Todos hemos soñado alguna vez en un mundo (posible) en el que los grandes problemas que afectan a la Humanidad se puedan resolver o, cuando menos, encauzar.
Hace algo más de un año escribí un pequeño ensayo, ante la convocatoria internacional de la Global Challenges Foundation para que los ciudadanos participáramos en un concurso de ideas que nos permitiera afrontar, en menos de un siglo, una nueva forma, global, consciente, de gobierno por y para todos. Lo llamé "Un parlamento para el mundo". Aquí os dejo el texto que preparé, por si os pudiera interesar. He eliminado las llamadas a notas a pie de página, que complicaban la lectura en una sola columna de texto. Eso sí, es un poco largo, advertidos quedáis...
A PARLIAMENT FOR THE WORLD
(A World Wide Parliament first approach)
“But we of the United Nations are not making all this sacrifice of human effort and human lives to return to the kind of world we had after the last world war”
(Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Message to the 77th Congress, Jan 6th, 1942)
“Hier, ivre de bonheur, il me fut impossible de retenir les larmes qui par instants coulaient sur mes joues; il me semblait que je voyais les yeux ouverts le plus beau rêve de ma vie: la République Universelle”
(Alexandre Dumas, Barcelona, november 1868, cited by Gerald Brennan in the prologue to the fist edition of “The Spanish Labyrynth”)
INTRODUCTION
The United Nations was born after the League of Nations in 1945 with an objective: to in some way unite all Nations in the world to make it a better place, or at least to try to find ways to communicate with each other in order to stop conflicts and wars. It has proved to be a model that, although sometimes successful, hasn't evolved fast enough for today's world necessities. Nevertheless, in spite of its flaws, UN is a common frame for most governments in the world.
This project, a Parliament for the World, presented to the Global Challenges Foundation, tries to give the reader a brief general approach to developing a better international cooperative framework for future generations, in a reasonable period of time.
This World Parliament is conceived as a natural evolutive step forward springing from the UN.
The idea is to start work based on the UN structure; UN is a well enough organized system for some internacional negotiations (although with failures) to help us start a series of steps towards a new movement with the intention of creating a more powerful international organisation to help and unite all the nations in the world. A kind of meta-government to overview, protect and nurture the whole of mankind as one world.
My departure models for development, are the USA and the European Union, two very interesting examples about how to create a multi-territorial government without compromising sovereignity.
This project would take years in the making and would need the cooperation and generosity of all the nations in the world. Not easy in any sense, but all trips must start with a first step.
THE STEPS
ONE- THE CONSTITUTION
First of all, all countries, governments or complex organizations need a “letter of intent”, a kind of Constitution document.
The first step for this global “government” would be a, let's call it, “Constitution for Mankind”, expanding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document should be approved by a certain number of nations under the UN flag (if not all) and this would be a “minimum” for all of them. In more or less 2-3 years, a document could be presented for a world-wide consensus.
This document would be created by a special committee constituted by the UN with the collaboration of other UN agencies, such as UNICEF, WHO, UNESCO, etc. to gain a maximum consensus.
The aim would be to get this signed by the 193 countries under the UN flag as a first step.
TWO- THE PARLIAMENT
The next step would be to create a “World Parliament”, analogue in some senses to the European Parliament. With the Members of the Parliament eligible in each country the same way -and within the same dates- they are elected for their own national parliaments.
To implement such a Parliament would take more or less 2 to 4 years, and the Parliament would need to have a good, strong “core” of countries together within the Project and to continuously invite more countries to join in.
THREE- THE FUNDS
Regarding budgetary necessities, each country should pay to maintain this new World Parliament, an amount based on its GDP, population, etc.
Some countries would be donators, and others, those in a process of development, mostly receptors, but this condition would be temporary.
Maybe the World Bank would supervise the use and spending of funds.
FOUR- THE CORE
An initial core of countries, for example today's members of the UN Security Council, although the “power of veto” would have to slowly diffuse and disappear (more about that, later).
