The idea of a comprehensive, centralised world empire has fuelled the imagination of authors of dystopian future literature since the beginning of the modern era. For conspiracy theorists, they are still big business. For nationalists, it's a nightmare. Unless, of course, their own nation were to take over world domination. Such a world empire would not necessarily mean a world dictatorship. Everything could also go well. However, knowing human nature, this is hardly conceivable. The interests are too different and could hardly be reconciled by a centralised world government. The result would be unrest, uprisings and the replacement of world wars with world civil wars. We already have all that.
The German political scientist Ossip K. Flechtheim wrote at the end of the 1960s in his work "Futurologie – Der Kampf um die Zukunft":
"Anticipating the outcome of the reflections in this book, however, I would like to suggest three schemes or alternatives that may help to shed light on the future.
The first and perhaps not even the most unlikely model would indeed be the end of mankind or at least the downfall of modern civilisation as a result of devastating wars.
The second model, on the other hand, would amount to a relative stabilisation of bureaucratic-technocratic regimes of armaments and space travel, which could be described as neo-Caesarism.
The third and perhaps least likely variant of development in the 20th and 21st centuries would be a world federation based on solidarity and planning the future of mankind in the service of peace, welfare and creativity."
We can roughly imagine where we are today. The only sensible option for the future would be a democratic world federation. The leading world federalist John Vlasto wrote a fervent appeal for world federalism in his article "The Best Thing You Can Do to Save Humanity from Itself" for "Citizens for Global Solutions":
"If you agree with this analysis – that the solution to the existential global challenges we face is to create global governance that is effective, equitable and accountable, while protecting national sovereignty over national issues – then the best thing you can do to save humanity from itself is to promote this understanding. Talk to your family and friends. Write to your political representatives, demanding meaningful engagement with current international governance institutions, and calling for a new and reformed global system. Get involved in the campaign to strengthen global governance towards democratic world federation."
"If people demand the global governance we need, then politicians can act. If politicians do not act soon, it may be too late."
I agree with that. Unfortunately, however, I have to pour some water into the wine. The European Union is still a long way from a federation. The danger of its failure is increasing and disintegration is looming. John Vlasto's home country was the first to do so. A clique of political hasbardeurs had managed, through disinformation and lies, to persuade the majority of British voters to vote against their own best interests. Churchill would be turning in his grave. In the meantime, nationalists have gained the upper hand in many EU member states.
Federalism is not in itself a sure guarantee of a better world. In order to cite the United States as a positive example, a large part of its violent history - not least the Civil War from 1861 to 1865 - would have to be excluded. Current developments hardly inspire optimism. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia disintegrated in a cruel massacre. Russia is a federation, a hopeless one. The global federation is also only a theory, albeit a hopeful one.
And then there is democracy. For some time now, political scientists around the world have been noticing a clear decline in democratic culture in countries that were previously categorised as democracies. Countries that were thought to be hopefully developing towards more democracy have now turned around. In dictatorships that were previously clearly democratic, such hope seems unthinkable for the time being.
The point should be clear: In crises, most people are more likely to trust authoritarian regimes to deal with the problems. This makes it easier for politicians with corresponding ambitions to push through their goals. Resisting this has little chance of success and can even have the opposite effect. Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators on the streets are only ever a minority. The majority of the population wants peace and order, bread and circuses. In such times, the so-called "strong man" has always been a beacon of hope for the people. This is followed by unreasonableness at the ballot box. Democracy is democratically voted out. The rude awakening usually comes later. German history can confirm this.
Why is that the case? Democracy has a fundamental problem: Homo sapiens is not a democrat, but a social egoist. His main motivation is his own survival and that of his group. There is no consciousness for mankind in his genes. Nature gives us nothing that would speak in favour of a democratic system. Just like human rights, democracy is not a law of nature. It is the result of a long history of culture, with countless aberrations and dead ends. If there were a just God who loves his creation and governs the world accordingly, it would all be much simpler.
Despite everything, democratic world federalism is the only logical way to get a grip on the future of mankind. But this should not be left to the elites alone. The United Nations establishment does not allow any democratic development, as this would undermine its power base. This is why civil society, which is demanding progress, is running on a hamster wheel. I have already explained this in my previous article. In addition to the United Nations, we need a second world organisation: the United Mankind. The human consciousness required for this is not in our genes, but is an intellectual challenge.
In this way can "We the Peoples" be realised, by civil society taking up this challenge.
New Website: United Mankind Initiative (google.com)