Create better United Nations
The role of the United Nations is only vaguely defined in some respects and aims primarily at conflict prevention and coordinated development. As a result, the actual capacity for action of the current organization remains limited. All kinds of measures are integrated into the system to reduce the importance and to limit the power of this structure. Should it be strengthened or is it just a bloated circus?
The organization was launched in the aftermath of the terrible First World War under the designation of the League of Nations and to a certain extent improved after the even more terrible Second World War under the name United Nations. The main concern was to avoid warlike conflicts on a similar scale or even worse following the development of even more destructive weapons. But despite some positive changes in the creation of the second version, the main points remained completely unresolved. These mainly concern the power relationship between very different countries. Only already existing, widely recognized nations were accepted and often completely different in their area, the number of inhabitants, the linguistic unity as well as the respective cultural characteristics, economic interests, ecological connections, ideological structures, religions and genetic decent. But, moreover, the basic concept of favoring the ideology of independent nations of the nineteenth century has not been seriously questioned, despite the fact that the Earth as a whole will only survive as a network of cooperating units, a concept which long has already been accepted economically. It is also very visible in the need for ecological and cultural cooperation.
These constituent nations, however, fear that those United Nations will be only a super nation to which they are subordinate. Most of the loss of power would be felt by the biggest nations, which are therefore particularly reluctant to allow to the UN a stronger role. The individual countries are, however, slow to learn what their role might be in the complete organism, which the Earth as a whole represents. Certainly, this organism is not made better by just giving more importance to its head. The cells of this organism must simultaneously learn to cooperate in a better way. Consequently, the functions of the borders must be revised and improved.
A working model can be the cooperation of biological cells in a living organism. These perform their function within the organism best if they form partly permeable membranes around them which correspond to the borders in a political or social context. The permeability should be regulated by stimulating or inhibiting means, which must be under the supervision of the governing legislative bodies. While in independent units only the survival of the own cells is decisive, higher and certainly better common principles take over this role in a coherent organism. Therefore, inherent dynamics could exist for the promotion of such a higher developed system, as in the case of living organisms, which have corresponding intrinsic dynamics for their own development.
What are the main difficulties in creating a better balance in a regulating super-structure? It is not only important to avoid conflicts, but also to promote a better exchange through the common promotion of economy, ecology and culture. Some specific points of view need to be mentioned in this context. Firstly, there is up to now no decision-making process as to the extent to which the number of inhabitants, the area of the region or other factors such as the respective economy, ecology and cultural or other existing structures are to be taken into account in the distribution of seats in a possible common political representation. Any change in the assessment of these different aspects will affect the composition of this representation. This fact should not be allowed to be the beginning of power struggles. Secondly, there is absolutely no method to guarantee a fair participation of minorities. This aspect includes a fair participation of women and the unemployed, as well as any other minorities who receive more votes than a certain threshold (percentage of them) in a certain electoral region. It is important, but not simple, to define at an early stage what is meant by "certain". Thirdly, the organization should have its own area where access can not be hindered by others. The financing and protection of such an organization must be ensured, as at least in the initial phase this is certainly at risk from areas or countries, which lose parts of their current power.
A simple initial proposal would be to buy an isolated island and
transfer ownership directly and completely to the organization. The
organization is above all the widely accepted separation into a
legislative, an executive and a judicial branch, with two smaller
units for current decisions and for public representation, which
correspond to a prime minister and a head of state. The entire
funding is probably the most delicate and difficult problem of all
the initial issues to be solved in connection with this still utopian
proposal. But the strong conviction of the need to tackle this vast
task should not let us despair, but agree to advance the project,
which is so welcome and valued for support by a large majority of the
world 's population and also of a large percentage of the groups
A reasonable size of Parliament could be about 350 MEPs. This figure is based, among other things, on the fact that the total population of the world is about 7 billion. This would result in a not unnecessarily high number of national representatives, each with a deputy for about 20 million inhabitants. Gradually, more independence could be given to each of these electoral areas, so that the population could decide for themselves about the various types of border traffic.
The fundamental problem would be where these future internal borders lie, the meaning of which would understandably gain in importance in the future. Clearly, these borders are by no means always those of already existing countries, which are often highly disinclined to abandon their sovereignty. This transition should be made attractive in order to avoid conflicts. But the insight is important that soon self-regulating forces will gain the upper hand for the benefit of all. People have to learn to understand this step by step.
In practice, the possibility of partial failures must be considered. Living organisms have self-healing properties, either locally or as a whole. Technical devices are usually equipped with fuses to limit local failures. Similar procedures can certainly be created. However, such specific problems are difficult to understand in the initial phase for laymen and must first be solved by experts. Voting may follow later, but require knowledge from the electorate. To convey this is another important point which affects schools of all kinds as well as public communication (Internet, TV etc.).
Is this really a utopian suggestion? The overall advantage will surely decide this important question. Certainly, there are many leaders who are afraid to lose influence in such a transition. Earlier changes of this magnitude were mostly beyond the possibilities of reform and were carried out by revolutions, which meant bloodshed and the death of a considerable percentage of the people and have to be avoided in the future.
However, it seems doubtful whether the democratic principles that are now available make a solution possible. There are serious reasons that these are still not recognized by all, and perhaps not for good reasons. The principles of democracy and the distribution of power are subject to mutual influence. The problem of improving the United Nations is primarily the problem of improving democracy, with the emphasis on the weighting of votes. Has the voice of a young person who has just reached the age required for the right to vote have the same weight as the voice of an elderly person experienced through lifelong participation in such processes? Does education and economic power play a role here? Or is poverty the biggest problem?
In school, young people learn that different things can not be compared. For example elephants can not be compared with camels. This kind of comparison changes however, if not all properties, but only a few of them are selected. But which ones and how many?
This question can, however, at least be substantially simplified by the concept of four dimensions in nature and in the world. It is therefore the task to limit the number of dimensions to four also in the policy dealing with power issues. This would provide a far better basis for weighting the votes in elections in such an improved democracy.
According to an own reasoned proposal, these are the rationality between perception and thought, the personal power between feeling and fitness, the biological abilities that can be classified between assertiveness and sexuality, and the societal effects existing between the reach of influence and any activities.
At first glance, this seems to be a confusingly complicated picture, but this should be simplified and made more practical by increasingly widespread knowledge. This would be a task for all, both from individuals and from higher-level organizations, thus both a learning task and an educational task. Individuals and the community must generally work together and gradually reduce the influence of existing concentrations of power.
After the weak League of Nations and the certainly not perfect current United Nations, this can lead in the future to an improved structure.
© Copyright (All rights reserved) Hans J. Unsoeld, Berlin 2017
Updated July 26, 2017