To answer the question Can we have world government, we must understand two questions: one is What would be the use and necessity of a world government; the other one is In what extent would it be possible? A government is a system, form or organization by which a community or other political unit is governed . Does globalization today imply that the world is ready for a supranational organization that would carry the badge world government? Indeed, Howard argues that Gradually, under the pressure of globalization, supranational entities are coming into having the power to override the authority of sovereign states. Although today's world is getting in some way more and more global (countries more and more interdependent), diversity and inequalities have not yet disappeared, nor are they likely to be in a good way of being eradicated. Considering this, we may wonder whether a world government would help resolve problems such as inequality: would developing countries benefit from it, or would only dominating powers manage to get something out of it? The answer obviously depends on the constitution of this government. There have been
various attempts to build a supranational entity, and each one of them has brought new useful lessons, either good or bad.
[...] So how can the countries of the world come to a common agreement for a Constitution, when they have such divergent points of view, especially as regards to democracy, a value so much cherished in the Western world? The second objection to a world government would be the difficulty of having every country fairly 2 represented for decision-making. Regarding all the diversity of the world, a federal organization would seem the most relevant. But what would be the representation of each country? [...]
[...] These institutions need to develop a new formula that would help less powerful countries function on a global scale. According to Edwards we need to put into place a “framework of rules and standards established and implemented through more democratic means” He mentions a statement of Peter Sutherland who insists on the necessity that poorest countries have a fair say in negotiating this framework. Otherwise there will be few dissenting voices, little real debate, and no answers that enjoy enough support to make them work” . [...]
[...] But there are other reasons, more pragmatic and probably less idealistic for which we need a world government. In the past few years, the world has changed probably faster than it has ever done Globalization, although not affecting evenly all parts of the world, has made countries more and more interdependent and cooperation more and more necessary. An important part of the population, today, have more interests in the decision taken on the international scale rather than on the national scale. [...]
[...] This country, where freedom of speech and basic human rights are not respected (this was symbolized by the Tiananmen event of 1986, where students were massacred by PRC officials while protesting), has nevertheless given economic freedom to its people; and this has enabled China to become the gigantic economic power we see emerging today. So how can the countries of the world come to a common agreement for a Constitution, when they have such divergent points of view, especially as regards to democracy, a value so much cherished in the Western world? The second objection to a world government would be the difficulty of having every country fairly 2 represented for decision-making. [...]
[...] Thirdly, what would be the real benefits of a world citizenship? A world government considered as the next episode of the globalization of a capitalist economy could be a danger to the preservation of a countries national identity. In our global world it could mean one identity, one culture, one religion and no more diversity . Aldus Huxley describes this threat in his famous satirical fiction Brave New World , where the people have but one way of thinking, one way of living, one set of rules to follow. [...]
using our reader.