Each country might propose a certain number of “invited” countries to add to the World Parliament, in a similar way as the European Union has been doing with new countries, from the original 12 to todays's 28, until all the nations are represented.
The idea would be to create a common objective, a desire and a necessity for the countries to be a part of the World Parliament. In some sense, the European ERDF funds are a good example, as cohesive funds aimed at creating a more homogeneous Europe, in terms of economical development, etc.
This would be a good reason for many countries, most of them in development, and/or launching into Democracy, to accentuate changes which improve the lives of their inhabitants.
FIVE- THE SEATS
The number of seats in the Parliament from each country would be calculated using the method of Proportional Representation with a maximum of 100 seats per country.
Also a way to help citizens’ commitment to the Parliament would be implemented. For example, a number of citizens, not affiliated to any Political Party, would be part of the Parliament, either through collaborative citizen participation models, in the vein of movements such as ProDemos1, or the Open Government initiatives2.
A model of participative and transparent e-government3 should be implemented also4.
THE WORLD PARLIAMENT
Maybe in 5-10 years time a World Parliament for the 194 countries in the world could be a reality. That would mean adding 10 countries each year, all of them previously signing the “Constitution for Mankind” document in the first instance.
All incoming countries should sign an agreement, as happens in the European Union, to receive/give funds and be part of the Parliament with certain compromises and deadlines: the laws created by the World Parliament should be applicable in all member countries, Human rights, Democracy, elections, etc. Of course in every case the application of certain “world laws” would take more time, and in the first few years this World Parliament would only act as consultants.
Of course, we are not talking about a “world government” stricto sensu, but about a way to create common goals for all the nations in the world, common goals which need world consensus, but in the end binding ones. For example, Global Climate Change, or Human Rights, treatment of POWs, potential conflicts, etc., etc.
After 10 - 15 years, the World Parliament might be a reality with perhaps a handful of rogue countries which sooner or later would accept being part of this “meta-parliament” for all citizens of the world. In any case, those rogue countries would be a minority and would be treated with special care in terms of help, funds, etc. to finally get them on board. The European Union is a good example for its new partners, with generous funds and all kind of help.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
THE LONG AND WINDING ROAD TOWARDS A WORLD CONSTITUTION
The way to such a government for the people, intended for all nations to work together in the benefit of human race, would be painful, slow, and full of obstacles, as all human enterprises are. But the benefits would be enormous.
The European Union has changed Europe's face completely. After all these years and despite multiple errors, now people from Spain can live and work in Berlin and travel to Rome using only their Spanish ID cards. This mixture will grow in the future, and nowadays, the spectre of war among the members of the European Union looks impossible and remote for the first time in this continent's History.
The same happened in the USA during the 2nd half of the XIX Century after the Civil War, for similar reasons, but more rooted in past history, and hence more visible for us as an example which took more time. Those successful models of cooperation among states and countries give us hope to consider that maybe a World Parliament would be a wonderful tool for Human progress.
There's a common ground: when countries cooperate and work together, the possibility of a military conflict between them becomes unthinkable.
There is right now a serious issue of violence in the world, especially in civil wars and conflictive frontiers. In all cases, when people start to work together, conflicts tend to resolve themselves.We need to establish a common ground for those rules, a “minimum common denominator” for all nations in order to try to live in peace for the future of Mankind and for the good of our survival as a species. Those conflicts are not only in terms of wars, but may occur under other circumstances: market conflicts, international trade conflicts, globalisation, etc.
So, we need a minimum common set of commandments for all countries in the world, to have a good start, to create a good base enabling us to build a solid future. This would be the reason for this first document, this Constitution for Mankind, as a basis for the World Parliament.
WHY THE UN AS A STARTING POINT?
The reason for developing this global organisation based on the UN structures is that in this institution some of the best experts in the field of international relations work, most governments are represented there, and that, after all, the prestige of the UN is still there.
