{"id":209,"date":"2016-02-20T10:00:11","date_gmt":"2016-02-20T09:00:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wfbn.myhoasted.com\/\/?p=209"},"modified":"2024-06-09T10:25:08","modified_gmt":"2024-06-09T08:25:08","slug":"de-democratisering-van-de-wereld","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wfbn.nl\/en\/de-democratisering-van-de-wereld\/","title":{"rendered":"The democratization of the world"},"content":{"rendered":"

Marco van Hulten | 20-02-2016<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

The idea of a world parliament had already been proposed in the 1920s by the League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations (UN). Since then, this idea has lived on under the name of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (United Nations Parliamentary Assembly<\/em>, UNPA). Many world problems cannot be solved with local governments. Think of climate change and macro and monetary economy. That is one of the reasons why there is support for the creation of a UNPA in the world. In addition, the current undemocratic nature of world government and the UN plays a role. For these reasons, democratization on a global scale is needed, now more than ever. Could a world parliament be a solution?<\/span><\/p>\n

Globalization<\/span><\/h2>\n

Globalization has been taking place over the last few centuries, or longer, depending on your definition of globalization<\/em>. The use of technology (airplanes, internet) has accelerated this process significantly. Together with the lowering of national barriers through trade agreements, globalization is tending towards a situation where national borders are less and less important. Globalization has brought us benefits (especially the Western countries). Free trade often results in more competitive prices, and consumers have a wider choice of products.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, there are also major problems with globalization as it is currently taking place. Climate change, human rights, social injustice and the global economy are closely linked to globalization. Underlying problems have to do with the influence of multinational corporations on legislation, or the absence of laws (or enforcement) allowing multinationals to do what they want. This is made worse by international trade agreements, for example the recent Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership<\/em>, TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP, signed in February by its twelve member nations). These two treaties together cover more than 60% of the gross world product, which underlines the impact of these agreements. In principle, these agreements are consistent with the growth of globalization, but the disadvantages range from restrictions on cultural works (books, music, etc.) to unaffordable medicines in the Third World and an even greater power of multinationals over governments.<\/span><\/p>\n

Solutions could be found in introducing global legislation (and enforcing it). For example, Lester Brown suggests in Plan B<\/em> that we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 80% by 2020, stabilize the population at eight billion or less, eradicate poverty, and restore Earth\u2019s natural systems, including its soils, waters, forests, grasslands, and fisheries. Clearly, if we are to achieve such an ambitious plan, laws will have to be changed and new laws will have to be introduced. In the case of carbon emissions, even less ambitious plans would require new legislation. Emissions trading is not an alternative here \u2014 it was clear to every thinker from the start that it could never have worked.<\/span><\/p>\n

On the other hand, national constitutions (which should be the foundation of our constitutional state) often appear to have little effect on legislation. Legislation is often not enforced (in the intended manner). That is why we should also consider other options. A clear alternative is the bottom-up<\/em>-approach. The first thing that comes to mind is the association and demonstration of citizens, writing letters and other actions. In addition, technology can help. Bitcoin<\/em>, a decentralized crypto currency running on free software, is a good example of such a technology. But technology alone will not achieve our end goal. For example, if we Plan B<\/em> we need to change laws. Given that both the grassroots and technical approaches on the one hand and legislative approaches on the other hand seem incomplete (or unbridgeable), it would be a good endeavor to combine these different ideas, as the Pirate Party is trying to do.<\/span><\/p>\n

If there were a world government, it would in principle be possible to introduce and enforce global legislation. This could be a solution to many world problems, although there are questions surrounding the feasibility, desirability and necessity of creating such a global political authority. In the case of a worldfederation<\/em>, in which nation states retain much of their sovereignty, questions of feasibility and desirability (tyranny argument<\/em>) are less important. As for its necessity, the argument already given suggests that a world government is necessary<\/span><\/p>\n

The World Federalist Movement (World Federalist Movement<\/em>, WFM<\/a>) was founded in 1947 by those who saw that the structure of the UN was too similar to that of the League of Nations, which had failed to prevent World War II. Both the UN and the League of Nations are loosely structured organizations of sovereign nation states, and have little autonomous power. A world federation, on the other hand, could resolve global problems in a much more direct way than international anarchy currently does, assuming it deals with them at all. Combined with a principle of subsidiarity, it would also only<\/em> global issues (e.g. the negative effects of free trade or climate change).<\/span><\/p>\n

The influence of the WFM<\/a> is smaller than originally proposed. Nevertheless, it plays an important role in our society and influences global governance. Recent projects of the WFM<\/a> are:<\/span><\/p>\n