Five revolutions in how we govern
ourselves, in what we consider legitimate government stare at our faces. These
include: a revolution of size, the emergence of global institutions; the
globalization of capital; cyberdemocracy; people’s movements; and the return to
an imagined past.
All make the nation-state far more porous
than it has ever been. This does not mean, however, that the power of the
passport office has been reduced, indeed, as governance changes the boundaries
of conventional political life, efforts to maintain tradition will become even
more pronounced.
These revolutions are the drivers creating
the possibility of a range of different worlds, of different metaphors of
governance for the future.
Metaphors of the Future
These new worlds include
1. Mountains apart - a world where different interests groups are far
apart in their ideals, and have no way to understand each other.
2. Clash of Civilisations, a postnational view of the world where
individuals identify more with their cultural and religious roots and less with
nation or corporation.
3. Gaia of civilisations, an idealistic vision of the future where we
become all interdependent, where the perspectives of ecology and complexity
best describe the future,
4. We are the world, an idealistic vision of unity, of spiritually or
electronically linked self-reliant communities,
5. King of the Hill, a realistic approach to world politics, with the
goal that of dominating others before they can do you in. This vision can
devolve to feudalism, or kings of many hills, or evolve upward to the emperor of
the mountain, the one leader above the planet.
6. Related to this approach is Father Come Back, the Confucian ideal of
the wise male ruling other, providing a link between Earth and Heaven.
7. The last approach is that of building bridges, creating a transmodern
world where differences are acknowledged, but similarities are sought. It is
this vision that in the short term best offers hope for the next century. Former
ambassador to Nato, Harlan Cleveland, believes it is this view which he calls
Different, Yet Together that will help us find our way in the difficult
times ahead.
While these might be general images of the
future of governance, to understand which future is most likely we need to
investigate the revolutions creating the future.
Size and Power
The first is the revolution from above - a
globalism of size and power. This is the 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, International Labor Organisation, and the full range of United
Nations organisations.
They are all vying to become more than just
a voice of the member states, to move from representing the views of nations to
advocating specific positions on how best to manage the transition from
nation-states as the main actors to regional blocks and international
institutions as the main actors. These institutions impact not just politics but
all areas of life, from the regulation of trade, oceans, and climate to atomic
energy and space travel.
However, Marc Luyckx, co-Director of the
European Commission's Forward-Looking Unit believes that the most important
factor and resource in creating new models of governance is cultural.
Believing that this century heralds the end
of the modern nation-centric world based on secular enlightenment ideals, Luyckx,
ever the visionary, imagines a transmodern world, where transnational
institutions are just one type of governing organisations. He believes that
civilisation will be the other, a dramatic revolution from above, which, of
course, since civilisation is also about each one of think, eat, see nature,
think about business and god, is as well a revolution from below.
But unlike the famous Huntington, who
believes that civilisations will be at war with other (the image of the future
as that of an unending clash of basic ideals) - Christianity against
Islam against Confucianism, Luyckx prefers to imagine, following the Indian
philosopher Ashis Nandy, a gaia of civilisations. Civilisations
interlocked with each other, engaged in cultural and economic exchange,
dependent on each other - a multicultural garden. Nandy as well, even as he
imagines this grand revolution from above, believes it will come from below,
from the local. Cultures have always existed in dialogue with each other, in
plurality, it is especially in recent modern times, that culture has been used
to divide peoples, to use the idea of fearing the other as a way to gain power,
as Hanson in Australia or Milosevic in Serbia know so well.
Money and Power
But as important as culture in this
revolution from above is business. Corporations have swiftly moved to become
economically grander 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 peace activists
such as Johan Galtung have argued 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. Writes David
Korten, editor of Yes Magazine that such a change would force
corporations to be more democratic and accountable to not just their
shareholders but to those whose lives they impact. Any view of the future of
governance that does not take into account how transnational corporations impact
how each one of us think, well at least what we think about, what we eat (the
food distribution channels, what is grown, with what fertilisers), is myopic
indeed.
People and power
The third is the revolution from below -
this is a globalism of the people, which often is seen as the opposite of the
revolution from above. Indeed, they can be seen as mountains apart, each
reflecting some basic urges of humans. Corporate globalism that of creating
wealth and people's globalism that of creating a more sustainable world for
future generations, where we walk softly on nature and treat each other with
more love and dignity, where relationship is central.
This is very much the ideals of the 1960s,
of people's power, of student power, but now transformed into the local/global
politics of international nongovernmental organisations, or ingos. These include
groups like Transparency International, Amnesty International, Greenpeace,
Women's International Network, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, People against x,
and the thousands of other associations working on consumer, gender, cultural,
environmental, spiritual, peace, war, violence issues. They are much more active
than the traditional Christian model of charity since they take stronger
advocacy positions. Some are single issue, and some have moved from just solving
the latest crisis to addressing the deeper causes of crisis, for example,
instead of just engaging in a tree planting campaign, asking why peasants in the
mountains are cutting down trees, or what the relationship between logging and
pollution are? Instead of just asking for more government help in child care,
women's groups contest the division of public/private with men dominating the
public and women bearing 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.
In Australia, it is claimed that these
nongovernmental organisations have greater representation than the traditional
political parties. This is so as they approach issues outside of the right/left
divide but rather focus on giving individuals and communities more power to
change the future. Instead of merely going to one's representative in parliament
and asking him or her to address the problem, they address the problem
themselves. These are often called the cultural creatives.