This would be a quantum leap over the UN structure, similar in ambitions (but with a worldwide spectrum) to the one that took us from the League of Nations to the UN itself in 1945, as commented above. The UN is a common frame recognized by most countries in the world.
THE LAWS
How to extend such norms, laws worldwide? How to make them compatible and non intrusive with local laws on a country-by-country basis? What about sovereignity issues and conflicts?
That's one of the most complex objectives. There are some interesting research projects on this subject that we should pay attention to. One is RENEUAL (Research Network on EU Administrative Law)5, which focuses on finding a common set of laws in administrative law terms for all the countries of the European Union. Their experience in such a complex field would be very interesting.
THE EU AS A ROLE MODEL (ESPECIALLY ITS MISTAKES AS A CASE STUDY)
The EU, more than a role model, is also an example, in some cases, of bad policies and serious mistakes, especially due to the lack of response to the necessities of the citizens of the Union to have their voices heard in the European Parliament.
The European Parliament has made some very bad mistakes, and those are good examples of how things should not have been done. Nowadays Europe as a political entity has developed into a monstrous machine of bureaucratic generation, directed by a sort of benevolent technology, far away from real European necessities and ways of thinking, and nearer to speculative investors, banks, and transnational companies.
Those bad sides of the European Union are very visible in the Economical and Financial policies of the Union, the European Central Bank behaviour, and the sovereignity issues over nations’ own economics, very strongly shown in the sad case of Greece. Also, the incredible degree of secrecy and lack of transparency surrounding the negotiations of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)6 are good examples of how things can go very wrong7.
And, worst of all, the EU policies about refugees have been shown to be really shameful. There is a common nexus between all those sadly wrong policies, all of which have been decided without consulting the population of Europe, by a group of people that consider themselves “more informed” and in a “better situation” to make “big decisions” and laws that may affect the lives of millions. So, the constitution of new laws in the World Parliament should be carried out under particularly careful conditions of transparency, and control by citizens in the world. Negotiations may slow the process, but those are the heart of a good and healthy democracy.
THE BLOCKING OF NEW LAWS AND PROPOSALS
As happens in the UN, conflicts will be an issue, and the approval of many new proposals will be blocked. A mediation team should be put into motion to give priority to resolving disputes involving sovereign countries. This should be given great priority.
ESCALATING CONFLICTS
In case of wars and/or violent escalations of conflicts between countries, other countries nearby with the help of others of election should head a peace committee in order to intervene and organise conversations. A Peace Corps analogue to the blue helmets should be created if necessary, or those (UN berets) should be used.
INEQUALITIES
Most of the suffering in the world comes from inequalities among people; education, health, and especially money, payment for work, or slavery. One of the main goals of this organization would be to create a more equal world; a place where the place you have been born shouldn't be a condition for your future life. Easy principle to enunciate. Extremely difficult to make real. In any case, we all know that the world produces more than enough wealth for all the people living on it. The problem is how to distribute it. We are not talking about an extreme solution, but about considering ways and ideas to diminish the present day horrible inequalities between people.
Anyway, this should be a main objective, with some concepts in mind:
-Help to countries in development, in terms of funds and technical/educational/technological support.
-Developing a worldwide universal salary for every person alive to fulfill his/her basic necessities for his or her lifetime. Some countries are trying similar policies. Their success or failure will be a good example.
-To design a common reference fund (in the long term) would help, as the Dollar and the Euro are now reaching a common reference point in parity, creating in all ways a kind of meta-coin. Maybe a virtual coin should be a solution to study and experiment in a first stage.
-The end of all kind of slavery.
A WORLD COURT
One of the best ideas in the EU has been the European Supreme Court. Every country in the EU has to accept its veredicts and apply them in their legislation. This has proven very important and useful in terms of civil rights.
As an example, in Spain, a lot of laws still stem from the times of Franco’s dictatorship (and even from the XIX Century) and have not been renewed. As a consequence, to use a recent example, people are evicted from their houses for almost no reason. The European Supreme Court has imposed on the Spanish courts certain changes which have helped Spaniards to have their civil rights respected. This, for example, is one of the best examples of the good aspect of the EU.
