Paul Mihai Lazureanu

Paper 1 – version 1

October 4, 2012

Math 89S – Game Theory and Democracy

World Government

The term “World Government” has been used with a variety of different meanings

throughout history. Creating a government entity that would enjoy absolute authority

over the whole world, or at least the known world, seems to have been the ultimate

goal of both the leaderships of the Roman Empire at some point, as well as Nazi

Germany. The means by which both these empires tried to attain global hegemony were

primarily military, which probably caused their ultimate failure. However, the Roman

Empire did manage to establish complete hegemony over the Mediterranean Basin for

about two centuries, a period that was later termed “Pax Romana”, or roman peace.

Despite the fact that the technological limitations of the time made it impossible for the

Romans to expand globally, the relative isolation between the various populated regions

of the world make the Roman Empire very similar to a World State, in that it enjoyed

complete control over what was the known world from their perspective. As proven by

the utter failure of the German Third Reich in achieving its goals, such a global empire

would probably be impossible to establish today. Nevertheless, the experience of the

Romans does highlight some potential benefits of a modern global governance system.

The term that has been applied to the historical period of Roman apogee, Pax Romana,

was chosen by historians specifically to denote the relative peace and prosperity

enjoyed by Europeans during Roman hegemony.1 I believe that even after two millennia,

lessons can still be drawn from this early political success.

Although probably still tempting to some, I think it is safe to assume that a global

hegemonic dictatorship will not be a popular form of international political organization.

This is why I would like to briefly analyze another proposed form of global governance,

which is the League of Nations. Proposed by American president Woodrow Wilson at

the end of the First World War and established through the Treaty of Versailles in 1919,

the League was designed as an international organization with the purpose and power

to ensure global peace and security, protect human rights and promote free trade and

economic cooperation. As good as Wilson’s idea seemed at the time, the way it was

implemented ultimately sealed its faith. Although it was designed as an institution that

would promote the common interests of humanity, the League was actually an

intergovernmental body where each country tried to promote its own interests. As

these interests diverged further and further during the lead-up to World War Two, the

League proved unable to make decisions and promote its original goals. It was also

severely weakened by the fact that the United States, its original proponent and

arguably the world’s most powerful nation, was not able to join the League due to

strong opposition in the Senate. Thus, its flawed decision-making structures and

opposition from individual nations that feared a loss of sovereignty caused by their

joining the League led to the collapse of this first attempt at world governance. This also

left the international system unable to prevent the single greatest humanitarian

catastrophe in modern history, World War Two.2

After witnessing the horrifying events of the war, Allied leaders decided to make

another try to regulate the international system in order to prevent such destructive

events from ever happening again. The result of their efforts was an institution called

the United Nations, which is still functioning today. Led by a Security Council with

almost unlimited power, the UN was supposed to be able to prevent all future wars,

promote international cooperation and protect human rights in a way that had been

impossible in the past. However, another significant mistake in its organizational

structure seems to have crippled this second attempt at limited world governance. The

five great powers that emerged after the war, the US, France, Great Britain, the Soviet

Union and China, were given veto power, which enabled them to effectively block any

Security Council decision that did not fit their interests. The major ideological split

between capitalist democracies and communist dictatorships that occurred after the

war, coupled with the veto power, again left the UN powerless in reaching its stated

goals.3

This form of the international system still persists nowadays, and, although cooperation

between nations has improved somewhat since the fall of communism in Eastern

Europe, the UN is very far from being an effective world government. This brings us back

to the question of what exactly the term world government denotes. A general

definition says that a world government is a single common political authority for all

humanity. The word authority clearly suggests that such an institution should have the

power to impose certain rules, such as human rights or trade regulations, over sovereign

states. Although the UN theoretically has this power, its decision-making system renders

it unable to make use of it, which is why it cannot be named a world government.

So why is the UN so ineffective and why is international cooperation so severely limited?