Essentially, while the revolution from
above seeks to create a network of international organisations to deal with
transnational issues, eventually leading to a world government, possibly by 2050
or so, nongovernmental organisations seek to create a more just, fairer, gender
equitable, corporate responsible local world. Of course, as organisations seek,
they find that local solutions are global, and global problems are local - the
future will see a mix of global/local organisations working simultaneously at
both levels.
The guiding model of the future is the
vision of we are the world. It is an idealistic vision, which believes
that people are essentially good. By joining hands and creating links worldwide,
the long dark era of greed and fear can be ended.
What they have not quite figured out is
that even as they work against gender discrimination, environmental pollution,
materialism and for transparency, multiculturalism, their own organisations are
not immune from these traditional and modern problems - essentially the problem
of bureaucracy, the battle between ideals and structures of governance. As
commentator Eva Cox has written, we need to pay more attention to Max Weber and
far less to Karl Marx. Of course, for these ngos, Marx is not the guiding
prophet since he saw the world only in terms of capital or labor power,
forgetting cultural, women's, indigenous and spiritual power.
Cyberpower
The fourth revolution is the electronic
revolution - this is a globalism of technology. Less concerned with specific
political issues - be they nuclear testing or the melting of the Antarctic -
they believe the internet will allow for direct referendum globally on all major
issues. Like the idealistic non-governmental approach, the guiding vision is
We are the World but the linking agency is the internet not Teilhard de
Chardin's idea of the Noosphere or some idea of the collective unconscious.
James Dator, professor of political
science, argues that representative democracy made sense when distance was an
issue, when legislators/parliamentarians had to travel by horse and buggy over
long distances. Since communication was slow, they had to represent the people,
but now the people need not be representative. The technology is there for a
world web governance system where each one of us can vote for issues affecting
us (and not affecting us as well). The details have yet to be worked out, and of
course, the implementation will be stage like. First, there will be
cyberdemocracy in the US, Finland, and other OECD nations, and eventually in
less advanced nations. This revolution challenges first not the nation-state
but traditional bearers of national governance. Of course, there will be
resistance from all parties. Can the people be trusted? How long of a cooling
off period should there be for emotional issues (this is Al Toffler's idea)?
Should there be direct voting on all issues or just one issues that don't deal
with national defence and security. And what of those not quite Net fluent or
affluent? But more important than these details, which can be worked out, are
two other issues. 1. Many people do not want to participate in political life.
They want to be left alone. Nice parks, roads and schools are far more important
than the grand issues of which civilisations will be in dialogue and which in
conflict, or what percent of the national wealth should go to the armed forces
and what to the olympic committee. 2. Creating an electronic village will be far
less likely than the future of an electronic los angeles, anonymous, face-less
communities pretending to be in relationship with each other - Blade Runner
here we come.
Certainly cyberdemocracy will be the
future, but will the Chinese have the same voting rights as the Americans? While
Australia has begun the task of linking remote communities through the internet,
for other nations, class/feudalism/wealth remain far grander obstacles to
creating a cyberdemocracy. Finally, cyberdemocrats have not quite worked out the
difference between good direct governance and the art of leadership, of
challenging humans to be more than they can, of giving direction, of wisdom.
Back to the Past
But there is a last revolution that is
uncomfortable to groups engaged in the above three - this is the revolution of
not the future, but a revolution of the past. It is essentially about realistic
politics, about determining who should be King of the Hill.
Whether it is 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 Taliban taking the Islamic world back to
a council of elders, or the BJP in India reinvoking Rama Rajya - the
ideal kingdom of Rama, when humans were moral and did their yoga regularly, this
is a revolution of a fantasised past. It is related to Father Come Back,
a model of governance where power is centralised in the strong male. Unity is
enforced, and differences are traded-off for strong economic growth.
The revolution from the past is a
revolution particularly against multiculturalism, against postmodernism, against
genetic technology, against virtuality, against corporatism, against all that
changes the stable agricultural world. It is a revolution against anyone who is
different, from afar, of all types of globalism. 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. It is a world that essentially returns us to monotheistic
religion, to a strong public/private distinction for men and women, to hard work
(men in industry and the fields and women in the kitchen) and savings (against
speculative trading).
Which Revolution?
Which revolution is most likely to be
dominant? Which revolution will change the world the most. Most likely, it will
be a complex mixture of interests - a world governance system but probably not a
world government; strong global community groups balancing large corporations;
virtual governance but not binding, that is, direct initiative and referendum
but over-turnable by the executive and legislature. The revolution from the past
won't go away, it will come back in the rise of individual leaders, in luddite
movements, in religious fundamentalism. As groups and individuals cannot manage
the rate of technological change, some will seek to arrest it, either through
non-governmental organisations or through conventional political processes (or
through more direct action). The more difficult task of inventing social
institutions that can better manage the transition to an advanced technological
society will largely be unattempted. However, these institutions must be
created, and must be done so in consortiums that include actors in all the
revolutions mentioned earlier, even the revolution of the past. It will have to
be an approach that Builds Bridges, that negotiates our many differences
and creates shared realities. It is a vision of governance that is neither the
nationalism of the modern world or the everything goes of the postmodern, nor
the traditionalism of the feudal. It is a vision of authentic diversity, working
together to create shared realities - and have strong global institutions to
monitor what is cultural relativism and what is evil - eventually over the many
centuries creating an ecology of identity, where being human first is far more
important than national identification.
If we do not embark on this path, we will
create a world in the next century that is ungovernable for all of us - where
the mix of types of power, levels of authority make a world so utterly chaotic
that a king will emerge, and he will desire only one thing - order!