World
government. Thirty years ago I read Mortimer Adler’s How to Think About War and Peace and was convinced. If world peace
is ever going to be achieved, Adler argued, there would have to be something
like a world federation of democratic states. I found concurrence in statements
by Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II, as well as the Second Vatican
Council. To this day, I acknowledge world government as the ideal. If, in order
for autonomous individuals consistently to achieve their common good, some form
of government is necessary, then in order for autonomous governments
consistently to achieve their common good some form of world government is
necessary.
I
say world government is the ideal. Whether the ideal is practicable is another
matter. Suppose it isn’t. Suppose in the real world human beings are such that,
while in principle they could work together internationally to achieve peace,
in practice they simply won’t acquire sufficient moral virtue to will as they
ought for their own real good and the common good of the human family? Suppose
they simply won’t ever attain the practical wisdom and moral virtue to organize
six billion plus people into one political/economic community of mutually
respecting nations, all collaborating for the global common good? Surely that possibility
shouldn’t take a Catholic by surprise. A whole strand of Augustinian political
thinking is skeptical about the long-term viability of democratic government on
a national scale, much less on a global one. Indeed, one may well argue that
given man’s sinful proclivities, a peaceful one-world democratic community
won’t be seen this side of the Eschaton.
Even
Adler, ever the optimist about the possibilities of democratic government,
insisted that it would take 500 years to achieve the goal of a moderately
peaceful, democratic world federation, assuming human beings didn’t manage to
destroy themselves in the meantime. Toward the end of his life, he reduced that
to 300 years, arguing it had to happen more quickly if it was to happen at all.
In
any case, as Adler and many other political philosophers make clear,
establishing a truly democratic world government is no mean feat, requiring
transcultural agreement about fundamental ethical questions and human rights,
not to mention a minimum of universal education, moral virtue, and economic
stability. We are, the optimistic Adler insisted, distant from anything like a
global culture, with commonly shared ethical principles. To which I say, if
commonly shared ethical and democratic values are necessary for democracy to
thrive in a nation- state, what does that mean for the prospects of a world
democratic state, in the world as it is today and is likely to be for the
foreseeable future?
As
things stand today, achieving a world democratic federation in half a
millennium looks like a best-case
scenario.
Now
the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace has released Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in
the Context of Global Public Authority. Even though Catholics are not
obliged to accept the policy proposals of this “note,” many Catholics will
nevertheless want to hear what the council says, and others are likely to be
influenced by it, even though it does not represent “the Vatican’s position” (contrary
to what some media accounts and some leftwing Catholics would lead you to
believe).
The
recent global financial crises, the document tells us, are due mainly to an
“economic liberalism that spurns rules and controls.” “Economic liberalism” isn’t
defined, but we are, I think, supposed to read this as referring to “free
market capitalism.” No evidence for the claim is given, nor are the roles of
statist policies and increased government spending in creating problems
considered. But, in any case, the claim itself serves mainly as a set-up for the
case for an “authority over globalization”—a world political authority and its
complementary economic entity, a central world bank, that can regulate
political and economic affairs in the interest of the universal common good of
nations. Here is where abstract principles and ideal scenarios fail adequately
to grapple with the real world.
To
be sure, the document doesn’t envision a world authority springing into
existence overnight—it refers to a “long road” toward world government. It
refers to global authority being established “gradually” and it discusses some
obstacles to be overcome. It talks about subsidiarity, cooperation, consent,
and consensus in the global community. All wonderful things, of course.
But
consider how many functioning democracies there are in the world. Ask yourself
how well they’re doing. Then think
about all the governments that claim to be democracies but aren’t—half the
world’s population resides in such fully authoritarian and predominantly authoritarian
regimes. China alone represents a fifth of the world’s population. Why should
we suppose these regimes will become democracies anytime soon?
Even
if someone waved a magic wand and overnight the authoritarian regimes
dominating half of the world disappeared, would the three or four billion
people of these nations be ready to govern themselves? Would they be in any
position to establish representative governments founded on the recognition of
human rights? Would they be prepared to set aside centuries-old or
millennia-old grievances and collaborate with their mortal enemies to establish
internal peace within their own nations, not to mention international peace with
their neighbors? Would they have the cultural, moral, educational, and economic
wherewithal to govern themselves? The naivety it takes to say “yes” to the
above makes George W. Bush’s comments about the universal longing for democracy
look like stark realism. And that assumes we could make the world’s
authoritarian regimes just disappear, and does not address the enormous
problems of global economic management.
The
fact is, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace might just as well call
for the establishment of Star Trek’s United
Federation of Planets. It would have just as much likelihood of providing
solutions to our problems in your lifetime, your children’s lifetimes, or their
children’s lifetimes.
Between
the council’s ideal and the real world there is a chasm so large it boggles the
mind that anyone could read the newspapers and discuss a world
political/economic authority without intending thereby either to consider an abstract
thesis in a political philosophy seminar or to sketch the plot of a science
fiction film.
Really.
Set aside Iran or China. Ignore the immense problems with the EU or the US
economy. Say nothing about Mexico or the rest of Latin America. Pretend like
North Korea or Syria doesn’t exist. Imagine there is no militant Islamic surge
throughout the Middle East. Can anyone look at the situation of, say, the
various internally and externally divided nations of Africa, with their
conflicting visions of the good society, and seriously talk about world government
as a goal to be achieved any sooner than the distant future, if ever? That is,
unless by a World Authority one means a Global Hegemon?
If
the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace is trying to make the Catholic Church
sound as if she’s living in a fantasy world or trying to portray Catholic social teaching
as completely irrelevant to real world problems, I’d say, “Mission accomplished.”
If, on the other hand, the council wants people seriously to think about the
problems of globalization, it’s going to have to demonstrate a much better
grasp of political and economic practicalities, as well as the limits and
dangers of international solutions. At the risk of sounding like an End of the
World visionary, I suggest we should temper our enthusiasm for world-authority
solutions by re-reading the Catechism of
the Catholic Church, paragraphs 675-677, and by consulting the Book of
Revelation, chapter 13.
By
all means, let’s discuss global problems and possible solutions. Let’s
recognize the dangers of nationalism and the imbalances that exist between rich
and poor nations. Let’s not overlook the weakness of international capitalism
or pretend the free market has all the solutions. Let’s have a good
philosophical discussion about world government, and its long-term prospects, if the world endures for a few more centuries.
But let’s remember that, historically speaking, those who have tried to act on
their talk about a world political order have wound up being tyrants.