The Martlet

The world needs a global government. So obvious a statement, yet so controversial.

The idea of an ultimate sovereign at the global level, one that would supersede the authority of the individual state, scares people.

The political right sees it as just another level of bureaucracy to impede the market’s efficiency. The political left imagines hedonistic individualism running wild under the lustful gaze of Big Brother, or a slave-master dichotomy with the heel of the global oligarchy pressed firmly against the throat of the masses.

Other groups, notably Evangelical Christians, see a global government as signs of the coming Anti-Christ.

Political scientists describe the international system as anarchical, meaning there is no centralized government. But there is a growing body of international treaties and regulations, as well as transnational institutions that resolve conflict, like the World Bank, International Court and the UN. They all represent, to varying degrees, levels of supranational governance.

But governance is not government. And there is no government to set “ground floors” for global society. Things we take for granted, like minimum wages, clean drinking water, sewage and roads are all regulated by our government, for better or worse.

By our point in history, the basic necessities of life should be available to everyone. But that can’t happen until there is a global centralized government.

To be blunt, I see it as the inevitable next step in our social evolution. Anthropologists talk of a social evolution that goes from clan-based (the extended family) societies, to tribe-based (multiple clans), to chiefdoms (multiple tribes), before finally the modern state.

The next logical step is regional groupings like the European Union, before finally a global federation with laws binding on every citizen of the planet.

There are signs of its progress. The European Union and the UN being the obvious ones, with other regions, especially Africa and South America possibly “unionizing” sooner rather than later (relatively speaking).

A less well-known example would be the “terra.” The terra is one possible name for a proposed global currency. It’s also been called the Dey (as in Dollar, Euro, Yen). American Republican Ron Paul declared the current money system “dead” and discussed the movement toward a new financial regime based on a global currency in November 2008 (you can hear his take on YouTube).

I can see climate change being the catalyst, the so-called punctuated equilibrium that moves this evolution along. Or, perhaps it will be the increasing scarcity of fresh water that forces the nations of the world to unite under binding rule of law.

Of course, there’s going to be resistance. The three groups mentioned above will all struggle violently to keep it from happening. And they’ll be fed fuel by those that would actually lose out: the global oligarchy.

Now, I’m not crying “conspiracy.” I don’t necessarily believe that the top CEO’s of the world meet in some little cabin in Siberia to plot out world domination. It’s nothing that covert. Rather, transnational corporations just kick us square in the nuts and tell us what it is we want, and we believe it.

These corporations spend our lifetimes convincing us of the evils of government. And watching the way the U.S. managed their hegemony, it’s easy to be convinced. But that’s because we let them dictate what “government” actually is.

Look at the example of a global government. We, the people, are convinced it’s a scary idea. Meanwhile, international unions and global currencies are being planned behind closed doors. Sure, our elected “representatives” are sometimes present, but in today’s western liberal democracies, our presidents and prime ministers are really nothing more than elected corporate project managers.

When a global government becomes inevitable, past the tipping point to borrow the parlance of the day, the global oligarchy will “voluntarily” create a political system. One that maintains the status quo. This gets us world institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and UN Security Council.

That leaves us two options: accept the rule of our corporate overlords or be proactive in shaping tomorrows institutions of government.

But to pursue the latter option, it is first necessary to overcome our fear of government so that we can collectively create a form of government we don’t need to be afraid of.