World Unity as a Political Ideology

Political scientists often view the political as a plane two axes: an economic left-right dimension and a social liberty-authority dimension. Yet we can conceptualize a third axis too, with global unity on one end and nationalism/identitarianism on the other. On this dimension the current global landscape is far in the depths of nationalism—the other side remains mostly unexplored with no major political voices. Many of the most cosmopolitan ideas of today, such as world federalism and limited world government, can barely be placed around the ‘centre’, as a middle ground between maintaining national separation and world unity. Even what is presently seen as a global upsurge in nationalism is only a shift within what has throughout been a nationalist-dominated discourse.

Seen from this three-dimensional model, world government as a concept is neutral to other ideologies on the two-dimensional plane, as is nationalism. It does not intrinsically have to be tied to any ideological features that people may attach to it. While some advocates of a world state have attached other ideological visions to it, it is not restricted to these and can take any form. This is precisely why the advocates and proposals for world government have been so diverse over time. World government has scope for the aspirations of all ideologies (except the divisiveness of nationalism)—it simply scales their scope to a much larger political entity.

Theorists of world government in the 1940s often struggled with the problem of reconciling the ideological gulf between countries. But as argued above, it is not necessary for a world state to tie itself to one system, such as socialism or capitalism or even democracy. These topics should and will remain issues of normal political contestation as in democracies today—the ideology of the state should be determined by the people rather than specified by a political theorist. Just as there can be liberals, conservatives, communists, republicans, and so on among nationalists, so can there be in a world government. While nations may be small enough to attach an ideology to the state, whether through consensus or imposition, a world government can only do so if there is global consensus, which is likely to be a more balanced and moderate position than that of individual nations.

Opponents of world government do sometimes attribute to it an excessively ‘leftist’ nature, which I consider to be an unjustified assumption. While many advocates of world government so far have indeed been strong leftists, this by no means restricts the idea to taking such a form. Indeed, in these papers I am putting forward a very different conception of world government, including a bolder vision of unity than previous thinkers. However, I also maintain that the case for world government should be judged solely on its own merits as an alternative to nationalism, not on the ideological leanings of its proponents.

Such a conception of world government should and must incorporate contributions from all ideological perspectives. For example, some thinkers spanning from liberalism to neoconservatism have expressed a fear of communism, illiberalism, and non-democracy finding their way into the world government. Yet large parts of the world have been governed, and continue to be governed, by these forms of government. Hence these cannot be simply dismissed in considering the structure of world government, and it is no more fair to assume a liberal democracy than a communist state or dictatorship as the basis for world government. There is much to learn from all ideologies and viewpoints and none can be arbitrarily left out of the process; all perspectives are welcome and can contribute to world government.

In the three-axis view of politics described above, world unity is the polar opposite of nationalism. As such, they are fundamentally opposed ideologically, and true worldism is incompatible with the retention of any national identity. Hence any ideas that seek to reconcile the two, such as limited world government or national reforms, are in an unstable equilibrium which must tilt either way (and so far has always tilted towards nationalism). Any middle-ground ideas should be seen as a transitional measure and as a practical policy measure along the path to full unity, otherwise we remain in danger of tipping back into nationalist anarchy. A true world government should not retain national identities in any shape, manner, or form.

It is, however, worth differentiating that worldism is by its nature not an absolutist ideology like nationalism. It does not demand absolute devotion at any cost or self-sacrifice in its name, and it does not expect unquestioning obedience from anyone. World government is precisely about moving on from the surrender expected by nationalism, which requires loyalty and favouritism to be prioritized over rationality and justice. While nationalism routinely exhorts its followers to kill and die for itself, worldism is about how can we make life better for everyone. Hence worldism as an ideology is also about bringing a more productive and rational approach to politics—and hopefully, for rationality to prevail in other ideological matters as well.