"Global democracy is obviously out of the question since the world’s people are incapable of collective deliberation, decision, or supervision of their supposed representatives." James Kalb, Crisis Magazine. In a one-world government, all nations would succumb under one governmental system, it would transcend national boundaries, all borders would be opened, and every nation would adopt either the same currency or the same language, or both. The advantages to this idea are seemingly endless, with the possibilities of almost all major wars being prevented, one currency being used, faster modernization, infrastructure, and relief of disasters, natural and man-made. There should be a major decrease in gang-related activities, slavery, child soldiers, drug economies, human trafficking, etc. Based on these potential benefits, one might come to the conclusion that a one-world government could work and is actually a good idea. Unfortunately, there are too many circumstances, variables, and risks involved regarding this proposal, which is why a world government will not work, well not under our current circumstances.
Hear me out.
As stated before, there are a plethora of pros to this concept, but it is unfortunate that the cons outweigh them. In this speech I want to address the disadvantages to this type of government, specifically what will guarantee it to fail: There are questions, such as will every nation be on board? Some countries like North Korea, Vietnam, or China might oppose a democratic government or even the concept of world governance. How the world will religions feel about this? Many Christians believe that the Bible speaks of there being a world-government established during the end-times, a revelation revealed in the book of Daniel. The possibility of a revolt or major pushback is high and will put a dent into these plans since 2.4 billion Christians currently occupy the world. The loss of one's identity is very important and will be in jeopardy if this is enacted. In the official definition, it is stated that global governance will "transcend all boundaries" meaning all borders will be opened. Like I said before, all currencies would either be the same or boiled down to a few, world languages would most likely be replaced with Mandarin (Chinese) or English, and our national and cultural identities would more than likely be stripped away; That last possibility might not sit well with many Americans and others who are heritages are based on values and traditions. The world will end up being a huge melting pot, where many people will flock to the largest cities due to the ease of access, possibly creating overpopulated areas in the most popular cities. They are also three huge questions that will need to be answered: 1. What if the government becomes corrupt? 2. What country or countries will be involved in the decision-making procedures, will it be all of them or a select few? And 3. What if a majority, even 1/5 of the countries are stubborn or do not want to participate in the process? Will they be excommunicated, cut off from supply and help, or will they be forced? The worst-case-scenario is the government being corrupted and World War III, one that will be fought because not everyone wants to join together. These reasons alone, are why the theory simply cannot work.
Conclusion
Ultimately, a world government could be possible if the leaders of the world really wanted to try it. The EU has been very successful in its combination of countries. Though they are made up of 28 out of 195 countries in the world, with many having their own system of operation. There a too many risks invovled and people who's own identities will be lost against their own will. There will be laws that over 100 million people will disagree with. Tensions, religious conflict and backlash, uprisings and a likelyhood of rebellions is possible. If there is a corrupt world nation, War World 3 almost inevitale, and the end of the world will be loming, it is safe to say, a world govenrment will not work.
