World Government: General Introduction

World government: A system so favourable for humanity yet favoured by so few.

We live in a world that is today divided into separate political entities called nation-states. It does not necessarily have to be so. Nationalism is the most universal ideology prevailing in politics, and the premise that the world should be divided into separate states is the most universally accepted political principle today. There is a whole field of international relations devoted to studying this anarchic world order of nation-states, studying and detailing every aspect of it. There have been endless debates about the nature of this system—but few even think of questioning the starting assumption of a divided world. The time has come for us to look beyond the nations that divide us to unity amongst all humanity, under a World Government.

Thinkers have long considered the idea of a single global authority, from ancient dreams of an empire conquering the world to sophisticated federal proposals in recent decades. The 1940s, in particular, saw an upsurge in activity from people calling for a federal world government above nation-states, which fizzled out with the establishment of the much lesser United Nations and the beginning of the Cold War’s rivalry. In the 21st century, world government has so far been almost a dead idea, with only the isolated contribution and for the most part being dodged in favour of the more fashionable term ‘global governance’. It is perhaps an anomaly of politics that an idea with such scope enjoys almost no consideration in the discourse.

Yet unlike every single article, book, or publication I have read about world government (over 55, ranging from the Enlightenment to the present), I do not adopt the stance of methodological nationalism. I do not start with the assumption that separate states, or nations, are a given or necessary part of this world. And freed of this assumption that has hobbled the visions of earlier thinkers, I present a far-reaching and bold concept of world government in these papers. World unity does not have to be undertaken within the context of present nations; rather the existence of these nations is secondary to the pursuit of unity.

I define a world government as a state and authority covering all of humanity and all of the earth; it is to be a government ‘by humanity, of humanity, and for humanity’, not groups or nations. It is to be the sole sovereign authority amongst humanity, and there will be no sovereignty at any subordinate level. World government is to be accompanied by the social, economic, and cultural unification of humankind, not of nations and groups but of individuals as Homo sapiens, of people moving beyond their group consciousness to embrace their common humanity. True world government is when the state interacts with and serves the citizens of the world directly, rather than treating them only as members of a nationality.

Let me be very clear here: I am not talking about a world federation, but rather a world union. A federation consists of joining divided entities together, whereas a union fuses them into one. The prior literature on world government consistently discusses and sometimes assumes it to be a federation, again linked to methodological nationalism, yet none have advocated true global unity. World unity is not about nations or ‘peoples’, it is of all individuals as human beings. A shift from ‘we the peoples’ (the opening words of the UN Charter) to ‘we the people’ is, I believe, long due.

Nationalism has come to occupy such an entrenched position, that the label is reserved only for its extreme manifestation in politics; and to a certain degree it goes unnoticed in daily life. ‘Nationalist’ in common usage refers only to people who are, say, particularly bullish on immigration, or advocate war to defend national interests, or passionately articulate a grand narrative of national history. Yet just about everybody in society identifies with a nation and its interests, and displays patriotic behaviour—they should also be included in the category of nationalists. I take an even broader definition of nationalism in political theory: it is the fundamental premise that the world should be organized into multiple separate and sovereign states, based on or associated with an identity group. This is something that goes all but uncontested both in politics and by the wider population.

The depth to which nationalism is entrenched in our society also goes unnoticed—it has internalized everybody in the world, so hardly anyone can think objectively about it from an outside perspective. Try and think of one person you know who is not a nationalist in the sense described above. But the world is more than merely the ‘international’; there is more to humanity’s global existence than merely the interactions between nation-states, and the two cannot be equated. ‘International’ falls short of capturing humanity in the same way as ‘interfaith’ or ‘interracial’. That is why, even as most thinkers have discussed the world order in terms of nations, these papers deal with the whole world rather than the sum of its parts.

The opponents of world government, till now, have yet to raise objections of such strength as to demolish the concept entirely and justify its absence from consideration today. Most mainstream thinkers in international relations dismiss it in a sentence or two, or on a side note, usually by claiming it is impractical or unforeseeable without proper justification. Other theorists attack a straw man version of world government—depicting it as a dystopian empire and deploring it, without applying the same standards of politics they do to nation-states. At worst some of them have even resorted to ad hominem attacks—labelling supporters as naïve idealists and wishful thinkers, unaware of ‘real’ politics. Besides being logically fallacious, these approaches are not helpfully contributing to the discourse. There still are a number of serious objections, though, and I will devote significant attention to addressing these.

I appeal to not just political thinkers but all the people of the world to give world government a fair hearing, and not to dismiss the idea in five seconds or minutes by falling back on the ‘impractical and undesirable’ trope without a full consideration of the arguments involved. This is an idea that has revolutionary potential to address many of the world’s greatest issues and create a better future, so to dismiss it a priori is to do a huge injustice. The dismissal from thinkers in IR and politics, often as ‘I do not see it happening in the foreseeable future’, is more indicative of a lack of imagination than principled argument. That will not suffice, even more so after my attempt to build a comprehensive case in these papers.

Globalization in recent years has come under heavy attack from nationalism and populism in politics, with the word ‘globalist’ being used as a pejorative. Its liberal, pluralist conception is increasingly being abandoned by even its own supporters in the face of the rising tide of nationalism we witness today. Bogged down by the baggage of its association with neoliberalism and pluralism, many people see it as having harmed the nation and its population in some or the other way. I shall establish and present a new form of globalism – worldism – with a stronger vision to breathe new life into globalization. The advocacy for world government so far has been too nuanced and defensive, but in the face of nationalism running roughshod over everything there is a need for more compelling rhetoric.

This is important because the previous arguments for world government have predominantly been on a fear basis, claiming that unless global authority is established, the nature of nation-states’ behaviour will plunge humanity into an existential crisis. Initially made in the context of nuclear weapons, its scope has recently expanded to include the environmental crisis and pandemics. With every day that such a catastrophe does not happen, such arguments become less convincing, even though the issues they raise remain just as much a danger. The fear argument already has the prudential upper hand, but struggles with mobilizing social and political action. That is why I endeavour to complement it with a stronger positive vision that drives people towards achieving an ideal, rather than just avoiding harm.

I appeal again to the people of the world to keep the idea of world government in perspective and treat it as an eye-opener. Whenever you see a political problem facing humanity, take a moment to reflect on how the situation would be under a world government. Next, we shall turn to exactly these problems that the system of nation-states brings.

(revised 10-09-2024)