Insan Akademika Publications
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
OF BASIC AND APPLIED SCIENCE
P-ISSN: 2301-4458 E-ISSN: 2301-8038
Vol. 01, No. 01 July 2012 www.insikapub.com
World Government: Utopia?
Vahram Ayvazyan
PARTICIPANT of the Youth Peace Ambassadors project of the Council of Europe: http://youthpeace.coe.int/
Spitak, Republic of ARMENIA
vahramayvazyan@gmail.com
Key Words Abstract
World government, Global sociey; Human nature, Individualism
The aim of this paper is to analyze the possibility of having a world government, which world has been facing overarching changes since the end of Cold war, where bipolar world order has evolved into multipolar system through unipolarity. Analysis method in this paper have the sistematics: discussion of human nature and philosophical dimensions vis-à-vis individual, society and government, as well as society of societies; then briefly analyse globalization, the impact of individuals on interdependency of the current international arena and examine the individualism as the ongoing ideology “by individuals and for individuals.”; and then take the conclusion that the world government is not a utopia
© 2012 Insan Akademika All Rights Reserved
1
Introduction
World has been facing overarching changes since the end of Cold war. Bipolar world order has evolved into multipolar system through unipolarity1, that’s to say global shift of power from the West to the East and diminishing gap between the West and the Rest2 are undisputable facts that shape current international relations. The key by-product of these changes is the capricious international climate: peace to quasi-war, quasi-war to war let alone hazardous challenges coming from non-state actors (terrorist groups, mafia and so forth). Additionally, globalization has emerged as a socio-economic trend intervening in every sphere of human life. Terrestrial life has become more interdependent ever. State sovereignty and national security have become major concerns for states. But what do we need to have at our disposal to tackle those problems? Or do we need political globalization ultimate target of which will be the establishment of world government? Is this a utopia or can it come to force even in the foreseeable future? This is the salient point of this article and I have tried to make the institute of world government realistic and robust.
I am trying to prove the possibility of having a world government. First I focus on the human nature and philosophical dimensions vis-à-vis individual, society and government, as well as society of societies3. Then I briefly analyse globalization, the impact of individuals on interdependency of the current international arena and examine the individualism as the ongoing ideology “by individuals and for individuals.” Then I sum up the article that the world government is not a utopia.
1 In my opinion, unipolarity was a preceding necessary step to multipolarity.
2
The term Rest is very common in current writings on international relations and can be referred to all the countries except the West (Western Europe and North America).
I have mainly used the Yale College course materials by Ian Shapiro on Moral Foundations of Politics and the book “International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century” which are important materials for the furtherance of scientific and empiric research. A couple of dozen articles delineate the international order, anarchy and cooperation and are worth considering for students in international relations
2
Human Nature
Who can be defined as a human-being? The one who speaks, who sees, who feels…? No, I would posit the one who thinks! In Rene Descartes’ (1596-1650) words, “I think, therefore I am.” Human mind is superior to anything else, so we can derive from this that human being is a thinker. As a result, society is an
association of thinkers. Moreover, the individual thinker per se is not the means, but is the end of a society.
Individual thinkers think and decide to form a society in order to guarantee security and happiness for themselves-individuals/ thinkers. Thus, society is the means for individuals/ thinkers. The thinker alone cannot be happy, so he thinks to interact with another thinker in order to be happy. What does happiness mean then? Happiness can be defined as an ideal feeling when you consider yourself and your actions worth and right in a particular situation and that other thinkers (of the society) think of you and your actions in a similar way. If this does not apply to you, then you are not happy or there your happiness is fake. If we try to interpret John S. Mbiti’s words “I am because we are, and since we are, therefore I am,” we’ll see that I cannot be alone, without us because I will not be happy but we cannot exist without me. A thinker is both the beginning and the end of the society whereas the latter is an institution established by a thinker to meet the needs of a thinker. But how do we form a society? Through shaping common ideas of thinkers, which (ideas) are amalgamated into common worldviews and understandings of bad versus good, evil versus kind and so forth. But why do we need a government then and what can be defined as a government? My own definition of government is the following: “Government is a group of thinkers from the society (society is the association of thinkers, see above) who think that they think better enough than other thinkers of the society
and that they are thought to be better thinkers by other thinkers of the society.” In other words, government
considers itself intellectual elite and other thinkers (not involved in government) consider them (government) intellectual elite as well.
