The Will to Change the World

"Humanity can remain content with a system that keeps them out of hell—or they can set up a new one which has the possibility of taking them to heaven." - Fruf

The world order of today was not established as a planned system, but is merely the product of the aimless wandering of human history. In other words, it is evolved and not designed. Yet evolution is rarely optimal; it is inefficient and highly wasteful. Progress can be made far more rapid if the world order was actually designed by humans to suit our needs. Humanity needs to take matters into its own hands and chart out its future, for the best things do not often happen by themselves. The world order is not something that lies beyond and above us; we can and we should reshape it for the betterment of humanity.

Yet the will for political change seems to be dead in today’s world: few people dare to reimagine the world order without bowing down to its present form. Most ideas for change advocate very limited reforms within the existing system, not beyond it. There are no ‘radicals’ left in the world now, only incremental reformists. (Those labelled radicals now are usually trying only to advance a long-established ideology through radical means; they are not radical in their thoughts.)

The ideas that do, though, remain only ideas, since political theory has become disconnected from political practice. The field of political theory is truly dead, if its considerations do not have the least impact on humanity’s political condition. Visions for the future have stopped shaping our political trajectory; the status quo rules supreme.

This is not yet a time for conservatism, for that assumes that all has already been done. Aiming to maintain the status quo or even restore the past assumes that humanity has already achieved everything, and that we are at the end of progress. Yet look around the world now—it is by no means perfect, and there is so much still to be improved. Primacy should not be given to tradition because it is imperfect; we must look to the future and strive for a better one.

For let us not forget that whatever humanity has achieved today, whatever progress we have made so far, did not come from the traditionalists but always from forward-looking visionaries, reformists, those who thought outside the box. If those who prefer to maintain the status quo had always had their way throughout history, then humanity would still be stuck in the Stone Age.

Nor is a pragmatic approach particularly helpful, because it gets us nowhere in the long run. Realism just leads to endless aimless wandering, like a ship in the ocean sailing for years with the sole objective of keeping afloat and avoiding storms. But the mere pursuit of existing interests and the opportunism of pragmatism is directionless, and does not bring about any progress. (It is worth pointing out that the emphasis in realism on ‘national interest’ is itself a highly ideological construction, arising from nationalism which itself is an ideal.). The ship of pragmatism reaches nowhere, its purpose being only to survive; it is instead better to undertake a voyage towards new lands and a promising future. We may have to weather storms along the way, but it will be a worthwhile struggle for a better outcome.

People often claim that world government (or any idea to change the world-system for the better) is too utopian and idealistic, that there is simply no point striving for a perfect world because there cannot be one. But that prevents us from even taking steps towards small improvements, from making the world better than it is now albeit still imperfect. “We may not be able to build a palace, so will we not even build a house.”

And hence we remain stuck in the deplorable conditions of the shack, believing that we are done. World government is by no means a perfect system or the ultimate solution to all of humanity’s troubles. But it is still an advancement so great over the national order that it should be pursued as a real objective, not dismissed as utopian.

Others claim that any such visions will be realised so far in the future that they dismiss them now. But again, that prevents us from even taking the first step towards progress. The climb to Mount Everest is long, so should we not even start the trek to the base camp? No one would have ever achieved anything that has multiple steps if this idea was entertained. Inaction is the only guarantee that we will get nowhere.

For there to be a will to change there has to be some sort of dissatisfaction with the status quo, or at least the recognition that something is suboptimal and needs to be improved. This has been the driving force behind so many movements for change throughout history. Yet, it seems, this process may have attained an equilibrium where, although conditions are nowhere near perfect, they are also not bad enough for widespread demands for change. Most people, while acknowledging that the current world order has its shortcomings, are broadly satisfied with it. So is this the end of human political advancement? Or is the nationalist order going to plunge us into some horrible catastrophe, like nuclear war or 3C global warming, before we look beyond it?

The nationalist system was developed primarily by the people of the 19th century, to organize themselves as they saw fit. At the time it represented a significant advancement over the prevailing order. We, living in the 21st century, also need to set up our own world order to match the needs and challenges of our time. Why are we still being governed by the ideas of those who lived two hundred years ago? This archaic system does not belong in this era of global opportunities and global troubles. Let us not be ruled by the past, but build a world that is truly worthy of the human potential of the 21st century.

If 1648 was the year to which the system of nation-states traces its beginnings, let 2048 be the year of a new beginning of World Unity. Let humanity take its future into its own hands.