THE WORLD LAWS
In a similar case, the laws emitted by the World Parliament should be of application in all countries under its umbrella; in terms of sovereignity, this may be an issue in some countries, and as a result, most laws designed by the World Parliament should be created very cautiously.
The EU has used those provisions badly. For example, imposing the deficit obligations over all European countries constitutions has proven a dangerous option (see the example of Greece), and the Euro as a unique coin without properly defined central banking and without a common economical policy has showed how a good idea -a common coin- can be a problem without an adequate legal design backing it up.
Both ideas, World Laws and World Court, should drive all nations to a common ground of laws to benefit civil rights. This would be a painful slow path, but in the long term would be a really wonderful goal.
THE GOAL
The idea is that, after more or less 20 years, and springing from a Special Committee in the UN, Humanity would have a World Parliament at its service, with a strong base rooted in a Constitution for Humanity (Humankind).
THE PROCESS
1- Creation under the UN flag of the Constitution for Humanity (Humankind), expanding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to be signed by agreement of all the UN members. First core: the members of the UN Security Council, plus the other European Union members, each one inviting to sign to other 10 countries.
As a first example: USA, Canada and the European Union could be the first signees, together with big players, such as China, Russia and Japan. Then the Commonwealth countries could be add (Australia, South Africa and New Zealand), and other significant countries, such as India, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Israel, Palestine, Pakistan, etc.
Time: 5 years.
2- Design of a World Parliament, with elected Members from all the countries that have signed step 1. Elections for the World Parliament would be carried out the same day that parliamentary elections happen in each country, for economic reasons. During the first few years the World Parliament works under UN flag, and under its budget. Each country accepts in a step-by-step negotiated process, the World Parliament new Laws to be part of its laws in a lapse of 5-10 years after each law is developed and approved. And after a reasonable time, country members start contributing with funds to the World Parliament.
Time: 5 – 10 years
3- Invitation to other countries. The core of original countries which sign would have a collective policy to help other countries reach some economical, human rights, and development objectives, with a deadline of more or less one or two decades. A more homogeneous world in terms of human development would come from this, and then things would be easier.
When World Parliament reaches the mark of 60% of the countries in the world, each will be contributing to its budget, inviting further countries with funds for development. New countries will have to accept a core of fundamental Laws of the Parliament, such as the Mankind Constitution, in order to be part of it. New laws will have its deadlines each, in agreement with those countries. In this case, funds will be the most important way to attract countries to this new Parliament.
Time: 10 years
4- When all countries in the UN are in the World Parliament, the UN decides to dissolve itself, or continue being a part of the World Parliament. With this change, the UN Security Council disappears, together with the veto right of some nations. So the veto ends in a natural way.
Time: 1-2 years
5- Countries still develop in an autonomous and sovereign way, but the applicable (and general) laws created in the World Parliament are now part of each country’s laws. Those laws would go initially towards universal concerns: Human rights, Terrorism, Climate Change, Communications, Internet, Tax Havens, some of the objectives I have commented above, etc.
Time: Simultaneously during all the process from 1 to 4.
Total time: around 20 to 25 years.
THE SUCCESS STORIES, AND THE FAILURES
We now know what works (USA is a wonderful example, also most of the European Union constitutive elements), and what doesn't work (The European Union central economy decisions have proven poor, some ideologies over scientific evidence have proven catastrophic when applied to laws, as previously commented), and we can do the job with those success stories as a reference (and some of its failures in mind).
Of course, nothing will be easy. Wars will be there, conflicts will be there, terrorism will be there; hunger, natural catastrophes, global climate change, disagreements and confusion will be there. But sooner or later, things will begin to change. Some fast changes may cause strong contrary reactions as a response, so all those events must be carefully thought and prevented.