What are the functions of the government? One of prominent proponents of Classical Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), for example, stresses that “A measure of government (which is but a particular kind of action, performed by a particular person or persons) may be said to be conformable to or dictated by the principle of utility when in like manner the tendency which it has to augment the happiness of the community is greater than any which it has to diminish it.”4 In other words, government’s task is to provide the society with latter’s wants (happiness). But since the society is the union of individuals, then government is doing its best to make individuals happy. If a society is not happy, then government is not able to think prudently and therefore is not a smart (or democratic, as nowadays democratic government is accepted to be the right model) government, but a system actions of which are motivated by greed and self-aggrandizement. But since the society comprises of individuals (thinkers), and since always there are individuals who think differently and have different worldviews apart from the common (worldviews), then they can challenge the happiness of the society. What will the government do then? Jeremy Bentham notes here that “The great enemies of public peace are the selfish and dissocial passions—necessary as they are... Society is held together only by the sacrifices that men can be induced to make of the gratifications they demand: to obtain these sacrifices is the great difficulty, the great task of government.”5 But public peace is the sum of private ones, that’s to say if individuals are happy, than the public peace will be guaranteed. In brief, government is to make the holders of those insular passions “return to the kingdom of happiness.” Here I would usher
4
Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789): please note that this is an extract from the Lecture series at Yale University, “PLSC 118: The Moral Foundations of Politics”, Spring 2010. Link:
http://oyc.yale.edu/political-science/plsc-118
5
Jeremy Bentham, The Psychology of Economic Man: please note that this is an extract from the Lecture series
at Yale University, “PLSC 118: The Moral Foundations of Politics”, Spring 2010. Link:
governments to apply to soft power6 techniques in order to convince them that you think about them and get to a situation in which they will also think that you think (care) about them. If government fails to do so, than it is exploiting a thinker or enslaves him. Robert Nozick (1938-2002) underlines, “There is no social entity with a good that undergoes some sacrifice for its own good. There are only individual people, different individual people, with their own individual lives. Using one of these people for the benefit of others uses him and benefits the others. Nothing is more.” Nozick (1974) underpins the idea of individual superiority. Government’s difficult undertaking is the provision of a consensus among individuals. Though Nozick is a proponent of The Social Contract Tradition and Bentham of Classical Utilitarianism, I don’t thus see a dichotomy between their propositions; they are the different sides of the same coin. Both prove that society is the means for individuals and those individuals are the ultimate goal of the society. Society is
individualistic culture.
Global society
Global society (or society of societies) has the same characteristics as the society. It is the association of all
thinkers (everyone on earth who thinks). Global society is a broader conception than those of international
society or international system labeled by The English School theorists. According to Bull (1977), an international system is formed whenever states are in regular contact with one another and where “there is interaction between them, sufficient to make the behaviour of each a necessary element in the calculation of the other”. By contrast, a society of states (or international society) exists when a group of states, conscious of certain common interests and common values, form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions (Bull, 1977). Both definitions fail to address the central role of an individual (thinker) in international society or international system. By contrast, “world society” tends to have closer ties with my definition of global society. Manning (1962) describes it as the society of “all mankind” which exists “within, beneath, alongside, behind and transcending” the society of states. Wight (1991) has something different on offer. For Wight, all international societies are subsystems of this wider world society. Bull (1977) considered world society as “a degree of interaction linking all parts of the human community to one another which was held together by a sense of common interest and common values.” Later Bull (1984) went further identifying “human rights” as the basic value that bound world society together. Notwithstanding, global society is a simple remedy for this puzzle: it is the population of the world. Society of societies is based on individuals too. What is then the major hindrance to the formation of global institutionalised society? And what does institutionalised society mean? The first indicator of an institutionalised society is the established government. One can claim that there are more than 200 hundred such institutionalised societies in the world taking into account the overall number of nation-states and state-like entities. Global society lacks institutionalisation, it does not have a government. Robert Nozick claims that there is no world government because necessary institutions have not been evolved yet. In other words, there are not thinkers
in global society yet who think that they are better thinkers than others in global society and that those others think of them (better thinkers) to be better thinkers. But if there is more than 200 such governments
(evolved institutions) in the world that’s to say if 200 societies have evolved governments, it can be assumed that one day global society will establish such a government as well. If individuals have formed an institutionalised society in a particular place, can’t they form a similar one in a larger place (in the world)? Is it hampered by ethnic boundaries, religion, and national identity? If that is the case, ostensibly it would be impossible to have an institutionalised society in a particular place as an individual would not “abandon” his family and interact with others in the society. We can assume that the institutionalised society-S (society which has a government) is a large family, and then we can draw a parallel between “individual in a particular place (Ip) – family (F) – institutionalised society in a particular place (Sp)” evolution and “individual in a global society (Ig) – institutionalised society of a country in a global society (Sc) - global society (GS)” phenomenon. This parallel gives us a rare glimpse into the grasp of human nature. We can find the equivalence between F and Sc.
