NationStates Jolt Archive

This is all just unfeasible hypothesising, but it's an interesting academic issue. Would you be favourable to a UN Parliament, i.e. a world parliament, elected by the citizens of all its members?

I had never really thought about it until I came across this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Parliamentary_Assembly

Obviously it would be unfeasible for the time being, if only because the negotiations to decide on the workings of it would be endless, and because many countries in the UN are not democracies. (Brunei, for example, has no elections at all, I think.)

But let's look at it hypothetically, imagining it were feasible. Would you support the idea of an elected legislative body for the United Nations? For instance, an elected Parliament functioning as a lower (and more powerful) house, with the unelected General Assembly as an upper house? Representatives would presumably be elected country by country.

If you do think it's a good idea, the other issue is determining how many seats each country should have...

These are possible models:
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/8429/tbdfo3.jpg

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/6762/tbd2hv7.jpg

Any wild ideas on how you think this should work are welcome. ;)

No, I most certainly do not want a democratically elected UN legislature. I have enough trouble with the Federal legislature, the last thing I need is a body that can further cartelize states and screw me over.

a big issue would be that your affectively allowing bribing to go mad (a corporation could have its way over millions by bribing one MP)

what I see working is some form of extremely loose confederation almost to the level we have now any higher an you may as well kiss the environment goodbye

No, I most certainly do not want a democratically elected UN legislature. I have enough trouble with the Federal legislature, the last thing I need is a body that can further cartelize states and screw me over.

so you don't want planetary health care :p

I guess it's a good idea, but without military force to carry out it's procedures it would be an empty shell marriage.

Although who should be put in charge would be tricky, considering current politicians and public trust in them, i'd say now is not a good time for this to be put into action.

Actually i'm not sure how it would work, it would require a value consensus between it's members, which in real life we know this does not happen, i think it could be ruined without enough support.
Or in other words save it for another day let us deal with what we have.

No, I most certainly do not want a democratically elected UN legislature. I have enough trouble with the Federal legislature, the last thing I need is a body that can further cartelize states and screw me over.

The Milanese (or maybe the Genoese) had a saying: "It's better to be ruled by an Emperor a thousand miles away than by one in your own city."


As for the OP, I wouldn't see the point in it. We (for the most part) elect our own governments - local first, (then some state), then national (then some supranational). I would fail to see the real and tangible benefit to adding yet another layer of the process into democracy.

I'd be in favour of an elected UN World Parliament, however I would agree that it's powers should not centralize planetary governance to a great degree.

A loose international confederation would work best. Similiar to the current geopolitical situation, except there would be an elected and accountable UN government orchestrating various initiatives requiring international cooperation, such as an international space program, global warming and environmental legislation etc.

The establishment of a permament UN military would of course be favourable. These UN forces would act as stand-by peacekeeping forces, ready to act when an international crisis requires thier intervention. The current method of gathering an ad-hoc arrangement of troops from assorted countries is too haphazard, costly and slow.

Kofi Annan described putting together a peacekeeping force as "having to buy a fire truck before we can put out the fire."

There's no merit in this idea.

This is funny anyway considering that the US representative to the UN isn't even elected by the US, he is appointed.

As for the OP, I would see the point in it. We (for the most part) elect our own governments - local first, (then some state), then national (then some supranational). I would fail to see the real and tangible benefit to adding yet another layer of the process into democracy.

The idea is that a strengthened supernational body would be able to provide a universal framework for international relations, helping curtail wars and improve trade between nations. That might be a real and tangible benefit to such an arrangement.

Just as state legislatures have power within their own state, and national legislatures have the power to determine interstate relationships and matters of national importance, an international parliament would regulate international relationships.

Couldn't UN member states theoretically elect their representative in the General Assembly anyway?

No, I disagree with this for a number of reasons:

The UN should have more diplomats, not more politicians. It is, as far as I am concerned, supposed to be a neutral forum where representatives from across the globe can meet. To have elections would naturally have politicians get the seats, rather than have the possibility of getting good diplomats.

It is already essentially possible, in that countries can choose to appoint their representative through an election.

Couldn't UN member states theoretically elect their representative in the General Assembly anyway?

In theory, but there is no reason why they'd have to.

