SOME SUGGESTIOHNS REGARDING A PROPOSED WORLD GOVERNMENT (cont.)

I believe that the eventual guiding and directing body that I have referred to a number of times herein ought include the following amongst its properties and policies:
a.  A purely civilian composition, excluding any and all military involvement in its operation and functions.
b.  Enforcement capability--so that factionalism will not by chance rear its ugly head again; and so that what is objectively determined to be the logical best steps in a given situation will have an opportunity to be carried out and thus proven.  I have stated several times in the past that arms and armies will not be needed in a united world--for there would no longer be individual nation-states to do battle with one another.  However, a mild to moderate police presence would need to be in place throughout the world, in order to protect everyone, and to prevent crime.  Further, although a dictatorship is in no wise intended, a strong single worldwide enforcement capability must be created and maintained for the purpose of dealing with unlawful episodes of revolt, terrorism, ad other such behaviors which should require the use of lawful force against the perpetrators, solely for the preservation of peace and the restoration of order.
c.  The ability to undergo modification as and when required; so that the fact that perfection is unable to be attained in this world will continue to be recognized and dealt with; and so that experts and professionals who shall participate in the process of guidance and direction within the world government will be enabled to make such adjustments as shall be objectively determined to be necessary, in the light of then-current events and conditions.  I attribute the success had by the United States, concerning its Cponstitution, as well as in regard to its functioning as a government, to the fact that both said Constitution and its body of law are somewhat like living organisms.  Both are ever subject to modification and improvement, as time and events require it. 
d.  Equality before the law for all human beings; and the extension of humane and impartial treatment to all who deal with, or are affected by, the law in any fashion.

                                                                           * * * * *

On the other hand, it is my belief that several things would be best omitted from the properties and policies of the aforesaid government:

a.  Federalism

By "federalism," I refer to a structure of government that constitutes a sharing of power and sovereignty between a central government and local geographic governing entities.  I have recommended a number of times herein that the world's guiding and direcing body be formulated in such a way that its exclusive agenda constitute only that which has been objectively determined to be the best course of action, for the sake of maximum benefit and security for mankind.  By reason of this, a united world should be guided and directed by but a single central governing body.  Competition or conflict between two different levels of government, or other such governing entities, would be counterproductive toward this end.  Moreover, competition or conflict between two or more governing entities would presage, and might promote, a return to factionalism--which I have attributed throughout these writings with being the element behind most of our current problems.

Of course, the vast worldwide governing body would itself need to establish divisions and subdivisions of its own for the purpose of administering its resources and services regarding its different purposes and functions, as well as within the world's various local regions and places.  But they would nevertheless be but subdivisions of a single governing body.  They would not adopt regional characters of their own--which could progress to comprise a renaissance of factionalism. 

b.  Special Interests

All citizens of the world must be afforded equal rights, equal opportunities, and equal treatment--whoever and wheerever they happen to be.  It is time to recognize, and to finally put an end to, any instances or practices wherein the body of government that is supposed to be safeguarding and promoting the happiness and security of the many is in any way operating for the benefit of a special few.

c.  Strictly Representative Government

While the "will of the people"--as an entirety, and not as separate individual factions--must always be determined, considered, and complied with, pure blind conformity to the demands of the largest or loudest group expressing such demands ought not always be the basis for the policies and actions of government.  Under our traditional representative system, the "will of the people," or that of the leaders they have elected or submitted to, has not always been the most advantageous or beneficial for the group who so expressed it--and certainly sometimes even less so for some or all of the others who have reaped or suffered the consequences thereof. 

It is but common sense to realize that what is actually and objectively the best means for humanity as a civilized society to live together in peace and security is not always what the largest or most vociferous group of our fellows happens to demand.  Moreover, election of officials based purely upon "popularity" might itself serve to resurrect factionalism, and bring about an unanticipated end to world unity.

In the United States, our system of representation comprises a number of elected legislative bodies consisting of individuals who are aware of, and promise to act in accordance with, the expressed wills and preferences of their respective constituencies.  Granted, these members are free, and expected, to resort to their own individual judgments as to how to act or refrain from acting, including how to propose legislation, and/or vote, in regard to particular issues or circumstances.  In short, they are more than simply obedient hirelings; and each is expected to utilize his or her particular competence and experience in arriving at wise decisions and practical determinations while so serving.

But representation as we know it today has also come to produce a somewhat dubious phenomenon known as "lobbying"--which fundamentally consists of individuals hired by special interests attempting to convince our representatives that they ought to favor or oppose one thing or another.  Lobbyists are frequently unconnected with the interests whose causes they plead; but are, rather, simply "hired guns."  Moreover, the causes or objectives they advocate arise from a surprisingly myriad array of places, organizations, and interests.  The methods employed in this "convincing" process may be ethical and/or legal pursuant to our present rules.  But, as we can readily imagine, and as our news broadcasts of late have occasionally demonstrated, the borders between propriety and impropriety may be, and probably are, sometimes transgressed.  Furthermore, pursuant to the "elected representative" system that is in place as our presently accepted format, if our elected legislators are truly our representatives, it should be their duty to determine what their constituencies want and/or need--and to utilize the same to consequently construct and propose legislation, as well as to favor and/or oppose issues that come before them, in accordance with this knowledge.  Were this the exclusive rationale fueling our legislative process, I should think there would be need for few, and probably no, lobbyists in Washington, or anywhere else today.

Moreover, beyond the issue concerning lobbying, "representation" in its present form does not actually seem to constitute true adherence to the principles of representation in other respects as well.  Rather, it seems to often comprise but a complex process of wrangling concerning, and eventual effectuation of, concepts and policies that may neither be upon the minds of, within the "wish-lists" of, nor beneficial or harmful to, all or most of those whom the representatives are supposed to be representing to begin with.

Representation in its present mode is also accompanied by a great deal of campaigning--and for some representatives, the need to campaign occurs so frequently that it seems to interfere with their carrying out of their legislative duties.  The American Constitution purposely made the terms of the lower legislative chamber short--i.e., two years--in order to insure that these Representatives would be in close and frequent contact with the people they represented, thereby having to "answer to them" via the campaigning process.  This, in and of itself, sounds favorable for those constituencies.  But instead, such campaigning has of late become but a mere series of appearances, short peppy speeches, the handing out of flyers, and little more.  Moreaver, as has been stated above, enactments that are proposed or carried to please certain interests, or to court reelection, are not necessarily the enactments that will be the most beneficial for the members of such legislators' constituencies.

                                                             * * * * *