POWER
Reluctance to the surrender of power or independence has been another source of even stronger and more numerous instances of disfavor for group organization or cooperation.
By way of example, when the United States was being formed as a union, there was a great deal of reluctance on the part of many within the individual former colonies to surrender their states' powers and independence to a central government. This was partly attributable to a fear that the newly formed United States would bully them in much the same manner as King George had done. But, in this instance, the concern was dealt with by means of a kind of compromise, wherein the new nation would be structured in a federal fashion. Thus, a federation of states, each continuing to retain certain of the powers that it had formerly possessed, at the same time relegated certain powers more appropriately exercised by a single central sovereign power, to the new government that was thereby created.
Later, the United States' refusal to join the League of Nations similarly rested upon a refusal to grant power to an entity that was outside of, and theoretically superior to, our national government. In particular, the heart of the controversy centered around Article X of the League's Covenant, which required member states to come to the aid of any member who was attacked. Opposition sprung from the idea that this Article had the potential to compel the U.S. to go to war without the approval of Congress. It has been said that, ironically, our failure to join, and thus contribute force and effect to the organization, eventually resulted in a Second, even more tragic, World War.
In other cases as well, leaders within a country often avoid joining into a multi-national institution or program because of a distaste for the possibility of being dictated to by foreigners. For example, this is why Malaysia did not wish to join the International Monetary Fund program in 1997. It is hoped that this sort of attitude will diminish as globalization becomes more and more a fact of life for our world. For the dictates of local leaders have on occasion proven to be blindsided, self-interested, unwise, or unjust; while those of guiding and directing persons or organizations--whose roles are derived from competence and capability, rather than location within the four lines of some political border--may actually be more wise and beneficial.
On other occasions, nations have been said to be not yet ready to transcend their national interests, and thereby submit to a superior power within a world order. It is hoped that, with time, these tendencies toward unwillingness to abdicate national power in order to join into and become part of a greater, more powerful, and more efficient worldwide power, will diminish. This is particularly likely as individual people within these nations learn about and realize the advantages to be had in a single, logically planned and operated universal guiding body.
In certain parts of the world, particularly remote and inaccessible regions, rule is frequently on a very local level, and in the hands of fiercely independent tribal leaders. In the past, such leaders have even resisted integration of their peoples and territories into their own respective governing states. How much less favorable would such rulers be toward abandonment of their power, and contribution of their subjects and regions into an international order? But there is yet hope, even in such cases. For as the world grows smaller, and exposure to worldwide amenities and media, such as radio, television, and the computer, inevitably grow and circulate everywhere, it is doubtless that individual persons will learn about, and begin to inquire into, what may constitute an advantageous alternative to their current condition. People can be kept subjugated--but not their eyes, ears, and minds. And so, as the young among such groups come of age, it is possible that progress toward the conversion of the world into a unified entity will be taking place; and that, thus, even such unlikely regions could eventually seek to become a part thereof.
Such a phenomenon of leaders' reluctance to relinquish power has been witnessed, for example, in parts of Africa. During the wave of commencement of self-rule which swept the continent during the 1950s and '60s, a plan was proposed by some African leaders, including Kwame Nkrumah, Ghana's first Prime Minister, for the creation of a Pan-African Union. Coming at a time when independence was somewhat novel to these former colonies, such a union could not be effectively achieved on account of refusals by many newly created ruling groups to fuse their power into a continent-wide whole. A body known as the Organization of African Unity was eventually founded in 1963. However, it is said to have been less than influential or effective due to the divisiveness of the various independent African states who were its members. It was thus disbanded in July, 2002, and replaced by the African Union, which continues to function to this day. Here too, it appears that globalization and increasing exposure to worldwide media will cultivate a desire on the part of the people of Africa themselves for a more equitable share in the rewards of the twenty first century. And, hopefully, this will eventually further soften resistance to unity on the part of their leaders.
Even in relations within the seemingly successful confedration that is the European Union, we learn of instances where individual states are at times not ready to contribute some element of power or independence for the sake of the common good. Thus, former Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato criticized such an impasse, in June, 2003, at a conference entitled "the Convention on the Future of Europe," whose purpose was to codify relations among the members of the Union. He referred to "too many member states...defending themselves instead of sharing power at the European level to make things better." His words were an attempt to encourage delegates to put aside such outmoded ways of thinking for the sake of the common good.
* * * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment