you can tell from our organization’s name, we advocate a democratic, republican, secular federation, not unlike the United States of America but more limited in scope. Everything would be handled by the most local level possible. Only the problems that require world-wide solutions, like the shared sacrifice necessary to protect the environment or to end war and other crimes against humanity, would be handled by the world government. We envision a world parliament and an independent world court with real authority, but the exact mechanisms of how each branch of power would check the others, how to represent different countries with vastly different populations, and other important questions would be best resolved by a compromise among the world’s citizens instead of our idle guesswork.
10. How would a democratic world government benefit me?
The answers to this question are infinite. Some problems of the world, whether it is the universal protection of human rights, ending the war system, family planning, or global warming, can be solved only through shared sacrifice. But once these problems are addressed, the benefits will vastly outweigh the costs.
If you want to enjoy clean air and a sustainable world for your children and grandchildren, you could use global law. Currently, because national governments exist in a state of competitive anarchy, states that choose to sacrifice in order to protect the environment do so at their own peril. Every country looks at every other country to take the lead, hoping for a free ride, resulting in no substantive solutions.
The end of war will mean that trillions of dollars will be saved to reinvest into education and the general welfare (a goal stipulated in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution). Taxes will be significantly lower, especially if you live in the United States. Barriers to business would be broken down as well, hopefully yielding more to the general welfare and economic opportunities for all.
11. Don’t most people oppose giving up their countries’ absolute sovereignty, rendering world federalism as an impractical, idealistic notion?
Well, that is what organizations like ours are trying to fix. If you believe in what we do, we would love for you to talk to your friends and relatives about the feasibility and eventual necessity of a world federation. In any case, no country has absolute sovereignty – to do whatever it wants in the world, although some have tried.
12. What would prevent the world government from becoming tyrannical and oppressive?
The same things that prevent most democratically-elected governments from becoming oppressive, but much better designed. We are well aware of the phrase “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” and have seen this in the rulers of a number of countries.
First, a world federation would not have absolute power. It would have only power to address issues that cannot be addressed at a more local level. Furthermore, a world federation would have to possess unshakable checks and balances. Not only would powers be distributed among legislative, executive, and judicial branches, but the world government must include a system of independent auditors, inspectors-general, and ombudsmen. This would avoid the concentration of authority, and allow for the maximum amount of transparency, more so than any government institution ever has. Nothing else will be acceptable. We expect the finest minds of the world to work together to create a system that ensures the continual prosperity for everyone.
Such a transparent government could reduce human rights abuses and the overstepping of powers by national governments. A world federation could end genocide immediately. What greater human rights abuses are there than those that stem from war?
We hope by making transparency one of the fundamental principles of world federation, this institution would be less corruptible and allow for more oversight by its constituents (the world’s population) than any government in history.
Craig Campbell, in his article in Ethics & International Affairs, raises another good point:
“States often become increasingly tyrannical as they use external threats to justify internal repression and authoritarian policies. These threats, whether real or imagined, have throughout history and to the present day been used by leaders to justify massive taxation, conscription, martial law, and the suppression of dissent. But no world government could plausibly make such demands.”
13. Wouldn’t smaller countries be surrendering their rights to larger ones? What role could a country like Guatemala (or any country) play if China and India, with almost 2.4 billion people between them, disagree?
One of the ways of addressing this issue is with a bicameral legislature, like the United States Congress. Whereas all countries might be represented equally in one legislature, there would be a secondary legislature proportionate to the population. This is just one of many ideas. The EU has a system where a bill requires a certain number of proportionately assigned delegates to support it, but allows a majority of the countries to veto the bill.
This issue, along with the representation of minority groups within nation-states, is among the challenges that any institutional authority has to address.
14. Will world governance squash local culture?
David Ray Griffin, in his article Toward Genuine Global Governance (edited by Harris and Yunker), does a great job at addressing this issue:
“This belief might be somewhat true if global government were understood as a US federal government writ large. Even within the United States of America, however, considerable diversity in terms of beliefs, values, traditions, and even practices is possible and persists; commonality is required only with regard to some basic values, such as respect for the Constitution (especially the Bill of Rights), tolerance of diverse beliefs and values, and acceptance of democratic principles. All the more would diversity be compatible with the kind of limited world government proposed here, according to which the nationals would retain their autonomy in many respects, having much more actual autonomy vis-à-vis the global government than the individual states have vis-à-vis the US federal government at the present time.”
“The main point to be made, however, is that global government, far from being an instrument of further uniformity, could (and should) serve as a means to protect humanity’s cultural diversity. The homogenization that has already occurred has been due not to political unification, but to the global reach of Western-based (mainly US-based) mass media and multinational corporations. The development of a global political organization would… serve as an alternative to, and thereby a possible restraint upon, a globalization driven purely by economic motives, which if left unchecked will surely lead to an increasingly homogenized, and thereby greatly impoverished, human race.”
15. Is world government inevitable?
The consensus among world federalists is that either world government OR universal destruction is inevitable. Alexander Wendt, a highly respected international relations theorist from the University of Chicago, certainly finds it inevitable. His piece, which is a must-read for anyone interested in the subject, can be found here>>
Former World Federalist Movement President Peter Ustinov declared:
“…When [World Government] comes, it will appeal to patriotism in its truest, in its only sense, the patriotism of men who love their national heritages so deeply that they wish to preserve them in safety for the common good.”
16. I have another question about democratic world governance…
Then by all means email us. Whether you are a supporter, unsure, or a skeptic of democratic world governance, we’d love to hear from you!
Suite 225, San Francisco, CA 94105-3421 ph: (415) 227-4880 fax: (415) 227-4880 dwfed@dwfed.org © 2009 Democratic World Federalists. All rights reserved.