6
Ip ============= F ============ Sp
Ig ============= Sc ============ GS
Ip=Ig as they are the same individuals: one is considered in a particular place and one is in a global society, but I is the same thinker. Sp=GS because they are the same structures: the union of thinkers whether it matters in a particular place or in a global society. Sp can be assumed to be equal to Sc but Sp remains within the confines of the particular place whereas Sc is compared with a larger variable-GS. A seminal derivative of this equation is F=Sc because Family is a bridge to the Society in a particular place (Sp) and Society in a country (Sc) is a bridge to Global Society (GS). They do the same functions, so they are equal. The by-product of this assumption is the possibility of the formation of a global institutionalised society. Individuals in Sc-s (in societies of more than 200 countries) will want more happiness and security and they will select best thinkers from within global society (GS) to develop a world government-like institution which will guarantee higher security for individuals and will provide them (individuals) with their wants (happiness). This will become an avowed axiom in the foreseeable future when globalization reaches its highest peak. Human nature does not contradict global institutionalised society.
3
Individualism
What can be defined as the main driving force for globalization? Religion? Economy? or Twentieth century’s ideologies? Though religion has played a tremendous role in globalization during centuries, it has also created barriers and stereotypes, even sectarianism which are difficult to overthrow even now. Ideologies have had an overwhelming role in globalization in the 20th century, but huge discrepancies in ideologies, strategies and policies of superpowers put a halt to the post-war flourishing integration. American ideology, free-market based system versus Russian (Soviet) communism spurred hierarchical world order, where “the superpowers were relationship makers and others relationship takers” (Lake, 1996).
Superpowers were not considered best thinkers and were motivated by greed and self-aggrandizement that’s why they failed to “globalize the world.” Third world states were forced to bandwagon with superpowers, but the economic growth of the Global South allowed them to balance against superpowers at the end of Cold war. Economy and developing economic ties were of paramount importance in the process of globalization and catalysed the movement of goods, services and people across the world and made national borders more transparent. However, I would argue that the underpinning of the globalization is the innovative human mind. Drastic development in ICTs (information and communication technologies) has made the world more connective, individuals-more accessible, ideas-more pluralistic and innovative. The usual bonanza of the dissemination of social networks (Facebook, Twitter) is the decisive victory over political virginity in many parts of the world. Freedom of thought and freedom of speech fueled the leverage of individuals on key decision-making processes over sensitive issues almost everywhere. Individual thinker has become robust and powerful. His ideas now shape the world order. Community ambitions have been subjugated to the wants of the individual. Human-centrism is a dramatic phenomenon linked with human mind. As Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman stated on the MIT campus, “Everything that can be done will be done” (Friedman, 2007).
