In my recent blog The existential threat of nationalism, I touched on how nationalism and populism are an existential threat to humanity and that I would explore what is to be done in another blog. Well, this is it.
I would like to go further and add that democracy is an existential threat to humanity, or at least the form that we currently have is. It all comes back to the role of the nation state, a subject that I have covered in two previous blogs, The Nation State and The Limits of Democracy.
You see, democracy stops at the border. The UK can form a government, voted for by the people, that makes laws that are fine for the country and its citizens but are detrimental to residents of other countries. As an example, the UK Is short of doctors, so it introduces legislation to pay them more and reduce the barriers of entry to doctors from developing countries. The doctors duly come to the UK and cause a significant threat to the healthcare system of the developing countries. How can this be fair?
World citizens are paying the price of legitimate UK democracy.
Another example would be the development of a super weapon along the lines of the nuclear bomb or the cutting down trees in the Amazon, or one country’s desire to go to war with another, or indeed the ability to set differential taxation rates that cause money to be moved out of the reach of authorities.
In our evermore connected world, today’s problems are global problems and can no longer be solved by separate nation states going their own way. To move humanity forward and indeed to keep it alive, a pan-global political approach is required. Nation states must cease to exist and not be allowed to intervene in the affairs of the world.
As a suggestion the globe should be split into constituencies that represent a similar number of people and they get to elect a representative every four years to a World Council, perhaps a quarter per year. A constituency of 20 million people would give about 350 elected members. A member would not be allowed to stand for more than two terms and each year the World Council would elect, from amongst its own, a chair who would not be able to vote and only chairs proceedings
The World Council would meet to decide on global issues and would have military backing to enforce these rules where necessary. All other militaries would be disbanded.
Could this be an end to war, and end to inequality and an end to human made climate change? Unfortunately I don’t think humanity will live long enough to see such a change.