In theory, but there is no reason why they'd have to.
I was just wondering whether it is possible within the current UN framework, but it would probably have to be substantially reformed to take an elected UN chamber into account, I suppose.

Electing UN officials would only give the UN greater legitimacy, and that's a terrible idea.

Look what happened when the US started electing its senators. Boom - the government got bigger.

I think that something like that needs to be done, but as has already been noted, the UN would have to be able to ENFORCE its resolutions and 'Peacekeepers' are not the way to do it.

One step in the right direction would be to bring the World Court under the jurisdiction of the UN. Same with the World Bank. Any of these institutions that are designed to be planetary in scope would be a perfect fit to give the UN more ability to fund itself and to respond quickly with legal or financial matters.

That said, I don't think it'll happen in any of our lifetimes. The Idea of 'imperialism' is still too fresh in the collective memories of many countries, and even if the 'New' UN would be a perfect Democracy, too many would reject it as a loss of their precious sovereignty despite the promise of addtional economic and political stability.

It's similar to the American Colonies before they banded together to form the United States. They all had their own economies, some even their own local currencies. It was difficult to get them to abandon those 'freedoms', but they were all made stronger for their sacrifices. The United States is by no means a perfect example of a diverse political hierarchy, but I think it's the largest and most stable example that currently exists, and could be used as a VERY basic template. (City > County > State > Country > Region/Continent > World)

The last thing the UN needs is more power. Giving people the right to vote gives the UN a reason (Albeit an idiotic one, but look at Iraq) to intrude into our lives! ISN'T THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ENOUGH FOR YOU PEOPLE! Jeez, you'd think that the US's current situation would serve as a detterent to other nation's people...

No, I most certainly do not want a democratically elected UN legislature. I have enough trouble with the Federal legislature, the last thing I need is a body that can further cartelize states and screw me over.

What he said.

I would strongly support this if it can be worked out in a workable way. Maybe give each country the option to determine how to send its delegation. The body would need somewhere around like 500-1000 members. Apportioned so each nation gets at least 1 member.

Alternatively, it could be done with proportional representation and parties are started...which is probably the safer route since parties are likely to form anyway. Have it open list or something.

A couple of points.

1. George Monbiot wrote a terrific book in a similar vein, The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order, in which he called for the following:
- a democratically elected world government
- a democtatised general assembly & the abolition of the undemocratic security council
- an international clearing house to discharge trade deficits
- fair trade organisation to regulate world trade

I highly recommend the book.

2. I'd be interested in knowing what country people are from when the post in this thread (I'm from Oz). It seems to me that world power has historically been exercised by those nations with the most military or economic clout. Currently the USA has that clout. Any democratic system works to reduce the power of the powerful in favour of the weak. I suspect that one reason many Americans oppose democracy is that it would reduce their nation's influence.

Well, would you give India and China proportional power? In other words, would you give three countries the ability to form a majority over the rest of the world?

Otherwise, it's not much of a democracy.

The UN could disband instead maybe? Though that would be a step in a better direction than giving to UN more power, which it would no doubt use to continue it's long, noble history of waffling.

The UN could disband instead maybe? Though that would be a step in a better direction than giving to UN more power, which it would no doubt use to continue it's long, noble history of waffling.


The UN needs more power not less. With more power maybe it would be able to actually stabalize the world, by, I dont know, maybe not letting the US just bomb countries at will?

The UN needs more power not less. With more power maybe it would be able to actually stabalize the world, by, I dont know, maybe not letting the US just bomb countries at will?

That doesn't really make sense. The UN has the authority to make stabilizing decisions, but it's member states would rather not do anything politically unpopular, such as enforcing the authority the UN claims... ergo the UN should be disbanded.

The US has been a greater force for stability in the world today than the UN, but... you know, nice try.

so you don't want planetary health care :p

No. What I want is planetary leave-me-the-fuck-alone.

The Milanese (or maybe the Genoese) had a saying: "It's better to be ruled by an Emperor a thousand miles away than by one in your own city."

Ah, but the thing is if he is just ruling over that city, you can always walk on over to the next one if he starts becoming a nuisance, and he will anticipate your actions and limit his depredations. With a world government, there is no place to hide, and there will be much more latitude for the ruler to abuse you.

That doesn't really make sense. The UN has the authority to make stabilizing decisions, but it's member states would rather not do anything politically unpopular, such as enforcing the authority the UN claims... ergo the UN should be disbanded.

