Say you want a revolution,
or five
By Sohail Inayatullah
For centuries, world politics has been organised around nations and
their official functionaries -- with artificial borders drawn up, separating
French from German, Australian from New Zealander. But this could all be blown
away as technology and political movements reshape our understanding of world
governance.
We are in the midst of five "revolutions" in how we govern ourselves
that are as pivotal as the transition from the medieval to the modern world and
as important as the great leaps forward in computer and bio-technology. They are
the rise of global government, world corporations, people power lobby groups,
the internet and fundamentalist politics.
As it was during the French Revolution, when it was not clear who was
winning -- the merchants, the aristocrats, the people or the Church -- today's
revolutions as well are occurring in almost simultaneous waves.
And, as with the French Revolution, which remains a watershed point in
Western history (reducing the power of the Church and nobility), these changes
in governance mark a dramatic departure from centuries of politics being organised
around nations and their official functionaries.
Revolution of global government
This is a revolution from above, a globalism of size and power. It is a
strengthening of regional and global government, and their respective
institutions. The most obvious is the European Union. Less successful but equally
noteworthy is ASEAN.
Related to this revolution from above are international organisations
such as APEC, World Trade Organisation, the World Bank, the IMF, the
International Court, the World Health Organisation, and the full range of
United Nations organisations.
They are all vying to become more than just a voice of the member
states. They want to be able to advocate ways to best manage the transition
from nation-states (as the main actors on the world stage) to regional blocks
and international institutions.
These transnational institutions have an impact not just on conventional
politics, but on all areas of life: from the regulation of work, media, trade,
oceans and climate to atomic energy and space travel.
Revolution of money
Another revolution from above, and just as important as the
transnational institutions, is business.
Corporations have moved swiftly to become economically more grand than
many nations. Their wealth in players such as GE, Microsoft and the large banks
-- while appearing to be limited to the private sector -- in fact shapes global
public policy.
So much so that Professor of Peace Studies and winner of the
"alternative Nobel" the Right Livelihood Award, Johan Galtung, argues
that a newly arranged United Nations should not only have a house of people,
direct voting, and a house of nations, but a house of corporations as well.
Such a move would give them legitimate, but open, power and
institutionalise the private power they already have.
The success of corporations in shaping what we think about, what we
eat, how we work and consume is one of the main reasons they will be
transformed, eventually becoming global citizens, with clear rights and
obligations to local communities.
People's power
This is a revolution from below: a globalism of the people. While
corporate globalism creates wealth, people's globalism is focused on economic
democracy – through community co-operatives -- to create a more sustainable world
where relationship to self, nature and others is central.
These are 1960s-style ideals, of people's power, student power, but now
transformed into the local/global politics of international non-government
organisations (NGOs).
These include groups like Transparency International, Amnesty
International, Greenpeace and Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
Some NGOs take stronger advocacy positions, moving from efforts to
solve the latest crisis to addressing the deeper causes of crisis. For example,
instead of just asking for more government help in child care, women's groups contest
the division of public/private concerns, where men dominate the public and
women bear the burden of the private.
Instead of just organising for more women in government, they contest
the maleness of industrial politics, seeing statecraft as essentially
male-craft.
However, the future challenge for these people's organisations is to
live up to the ideals they espouse, dealing with their own petty tyrants and
bureaucracy.
Cyberpower
This is the electronic revolution: a globalism of technology. Less
concerned with specific political issues -- be it nuclear testing or the melting
of the Antarctic -- the internet will allow for direct global referenda.
As with the idealistic NGOs, the guiding vision is "we are the
world", but the linking agency is the internet, not some Jungian idea of
the collective unconscious or spiritual ideal of the superconscious.
While there is a certain inevitability in the rise of
cyberdemocracy,
many ask: Can the people be trusted? What are the limits to democracy? Should
there be direct voting on all issues, or just on issues that don't deal with national
defence and security? And what of those not quite net-fluent or affluent?
Those questions can be worked out as we enter cyberia, but more
important issues are:
Whether the electronic
village will more likely be an electronic Los Angeles. Anonymous, faceless communities
pretending to be in relationship with each other -- Blade Runner here we come.
Whether cyberdemocrats can
work out the difference between good direct governance and the art of
leadership.
Back to the past
This is a revolution of a fantasised past: whether it is Slobodan
Milosevic remembering Serbian past traumas; or Pauline Hanson taking Australia
back to a world when men were men, when time was slow, when neighbours were
friendly, when you clearly knew that the enemy was in some foreign land, and
had different eyes than you; or the BJP in India reinvoking Rama Rajya, the
ideal kingdom of Rama, when humans were moral and did their yoga regularly.
The revolution is particularly against multiculturalism, postmodernism,
genetic technology, virtuality, and multinational corporatism. It is a
revolution against anyone who is different, from afar, of all types of
globalism (the movement of capital, ideas and people). It is a lower-middle
class revolution.
It does not intend to overturn capitalism or end the nation-state,
rather it reinforces the nation-state through the slogan of one god, one leader
and one people. The ideal governance structure is not an issue, traditional
moral values are.
Which revolution?
Which revolution is most
likely to dominate?
Which revolution will change
the world the most?
While all transform how we govern ourselves, most likely, in 50 or so
years, we will have a world governance system, but probably not a world
government; strong global community groups balancing large corporations;
"virtual" governance on local issues but not binding (over-turnable by
the executive and legislature).
For Mr Mark Luyckx, of the European Commission's Foresight Unit in
Brussels (advising on emerging issues in politics, religion and technology),
the challenge for all of us is to ensure that global governance is not merely
about transplanting national institutions to the global level, but about
changing the nature of institutions. It is about making them more
gender-friendly, more humanistic, more transparent, more culturally inclusive,
and more future generations-oriented.
Equally important is the task of inventing social institutions that can
better manage the transition to an advanced technological multi-civilisational
society.
Building bridges and negotiating our many differences (including the
structures of power/hierarchy embedded within them) and creating shared
realities will be the most important challenge for a globalised planet.
To survive and prosper at all levels, we will need a vision of
governance that is neither the nationalism of the modern world nor the
everything goes of the postmodern, nor the traditionalism of the feudal. Mr
Harlan Cleveland, former US ambassador to NATO, terms it the "different
yet together" approach to world governance.
If all goes well, eventually over many decades, we will likely see an
ecology of identity, where being human first is far more important than which
passport one carries. Of course, multinationals, internet service providers,
and NGOs will all make claims on who we are -- issuing their own
"passports" -- but with luck we will slip through these identity
boundaries keeping self, ideas and capital, while always grounded in the local
economy and community and being mobile.
If we do not embark on this alternative future, we will create a world
in the next century that is ungovernable for all of us.
The loss of national legitimacy and authority will create a world so
utterly chaotic that, as with the French Revolution, a king will emerge, and he
will desire only one thing -- order!
Which future do we want?
Dr Sohail Inayatullah is a political scientist and futurist.
© This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use,
copying or mirroring is prohibited.