PART I

Respondenst Favor World Constitution

In a telephonic survey financed by the WFA, 58% of 1200 adult American citizens polled thought that to have practical law enforcement at home and abroad, a limited, democratic world government would be essential or helpful (with 35%) disagreeing). For effective enforcement of laws, 66% of those questioned felt there should be a world constitution, more than double the number who disagreed.
These were some of the more striking results of the poll, which was divided into two sets. The subject of one set was a World Constitutional Convention; of the second, a UN Charter Review Conference. While understandably 70% of the respondents in the first set approved of a world constitution, so did 61% of those polled in the second set. In the first set, twice as many respondents favored US participation in a convention to create a world constitution as opposed it. The margin rose to 2 1/2 times on condition that either the world constitution were put to a national referendum in the US or an amendment made to the US Constitution, but there was less interest in having the United Nations call the convention.
For effective law enforcement, an improved United Nations was thought by 86% of those polled to be essential or helpful; a World Court by 77%; but a World Court with trials on television an item inserted by the pollsters), by only 56%. Some 82% of respondents felt the UN Charter should be amended to allow the UN to arrest individuals who commit serious international crimes, and 83% felt that leaders making war on groups within their country should be tried by an International Criminal Court.
A series of questions concerned bestowing authority on a world body (either through a World Constitution or an amended UN Charter) in matters where nations can’t solve problems alone. Whereas only 52% of the respondents favored giving it authority over world trade and tariffs, 70% favored giving it over global environmental issues, and 75%, over international security matters.

Putting Together The WFA Poll

The survey originated in the excitement raised by Mike Gravel’s project at the WFA Annual Assembly at Wellesley, Massachusetts in June 1992. Gravel had proposed that the WFA provide financial support to his Philadelphia II project, which called for a world-wide referendum leading to a world constitutional convention. Although a majority of the younger World Federalists appeared to favor Philadelphia II, many of the oldsters, partly feeling it too radical and partly concerned about a tight budget already earmarked for other favorite activities, opposed it. Therefore, a suggestion was made to test the public’s reaction through a poll. As fundraising for the survey began, Blanche Whittey of Redwood City (a staunch supporter of Philadelphia II) immediately contributed $3.000.
It took about nine months to draft, modify, and get agreement on the text of the poll organized by the husband-wife team of Alan Kay and Hazel Henderson of Americans Talk Issues Foundation (ATIF), who reused a number of the same questions in their survey on “Global Certainties” polled about the same time. In the beginning, Mike Gravel of Pebble Beach offered questions relating to a referendum for a world constitutional convention, and Bob Gauntt of Palo Alto offered questions concerned with law enforceable on individuals. Walter Hoffmann, who initiated arrangements with ATIF, proposed a second set of questions aiming at a UN Charter Review Conference. Tim Barner and John Sutter had a hand in some of the fine-tuning of the wording.
The survey almost went off the track at the beginning when one of the pollsters objected to citing “world government” as a goal, stating her view that “… (P)opulist fears of ‘worldgovernment’ are understandable, and I share them … A ‘World Constitutional Convention’ to hammer out (!) a World Constitution as a basis for even a democratic ‘World Government’ will be an instant turn-off to many people who share (WFA’s) goals – as they do to me!” [The results of the poll on these questions (see above) must have been an eye-opener.] Accordingly, the wording of the first draft of the poll had one set of questions leading to a somewhat foreboding prospect of only a “world government”, rather than the World Federalist goal of a “democratic federal world government” as recommended by Gravel and Gauntt. Instead, the term “democratic” was appropriated for a second set of questions with a goal of “democratic structures for global governance.” Since this latter goal, which had been selected by ATIF, had not been one suggested by the World Federalists, it subsequently was replaced with a “revised UN Charter.” Eventually, the pollsters agreed to qualify “world government” with the term “democratic,” but they would not use “federal,” alleging that the public was unsure of its meaning and refusing to include a definition for those being polled. And so the term “limited, democratic world government” was finally used.
The actual survey was carried out in March by the Telephone Center in Greensboro, North Carolina. The interviewees whom I monitored seemed quite sophisticated in handling the concepts raised, but some stumbled over the complexity of a series of questions. For example, they were first asked to respond along a scale of 7 (from very favorable to very opposed) on a key question concerning their attitude (for one set of questions) about US participation in a World Constitutional Convention or (for the second set) in a UN Charter Review Conference. Then, while trying to remember the digit of the response, they were asked as many as nine follow-up questions to recall their response to the key question and possible modify it. This proved a bit mind-boggling to a number of them.?

Toward Democratic World Federation, Summer 1993

PART II

Americans Like Idea of National Initiative Referendum

While reactionary Cassandras give vent to their fear of the United States’ joining a world government, positive information to the contrary has long been missing.  In fact, in a WFA-sponsored public opinion poll hitherto not given wide publicity, Americans expressed their approval for a world government with democratic safeguards.
   At the June 1992 WFA Annual Board Meeting at Wellesley College in Massachusetts, a number of World Federalists from Northern California introduced Philadephia II - a campaign to promote a National Initiative leading to a world constitutional convention as an alternative approach to depending on national governments to pave the way to a democratic world federation.  The reception by Board Members, especially younger ones, was generally enthusiastic, while some oldtimers committed to UN Reform and some staffers concerned about a diversion of limited funds to support the new campaign opposed it.
   At a special meeting to resolve the differences, a survey was proposed to sound out the American public on Philadelphia II.  Opponents suggested adding questions on UN Reform.  When encouraged to make donations, Blanche Whittey of the Northern California Council immediately pledged $3,000.  The resulting telephone poll organized by a husband and wife team favoring UN Reform was made in March 1993.
   By over 2 to 1 in a series of warm-up questions respondents approved the job the UN was doing.  Recalling Saddam Hussein’s pillaging of Kuwait, and predating the 1998 treaty for an International Criminal Court, 5 out of 6 felt that the UN’s Charter should be amended to permit trial by an ICC of any national leader who invades a neighboring country.  Around the time Slobodan Milosevic started the genocidal campaign against Bosniaks and before his ethnic cleansing of Kosovars, 6 out of 7   respondents recommended having an ICC to use for such crimes.
   The poll was divided into two parts.  One group was asked questions concerning US participation in a World Convention with elected delegates to draft a Constitution that could lead to a democratic world government to tackle problems that  individual countries could not solve by themselves.  Of the respondents voicing an opinion:
   46% favored; 23% opposed; 30% neutral (2 for to 1 against)
If this were done through amending the US Constitution -
   58% favored; 24% opposed; 18% neutral
If first approved by a national referendum -
   59% favored; 22% opposed; 19% neutral (i.e., almost 3 out of 4  of those voicing a positive or negative opinion favored the US joining a world constitutional convention if authorized by the people in a national referendum, similar to what Philadelphia II advocated).
   On the other hand, when asked if the convention should be organized by the UN, 45% favored; 28% opposed; 27% neutral.  In fact, 68% favored (16% opposed; 16% neutral) separating it entirely from the UN.
   Furthermore, 5 out of 6 such respondents felt that the world government should have authority over international security, including violations of human rights.

Toward Democratic World Federation, Winter 1999.