Any idea that comes to man’s mind will become a reality then. I can even go further and claim that “globalization encapsulates the interactions between individuals; it is the product of individuals.” Thomas Friedman as a champion of globalization, once stated that "This era of globalization is based around individuals...I'm not sure economics has fully been able to capture far below the firm level. I call it gross
individual product". (http://news.cnet.com/ 8301-10784_3-9825103-7.html).
can and they will! Axelrod, for example, indicates that his objective is to show how actors “who pursue their own interests” may nevertheless work together (Axelrod, 1988). Globalization, global society (GS) and society (Sp) are individualistic patterns and the ultima end of the global society and globalization is global institutionalised society-world government. The formation of a world government can become faster when individuals face vehement challenges which they cannot deal with alone in a particular place (Sp). This will spark an allocation of gross individual products. And now the world seems to face such hazards such as climate change, terrorism, poverty, nuclear weapons and the like.
What is then the prevailing ideology in the 21st century? Individualism! Individual-thinker is in the centre of everything. Political globalization is a difficult, but plausible and profitable venture for a 21st-century thinker. Thanks to new technologies, individuals in Indonesia can interact with individuals in France freely, without any assistance by their governments. ICTs are now reaching even remote areas-picteresque villages in Africa and Asia, information access is no longer a dream, interdependency is obviously felt on both sides of the Atlantic and elsewhere. Information access and interdependency among individuals are substances
to political globalization. The world is entering a new era, full of opportunities and challenges.
If the Europeans could afford themselves of having such a government (European Council, EU Council, European Commission, European Parliament), why will not the world make a similar one come to force? Europeans started to think that they were Europeans and formed the European Union. The EU is based on European identity, European thinking. Imagine such a high-level integration if you don’t believe in its advantages, if you don’t think that it is the best way to achieve happiness. Could Europeans be successful in economic integration without that belief? Is not the UN the prototype of the future world government? It is. One day the UN will become the only legitimate institution which can use force, which can have an army, which can exercise power and all that for the human-being, by the human-being. Individualism is the innate characteristic of the human nature. Individuals are concerned about themselves and they are planning a world government to meet their individual needs. For individuals, this philosophy will be at the top of the agenda.
4
Conclusion
I tried to give an insight into human nature and tried to prove that it is individualistic. Philosophical analyses of human behavior are the locus of the comprehensive study of international politics and globalization. Human mind causes pain, human mind causes pleasure, and human mind creates challenges and overcomes them. Human mind exerts its influence on everything. International politics is the pool of ideas. Those ideas are clues to settling conflicts or combating poverty, eschewing political havocs and economic recessions and so on. The capricious international climate has made the actions of individuals and societies entirely unpredictable, the world is teetering on the brink of conflict escalations, flourishing terrorism, uncontrolled borders. States are incapable of tackling these puzzles. A huge demand from individuals will change the situation. They will be forced to create new bodies, stronger ones, to deal with gloomy picture of the world future. That is the historical mission of neo-individuals who consider themselves change makers and champion for individual power, individual’s mind power. They are global individuals (Ig), globalization is the product of global individuals and individual power, the current ideology of humanity is individualism. Information access and interdependency among individuals make states succumb to globalizing dynamics. Globalization is entering a new phase, a preceding phase to political globalization. One sentence can encapsulate the picture: World government is not a utopia!
References
Axelrod, R. (1984), The Evolution of Cooperation, Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-02122-07
Bull, H. (1984). Justice in International Relations. University of Waterloo, Ontario.