First of all, I want to mention that the sheer complexity of international relations does

not offer the possibility to come up with a simple explanation for the apparently chaotic

state of the international system. However, one way to explain the lack of cooperation is

by using concepts from Game Theory. Many political scientists have argued that the

main reason for this is the fact that political leaders have historically had a tendency to

view interactions between nations as a zero-sum game, where the ultimate goal is to

increase a country’s influence and power.4 Thus, a loss of influence by one country is a

gain in influence by another. This historical tendency of sovereign states to try an

increase their relative influence in the international system seems to have been the

main cause of instability and war, as armed conflict has long been perceived as the best

way to increase a state’s relative power. Thus, as almost all states seem to be involved

in this game where the main goal is to increase one’s influence relative to others and

given that military power has generally been regarded as the most important

contributor to international influence, war has been a major constant of human history.

There is however one notable exception: the aforementioned historical period called

Pax Romana. The reason why peace defined this historical period is simple: the Roman

Empire had won the game. Since all adversaries had been eliminated through military

conquest the game had ended, Rome had absolute power and so there was no more

need for armed conflict. The Pax Romana only ended when the arrival of new players,

namely nomadic tribes from Asia, ended Roman dominance and caused the game for

power to restart. Since then the game has never ended, eventually expanding over the

whole planet and causing countless destructive wars. However, the way this game is

being played has dramatically changed in the Twentieth Century.

First, the advent of nuclear weapons at the end of WWII has eliminated total war

between major powers as a viable playing strategy. This is because an all out war,

potentially involving the almost unlimited destructive power of nuclear weapons, has

opened the door towards a previously impossible outcome of the game in which

everybody loses. Because this is undesirable for any rational player, as we generally

assume sovereign states and their leaders to be, the means by which countries try to

increase their influence on the international stage have gravitated away from military

conflict. This is not to say that war has been eliminated in its entirety, as limited regional

wars have happened during the nuclear age and are still possible. Major powers

however have done their best to avoid war and have instead resorted to trying to

increase their economic, cultural and political influence. Although this non-

confrontational way of playing the game at first seemed unable to generate a winner,

the collapse of the Soviet Union has showed that this so-called soft power approach can

also alter the balance of power in the world and lead to a limited victory by some

players, in this case western countries.

Thus, the change in military technology has reduced the intensity and destructiveness of

the global power game, but it has by no means stopped it. The main victim of this

persistence in the struggle for national power is in my opinion the United Nations, which

requires collaboration between its member countries in order to function. As most

states consider it in their best interest to weaken other states, national interests seem

to be on a perpetual collision course, which has effectively doomed the United Nations.

There has been however a second and possibly more important development in the

international system of the Twentieth Century, which has the expansion of the

democratic form of government as its primary cause. According to the Democratic

Peace Theory5, democratic states never fight wars and tend to collaborate more than

non-democratic states because the peoples, and not their leaders, are the ones who

suffer during times of war. Thus, behaving in a way that reminds us of the Prisoner’s

Dilemma, people that have experienced war realize that it is in their best long-term

interest for their country to cooperate, as opposed to fight, other countries. Because in

a democratic system all people are part of the national decision-making process, albeit

indirectly, they can use this knowledge to decide against future war. The fact that there

has never been a war between two functioning democracies strongly supports this

theory. However, it does have one major flaw, in that it assumes that the majority of

people are always rational, which might not be the case. This is why we need a powerful

international institution to promote and oversee cooperation between states, because

we cannot assume that nations, even democratic ones, will always choose the rational

decision to cooperate.

Fortunately, there is a very successful example of such an international institution,

namely the European Union. The EU seems to be very similar in structure to what a

successful world government should be, but because its authority is restricted

geographically, it can only be called a regional government. This multi-national union

has proven to be very successful in eliminating the constant conflict that has been

plaguing international relations in a region that has started the world’s most devastating

wars. The experience of the effects of the war and the possibilities offered by the spread

of democracy in the continent are probably what enabled European countries to

disregard historical conflicts and cultural differences in order to create a unique system

of international cooperation. The EU has managed to transform a continent that was

devastated by World War Two less than 70 years ago into the world’s most prosperous

and peaceful region, thereby showing how beneficial multinational cooperation can be.

