World government - is that necessary?
Please stop this nonsense!
The United Nations is not a world government. You can often read that in newspapers. It should also be clear that an assembly of 193 sovereign national governments, which rarely agree on anything, cannot possibly be called a world government. Garry Davis and his supporters knew this too. In 1948, they therefore launched a spectacular campaign calling on the United Nations to reform itself as a world government. Despite a great response from the public, the UN did not, of course. Garry Davis then founded his own world government and made a living by selling worthless World Passports. The passport business continues to this day under his successors.
Since then, the term "world government" has no longer been taken seriously by the global public. At best, it is ridiculed as a naïve utopia. The propagators of world conspiracy theories take a different view. According to their belief, there is a conspiracy of powerful secret societies, corrupt politicians, billionaires and, of course, the Jews. For example, a clique of lunatic bishops spread the claim that the coronavirus pandemic was created or used to install an anti-Christian world government. Anyone who believes something like that will believe anything. Fuelled by state-controlled disinformation from Beijing and lying propaganda from Moscow, the overall picture is that of a madhouse.
Governments have always been the epitome of authority. Even democratically legitimised governments are little loved by the mass of citizens. People are rarely one hundred per cent satisfied with their policies. Political compromises that are not understood lead to disappointment among the population. Advances in the media have made it easier to articulate criticism and incite public protests and riots. In the opposite direction, this provokes authoritarian tendencies and leads to the dismantling of civil liberties. This then plays into the hands of conspiracy fanatics. The madhouse is getting bigger and bigger.
However, all of this has little to do with the fact that I am taking a critical look at the term "world government". If it were necessary to talk about a government for the whole world, we shouldn't be unsettled by a madhouse. But it is not necessary. A government is nothing more than a supreme administration. In a democratically legitimised legal system, it is bound by law and is subject to parliamentary control.
At a global level, we already have a world administration. It is the Secretariat of the United Nations, headed by the UN Secretary-General. But it lacks clear democratic legitimisation. In order to become truly capable of acting as an administration, the UN needs independent sovereign rights. To create these, we need a world parliament that also decides on the laws that a future world administration must abide by. This has been the main demand of world federalists since the UN was founded. When Garry Davis and a handful of activists briefly interrupted the General Assembly of the United Nations in Paris on 19 November 1948, they demanded the ultimate creation of a world government. However, this was completely unrealistic at the time and hindered the already ongoing efforts of serious world federalists to realistically improve the UN. A world citizens' movement that emerged after this action was only a flash in the pan and quickly disappeared into political insignificance.
I would therefore like to recommend to all world citizens and world federalists that they dispense with the term "world government". It is a superfluous bogeyman that leads to misunderstandings. That is why many people today prefer to speak of World Covernance. They are not in favour of a "world government", but of a democratic world federation. We also do not want a centralised world state that could quickly develop into a world dictatorship. We are in favour of a federal world union consisting of independent states, which of course must also have a democratically legitimised and functioning administration as its executive. This does not have to happen with all countries in the world at the same time. The first step should be taken by those states that already have the necessary democratic structures and experience. The world union could grow in this way, similar to the European Union. Perhaps the European Union could even become the foundation of a world union before China buys up and controls half the world.
Unfortunately, the United Nations cannot be expected to develop in the direction of a democratic world federation. The excessive sovereignty of the member states and the dominance of undemocratic powers make this impossible. Civil society groups are treading water with their demands for UN reform. I described this in my article "United Nations or United Mankind". Civil society activists should be aware of this by now. I therefore advocate the creation of a second world organisation as an United Mankind Organisation (UMO). This organisation can then decide on further steps via its own democratically elected world parliament. The serious groups of civil society could start immediately with an initiative, provided they have the will and the strength to do so. If they don't do it, who else will? The matter should not be put on the back burner.