The US has been a greater force for stability in the world today than the UN, but... you know, nice try.

Never mind the fact that all the countries in the Mid East we deem unstable were all either propped up by us, backed by us at some point in time, or were a reaction to dicatorships we propped up. And you know, we really stabalized Iraq...oh wait, thats right! It was actually a stable country before we showed up, and now its a fucking mess (lack of rights =/= unstable)!

If the UN had any power it could be a stabalizing force. As of now, it cannot be one because people can just ignore it.

Electing UN officials would only give the UN greater legitimacy, and that's a terrible idea.

Look what happened when the US started electing its senators. Boom - the government got bigger.

I don't even think I have a response to this one.

And by the way:

# of successful states put in place after forcible removal of the old one

UN: 7/8

US: 4/8

I don't even think I have a response to this one.

And by the way:

# of successful states put in place after forcible removal of the old one

UN: 7/8

US: 4/8

Thank you.

Lol @ Conservatives: ZOMG New World Order, Free Masons, our sovereignty!!!111 UN!11

The US has been a greater force for stability in the world today than the UN, but... you know, nice try.

If by "stability" you really mean "hegemony" then yes, the US has quite a lot of economic and military force projection in that regard.

The problem with the US/UK trying to act as world policemen is that they are singular states with thier own agendas, and all of thier attempts at nation-building and peacekeeping always have ulterior motives. Iraq and Kosovo are prime examples.

The UN is an impartial international body whose decisions are ultimately devoid of ulterior motive, since it relies on consensus between a broad array of countries whose individual agendas are all but cancelled out by one another.

Ah, but the thing is if he is just ruling over that city, you can always walk on over to the next one if he starts becoming a nuisance, and he will anticipate your actions and limit his depredations. With a world government, there is no place to hide, and there will be much more latitude for the ruler to abuse you.

-.-
*sigh*


You've missed the point of the saying completely.

I don't even think I have a response to this one.

And by the way:

# of successful states put in place after forcible removal of the old one

UN: 7/8

US: 4/8
Neither body should be forcibly removing states.

Neither body should be forcibly removing states.

His facts are slightly wrong.

The successes he is referring to are the number of peacekeeping/nationbuilding operations that the UN and the US have taken on over the years.

Out of the 8 peacekeeping/nationbuilding exercises taken up by the UN, 7 of the nations in question are currently at peace.

Out of the 8 peacekeeping/nationbuilding exercises taken up by the US, 4 of the nations in question are currently at peace.

The poroblem with the UN is that five countries have unstoppable veto power. 191 UN countries, for example, could vote that Taiwan should be recognized as an independent country, but the last one (mainland China) can veto it, killing it completely.

-.-
*sigh*


You've missed the point of the saying completely.

I understand the concept of benign neglect, but it never stays that way. Look at the expansion of the Federal Government, for instance. The two factors that influence state depredation are competition with other states and legitimacy, and the latter can be easily sculpted over time.

This is funny anyway considering that the US representative to the UN isn't even elected by the US, he is appointed.

And your point is?

The logistics of a world election are the stuff of nightmares. Better instead to do it lika a republic. You elect your nation's government, and your nations government elects the world government. The various nations would band together in formal and informal parties. It'd be buckets of fun. One state one vote, but allow for preferential voting.

The poroblem with the UN is that five countries have unstoppable veto power. 191 UN countries, for example, could vote that Taiwan should be recognized as an independent country, but the last one (mainland China) can veto it, killing it completely.

That's not actually true. The Veto power applies only to Security Council Resolutions, not to General Assembly Resolutions.

The main problem I see with the idea of a Democratically elected GA, is what sort of democratic system to use. As has been noted, a proportional system would mean that China and India could basically make any decisions and nobody could gainsay them as long as they worked together.

On the other hand, equalised geographical representation (every seat representing an equalised amount of planetary surface area) would give, say, Canada, a far bigger voice than it's population warrants, and Singapore, despite it's population and economic importance, none.

On the third hand, giving each nation equal numbers would make Kiribati the equal of the PRC - which is the case today, and which is slightly ridiculous.

I think you would need some kind of multi-cameral system in order to fairly represent both the population and the sovereignty of nations and peoples.