But although the EU has undeniably been very successful in promoting peace and

cooperation on the continent, the current economic crisis has highlighted numerous

structural weaknesses. European countries have probably been the hardest hit by the

financial crisis, and the inability of European institutions to solve economic problems is

apparently caused by a flawed decision-making process at the level of EU institutions.

The founders of the European Union have indeed tried to avoid the type of decision-

making deadlock that has been affecting the UN since its inception by establishing a

directly elected European Parliament, which is entirely beyond the influence of national

governments. Nevertheless, the general fear of giving up national sovereignty to

international institutions that led to the US not joining the League of Nations has

persisted, albeit to a lesser degree. Thus, the European Parliament was forced by

national leaders to share power with the European Council, where all member countries

of the EU are represented and enjoy veto power, much like in the UN security council.

The representation of individual governments in the EU’s leadership structures has

enabled a limited struggle for national influence and promotion of national interests to

persist, thereby hampering the union-wide decision-making process. As outlined by the

president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, the EU will need a more

powerful federal government if it is to survive and prosper6.

The first and most important goal of a future world government should in my opinion be

world peace and the total implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights7. I think this main goal is most important because it is generally considered a

prerequisite for attaining other common global goals such as attaining economic

prosperity, improving the quality of life or ensuring environmental sustainability. As the

EU is the only multi-national union that has been able to achieve this primary goal, I

strongly believe that it is the best model for a future world government. As is the case

with the EU and most of the world’s countries, a world government should be split into

three main branches: executive, judiciary and legislative. The position of a “world

president” modeled on the American political system just seems to powerful for any

single person, which is why I believe that a parliamentary system is more appropriate

for a world government. Due to the inherent problems of the EU’s legislative branch, I

would suggest that the “world parliament” be modeled more on the US Congress

instead. Simply having a population based allocation of seats in the legislative branch

would make a world government impossible to implement in the current context, as

representatives from the four or five most populous countries of the world would

always enjoy a parliamentary majority. Such a system would probably be highly

unattractive to smaller countries. This is why I believe that a second house of parliament

that is based on the US Senate, where each country gets the same number of seats,

would be welcome. Another problem with a world government would be that, just as in

the EU, rich countries would probably be expected to transfer money to poor countries

in order to assist with their development. Rich countries in the EU have been willing to

do this without requesting extra influence in the decision-making process. However, it

should be noted that the more affluent western European countries are also the most

populous in the union, which already gave them the most voting power in the European

Parliament. This is however not the case on the global scene, where developed

countries tend to have much lower populations than developing countries. Thus, in case

a world government will have as a main goal the eradication of poverty, for example, it

can be assumed that more wealthy nations will request additional influence in return for

the money they contribute. I believe this would be a fair request that could be granted,

especially as the relative political influence of high-income countries will decrease as

poor countries develop their economies. In conclusion, I believe that the world

parliament should consist of three equally powerful houses: one where seats are

allocated based on population, another one where each country receives the same

number of seats and a third one where seats are allocated based on Gross Domestic

Product. The reason why I support this system of power allocation is that it would

guarantee that each decision could only be made if there is indeed strong global support

for it. This would involve the majority of the world’s people, the majority of countries, as

well as the majority of people who would eventually finance the implementation of such

a decision. Of course, this is only true if the members of the world parliament would be

democratically elected, but as I have discussed earlier, democracy is the single most

important prerequisite to any multinational union, as it is probably the only thing that

can stop the inherent power struggle between countries.

Although it seems to be the best choice of democratic representation, a global

parliamentary governance system would probably have some difficulty in representing

the views of the global population fairly. This is because the number of seats in the

global parliament would have to be limited to a number that is similar to the size of the

world’s largest functioning national parliaments, which is less than one thousand.

