Objections as to Tyranny Answered

At the core of the pursuit of a world government, there is one objective: to liberate the potential of humanity from national and identity boundaries. Yet some people fear that it may do just the opposite—trap humanity in a system of global domination. Concerns arise not just from the unification of political authority but from the associated ideas of the end of national divisions, the abolition of militaries, and uniform laws, creating a singular political entity that they believe would inevitably suppress individual liberties.

The tyranny argument seems to have an almost obsessive conviction behind it; it is often the central grievance people bring up against world government. But why should this question be raised only for a world government and not for nations themselves? No one bothers asking the separatists in Scotland, Quebec, or Tigray how they would prevent their nations from becoming tyrannical. In fact, one key problem is that many of those who articulate the tyranny objection to a world government start by making unfounded assumptions about its nature under which it would certainly take the form of tyranny. The force and obsession with which this argument is made obscures the circular reasoning behind it, and a world government may indeed take positive, favourable forms as well.

One of the common assumptions in the tyranny argument is that a world government is necessarily a centralized authority with strong powers—which need not be the case, as already highlighted in Fed. 10. A centralized world government would hardly be able to function, much less tyrannize; any efficient large-scale government requires some separation of powers. The central government would have the powers required to deal with global issues, not total authority (Fed. 10). And even at the top level, there would still be a horizontal separation and checks and balances between the legislature, executive, and judiciary. When this principle is so well accepted in politics, why would a world government not abide by it too?

The tyranny objection is often articulated regarding the relationship between a world government and the constituent nations, with the world government overstepping its powers to dominate the nations and violate their sovereignty. Again there is an unfounded assumption here, this time that of the existence of nations under the world government. While almost all discourse around world government is riddled with ‘methodological nationalism’, no nations are to exist in the world government as these papers envision it. This objection thus falls out of context.

Nor is a world government bound to be, as commonly supposed, of the form of a dominant power, one subset of humanity that has by force attained the status of the ruler of the world. Such a world I consider to still be divided, since the cleavages have not gone away but only suppressed. Global domination is not the hallmark of global unity; in fact the two concepts are very much opposed. Domination necessarily involves two entities, the powerful and the subjugated, while a united world is just one. Global hegemony and power over all humanity is in fact an ideal often associated with nationalism, to which world unity is fundamentally opposed.

It is not justified that despite humanity having some experience of relatively free, well-governed nations, some people assume just the worst case for a world government. When considered beyond these assumptions, a world-state can also be very favourable to the cause of liberty. Nevertheless, a critique of the counterarguments’ nature is not enough to assuage genuine concerns about a tyrannical world government, and I shall now attempt to answer those. It was argued in Fed. 9 that a world government has the potential to greatly expand freedoms for all humanity, and the same reasoning also counteracts the risk of a despotic world-state.

As emphasized in Fed. 9, the world is too large to be controlled by a single entity in a totalitarian manner. In this vast and diverse world no identity group or shared interest has the numbers or strength to dominate the entire world. This is the case not just for political power, but also applies to the social and cultural sphere. Consider how much easier it is for a despotic entity to dominate a single nation, a petty subset of humanity with an average population of roughly 40 million, than the 8 billion of humanity as a whole. Even in the present national system, which has the core premise of groups vying for dominance and power, there has never emerged a true hegemony with global control. It is even less likely that this would occur in a world-state where these group divisions are discouraged and supplanted by unity among humanity. It is not a world government, but the national system that is truly vulnerable to coming under authoritarianism.

Even the freest nations today provide no escape from the tyranny inherent in the national system, in the form of national boundaries that restrict mobility. Nationalism itself has become so entrenched, that in most of the world there is no scope for any dissent against it and its institutions (e.g., the military). Compared to the best nationalism has to offer, even a partly free global regime may well be preferable in terms of liberty. And on factoring in the other utilities of a world union, even the worst case possible is still more desirable than the present national system.

Whatever the state of freedom in the world, it shall be universally upheld for all of humanity alike. The liberties that are now contingent upon national membership will become unconditional with a world union (Fed. 9). No more shall despotism be able to hide behind national sovereignty, with those humans privileged with freedom complicit in tyranny elsewhere through their nationalist alienation. It is more likely that all humans working together for the cause of liberty will get it right once for a world union, than that two hundred independent and alienated groups will ever be able to establish global freedom.

It may be impossible to guarantee that a world government would not fall into tyranny, but that cannot be assured for any government. None of the risks in a world government, however, in any way justify the nation-based order where that risk is so much greater. As John Locke wrote, “This is to think, that men are so foolish, that they take care to avoid what mischiefs may be done them by pole-cats, or foxes; but are content, nay, think it safety, to be devoured by lions.”

I find it nothing less than a great hypocrisy, that those who defend a system where over half the world’s population lives under authoritarian rule, would object to a world government on grounds of tyranny. The mere risk of a global despotism (one that, I have argued, is very remote) does not in any way justify or diminish the very real fact of tyranny existing in the national world order; this is a matter of a possibility versus a known fact. A person sitting in a horse-carriage has no basis to object to a jet plane for not going supersonic.

According to Freedom House, 80% of the world’s population in 2023 does not live in a free state. Global tyranny is already established! In defending the national order, opponents of world government are only upholding the existing despotism of the world. All we can do now is break free of it, with a new world order that, while not guaranteed, does hold promise for more freedom than ever before.