Bull, H. (1977). The Anarchical Society. Macmillan, Basingstoke
Buzan, B., and R. Little. (1999). Beyond Westphalia? Capitalism after the 'Fall'. Review of International Studies, Vol. 25, The Interregnum: Controversies in World Politics 191999 (Dec., 1999), pp. 89-104
Clark, I. (2003). Legitimacy in a Global Order. Review of International Studies, Vol. 29, Governance and Resistance in World Politics (Dec., 2003), pp. 75-95
Cox, R. W. (1983). Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations : An Essay in Method. Millennium - Journal of International Studies 1983; 12; 162
David, S. R. (1991). Explaining Third World Alignment. World Politics, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Jan., 1991), pp. 233-256
Dessler, D., and J. Owen. (2005). Review: Constructivism and the Problem of Explanation: A Review Article. Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 3, No. 3 (Sep., 2005), pp. 597-610
Finnemore, M., and K. Sikkink. (1988). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4, International Organization at Fifty: Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics (Autumn, 1998), pp. 887-917
Grieco, J. M. (1988). Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism. International Organization, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Summer, 1988), pp. 485-507
Griffiths, M. (ed). (2007). International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century. Routledge
Hall, R. B. (1997). Moral Authority as a Power Resource. International Organization, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Autumn, 1997), pp. 591-622
Hopf, T. (1988). The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Summer, 1998), pp. 171-200
Keohane, R. O., and L. L. Martin. (1995). The Promise of Institutionalist Theory. International Security, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Summer, 1995), pp. 39-51
Krasner, S. D. (1991). Global Communications and National Power: Life on the Pareto Frontier. World Politics, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Apr., 1991), pp. 336-366
Krasner, S. D. (1996). Compromising Westphalia. International Security, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Winter, 1995-1996), pp. 115-151
Kratochwil, F. W. (1998). Politics, Norms and Peaceful Change. Review of International Studies, Vol. 24, The Eighty Years' Crisis 1919-1999 (Dec., 1998), pp. 193-218
Lake, D. A. (1996). Anarchy, Hierarchy, and the Variety of International Relations. International Organization, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Winter, 1996), pp. 1-33
Legro, J. W. (1996). Culture and Preferences in the International Cooperation Two-Step. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 90, No. 1 (Mar., 1996), pp. 118-137
Manning, C.A.W. (1962). The Nature of International Society, 2nd edn, London: Macmillan for the LSE
7 Please note that I’ve read only a passage from Axelrod in Joseph M. Grieco’s article ”Anarchy and the Limits
Mansfield, E. D., and J. Snyder. (2002). Democratic Transitions, Institutional Strength, and War. International Organization, Vol. 56, No. 2 (Spring, 2002), pp. 297-337
Melko, M. (1992). Long-Term Factors Underlying Peace in Contemporary Western Civilization. Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Feb., 1992), pp. 99-113
Milner, H. (1991). The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: A Critique. Review of International Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Jan., 1991), pp. 67-85
Murphy, C. N. (2000). Global Governance: Poorly Done and Poorly Understood. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 76, No. 4 (Oct., 2000), pp. 789-803
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia
Owen, J. M. (1994). How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace. International Security, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Autumn, 1994), pp. 87-125
Oye, K. A. (1985). Explaining Cooperation under Anarchy: Hypotheses and Strategies. World Politics, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Oct., 1985), pp. 1-24
Reus-Smit, C. (1997). The Constitutional Structure of International Society and the Nature of Fundamental Institutions. International Organization, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Autumn, 1997), pp. 555-589
Schweller, R. L. (1994). Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In. International Security, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Summer, 1994), pp. 72-107
Shapiro, I. (2010). PLSC 118: The Moral Foundations of Politics. Spring, Yale College Course. http://oyc.yale.edupolitical-science/plsc-118
Snidal, D. (1985). The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory. International Organization, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Autumn, 1985), pp. 579-614
Stein, A. A. (1984). The Hegemon's Dilemma: Great Britain, the United States, and the International Economic Order. International Organization, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Spring, 1984), pp. 355-386
Wendt, A. (2001). Driving with the Rearview Mirror: On the Rational Science of Institutional Design. International Organization, Vol. 55, No. 4, The Rational Design of International Institutions (Autumn, 2001), pp. 1019-1049
Wight, M. (1991). International Theory: The Three Traditions. Leicester University Press, London
Wolfe, P. (1997). History and Imperialism: A Century of Theory, from Marx to Postcolonialism. The American Historical Review, Vol. 102, No. 2 (Apr., 1997), pp. 388-420
Zhang, Y. (1991). China's Entry into International Society: Beyond the Standard of 'Civilization'. Review of International Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Jan., 1991), pp. 3-16
Web resources:
http://www.academicearth.org/lectures/the-world-is-flat
Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman speaks on the MIT campus to discuss the 2007 update to his bestseller The World is Flat. He also provides a preview of his latest book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9825103-7.html