Otherwise, there is a significant risk that it would suffer from severe inefficiency due to

its high number of members. There is already significant criticism directed at the US

Congress for the long delays in approving legislation. We can only imagine how slow a

Congress with 10.000 members would be. Therefore the ratio of representatives to

population will have to be significantly higher, which might risk reducing the level of

communication between people and their representatives in the global parliament to

what I deem to be unacceptable levels. Again, we are fortunate to have a functioning

example of a governance system that eliminates this problem, by allowing people to

directly voice their views on important matters. This is the system of direct democracy,

which is used in the federal state of Switzerland8. I believe that such a system, where

people could express their views directly through global referendums, would have the

significant advantage of allowing the population to ensure that their leaders decisions

are always in accordance with the view of the majority. In my opinion, any political

system that calls itself democratic should give the people a means by which to overturn

the decisions of their leaders that they do not agree with. But in order for this system to

be fair, we should make sure that a referendum could only be approved if it enjoys a

general majority. This is the majority of people, countries and financial resources, and is

similar to the way parliamentary representation is organized. Thus, if a significant

proportion of the global population would not agree with a decision of the world

government, or would want to initiate a legislative proposal, it could simply initiate a

referendum and ask the people of the world to vote on the matter. If a general majority

is not obtained, then the proposal of the initiators of the referendum will of course be

rejected. Such a global direct democracy would historically have posed enormous

organizational problems, but these have been almost eliminated by modern

communication technology. Organizing online referendums would definitely be easier in

comparison to a traditional election, and it would probably also increase voter

participation because it would simply make voting easier and less time consuming. It is

however important to note that a significant number of people do not have access to

the internet, which is a problem that the world government would first have to solve

before it can implement direct democracy.

Naturally, the legislative branch will have to elect an executive body to implement its

decisions, which would be led by a world cabinet. As mentioned earlier, I do not believe

that a position of world president or prime-minster would be feasible, because it would

involve to much power in the hands of only one person. Thus, I would propose that the

cabinet be led by one of its ministers, or secretaries, that would simply be a first among

equals, as is the case in Switzerland today.

The world government will definitely also require a judicial branch to enforce its

legislation and potentially, constitution or charter. I believe that this could be based on

existing international courts, which were already proven to be extremely effective when

given enough authority by the UN Security Council to enforce international law. It is also

very important to stipulate that the authority of the international court system

necessarily has to be limited to international law, so that it does not interfere with

national judiciaries.

Indeed I believe this has to be true in a much broader sense for the whole world

government. Its powers and duties have to be clearly defined by some sort of

constitution and limited to what is necessary to achieve the goals that are agreed upon

when the government is formed. Under no circumstance should the world government

be allowed to interfere with the internal affairs of its constituent countries beyond its

initial purpose. History shows us that federal governments have a natural tendency to

increase their power beyond the limits that are initially set, which has happened in the

United States over the past two centuries9. I believe that the judiciary will have to make

sure that this does not happen with a global governmental system. By doing this it will

also offer protection against the possible and obviously undesirable outcome that is an

authoritarian world government.

Another question that comes to mind when discussing global governance is how this

entity will be financed, as it will definitely have significant budgetary requirements.

Because the world government should be a supra-governmental, as opposite to an

inter-governmental, institution, I do not think that its financing should be the

responsibility of national governments. The necessary financial resources should rather

be obtained by imposing a global tax, most realistically a consumption tax similar to the

VAT or sales tax. This seems like it would be unpopular with many people, but as the

existence of a world government should reduce the costs of national governments, such

as defense costs, the new tax could easily be offset by decreases in national taxes so as

not to affect personal and corporate finances. The tax should constitute a fixed

percentage type tax for all people and firms, regardless of country or income, in order to

be fair and easy to implement. Nevertheless, this would still mean that the citizens and

companies of wealthy countries would contribute the most funds to the world

government because of their higher income and spending levels. This taxing system is

what also justifies the wealth-based distribution of relative voting influence in the global

parliament.