Unexpected challenges will appear without any previous signal. Nothing disappears in a matter of days, months or even years (in Spain, my country, we are still paying the consequences of our Civil War, happened 80 years ago, and the Franco Dictatorship. Also, mindframes coming from the XVII Century, even laws, are still here, in our collective mind as Spaniards; same happens, mutatis mutandis, in all countries around the Globe).
This is a goal for maybe 20 or 30 years, and the number is more or less arbitrary. Maybe it will take double the time or even more. Perhaps a century. But the goal in any case should be the same: a World Parliament to help mankind work together in some affairs, and to understand that collaboration and cooperation is the only way to survive. The prize is really valuable: a Humanity more capable to work together and to pull together.
CONCLUSION
A World Parliament with all the countries in the world under its flag would be a way to help countries develop, and to create a true common spirit of collaboration between nations with a common frame. Politics is the art of the possible, so my proposal is to make it spring from the existing UN structure or from one of its agencies. UN is still the only world reference where countries can sit and discuss issues.
More than ever, all people in the world are in the same boat. This boat is named Earth. It is our home and the only place we can live in (as of now). As a species, and as a condition, Humanity should evolve to collaborate and cooperate if we want to survive.
1. Core Values.
Decisions within the governance model must be guided by the good of all humankind and by respect for the equal value of all human beings.
As noted above, the basis of the World Parliament would be a Mankind Constitution, used as a basic guideline and based upon the Human Rights Declaration.
2. Decision-Making Capacity.
Decision-making within the governance model must generally be possible without crippling delays that prevent the challenges from being adequately addressed.
As happens in the European Union, where the European Parliament laws apply in all countries of the union, this should happen exactly in the same way with the World Parliament. Signing to be part of it implies to accept this norm, applying deadlines, etc. Also, the e-government initiative to be implemented should be crucial in terms of initiative design, transparency, accuracy, supervision, etc.
3. Effectiveness.
In order to effectively address the global challenges and risks, the governance model must include means to ensure implementation of decisions.
Again the European Parliament policies about its laws applying to the member countries, a series of means to ensure the implementation of those laws (mostly economical) should occur.
4. Resources and Financing.
The proposed governance model must have sufficient human and material resources at its disposal, and these resources must be financed in an equitable manner.
As noted above, all member countries would pay in a percentage based on their population and GDP as financial resources for the World Parliament.
5. General Security.
The governance model must guarantee international security and prevent disputes from escalating into war or other large-scale armed violence. Nations and ethnic groups must be guaranteed protection from external attack and must receive assistance in handling internal disputes fairly.
This should be a natural consequence of the implementation of the World Parliament, as happened within the European Union. Needless to say that some army force would be needed, as the UN Blue Helmets.
6. Flexibility.
A successful governance model must allow revisions and improvements of its structure and components.
The World Parliament would have its norms under perpetual study, to be changed if they don't reach its objectives, with ulterior revisions. As cited above, the e-government initiative will be very important in this side of the model.
7. Accountability and Transparency.
It is a fundamental requirement of a successful governance model that it performs the tasks it has been charged with, and that decision-makers can be held accountable for their actions. This includes mechanisms against abuse of power, which can invalidate decisions and actions that exceed the mandate of the governance model, and which can step in when it is clear that decision-makers and relevant institutions are not doing their job correctly. This requires transparency and extensive insight into power structures and decision-making processes.
A special committee of the World Parliament would be in charge of this, observing the application of the laws, and the problems and issues that would appear. Also, a World Supreme Court would guarantee the good behaviour of the decision-makers. The World Supreme Courd even might be able to judge a country in terms of human rights or minorities protection, for example, if we want a complete mechanism to assure, 1st that the World Parliament laws are implemented correctly on a country by country basis, and 2nd that the country governments (and members or leaders of the Parliament) are accountable for their actions and decisions.
Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. April 7th, 2017.
La foto la tomé el pasado día 18 de junio de 2018, en la isla de La Palma.
Gracias a Margaret Nicoll por las correcciones del texto.