After having showed why a world government could be greatly beneficial for mankind

and having proposed a fairly realistic way of implementing it, I believe there is one more

important topic to discuss in this context: the feasibility of such a dramatic

reorganization of the global political system. Creating a world government would

amount, in my view, to the most significant change of all time in the way international

relations are conducted; I would even call it a global political revolution. An event of this

type, as any major change in the state of the political system, usually implies a

considerable increase in future unpredictability. This, combined with the serious

mistrust that exists between many of today’s nations, is why I believe that people and

political leaders alike will tend to fear the regulation of the international political system

through a world government. This is confirmed by the unanimous negative answer on

question 9 of a survey on this topic that I have conducted and attached at the end of this

paper. However, I believe it is also important to notice that survey respondents had very

different views when asked about different functions that a world government would

perform, in questions one through nine. It seems that an important number of people

actually support things like free trade, international economic, scientific and even

military cooperation, as well as promoting human rights and democracy on a global

scale. Hence, even though people tend to support the goals that a world government

would have, they seem to unanimously fear the existence of such an institution. But

imagine asking the people of fascist Germany and socialist France about a political union

in the spring of 1940, when their countries were fighting WWII. We can easily realize

what the unanimous answer would have been, but although no one could have

imagined it back then, Germany and France now lead a European political, economic,

monetary and military union together. For this reason I am certain that a completely

peaceful and democratic world, where nations cooperate to achieve common goals such

as economic prosperity, scientific advancement or environmental sustainability under

the coordination of a world government will be feasible and even likely to exist 70 years

from now. If I am proven wrong and human society does not evolve in the direction of

global governance, I would consider it a common loss for all of us.

Sources

1. http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture12b.html

2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/league_nations_01.shtml

3. http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/unitednations.htm

4. http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/cg/ir/college/bulletin/vol14-2/14-

2hector.pdf

5. http://www.e-ir.info/2012/02/18/the-democratic-peace-theory/

6. http://ec.europa.eu/soteu2012/

7. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

8. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1435383/How-direct-democracy-makes-

Switzerland-a-better-place.html

9. http://hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/cot/t4w26usgovernment.htm

Survey

1. Do you support free trade? Y / N

2. Would you agree with the creation of an international institution that would

regulate global finance and trade? Y / N

3. Do you agree with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Y / N

4. Would you support the establishment of an international institution with the

power to enforce human rights all over the world? Y / N

5. Do you think it would be a good idea for the whole world to use the same

currency? Y / N

6. Would you support the establishment of an international institution that would

offer financial assistance to underdeveloped countries in order to reduce poverty

and promote economic growth? Y / N

7. Do you think there should be a common global military force with the power to

deter potential aggressor nations from starting armed conflicts? Y / N

8. Do you believe that all countries should unite their efforts into a single common

scientific research and space exploration program? Y/ N

9. Would you support the establishment of a democratically controlled “world

government” that could do all of the above? Y / N

10. Should non-democratic countries be included in the world government? Y /

N

11. In case a world government would be established, what criteria do you think

would be the most important in calculating each country’s voting power in the new

institution?

Please rank the following in order of importance (1- most important, 4 – least

important):

A. Population _____

B. GDP/Contribution to institution’s budget _____

C. One country – one vote _____

D. Size of military _____

Results

Questions:

1: Yes – 15 / No – 5

2: Yes – 10 / No – 10

3: Yes – 17 / No – 3

4: Yes – 11 / No – 9

5: Yes – 3 / No – 17

6: Yes – 11 / No – 9

7: Yes – 3 / No – 17

8: Yes – 11 / No – 9

9: Yes – 0 / No – 20

10: Yes – 9 / No – 9 / No answer – 2

For question 11 I have used a preferential ballot system where people rank their

choices from 1 to 4 in order of preference. I will use the six following methods to

analyze the answers to the question (Note that only 18 out of 20 surveyed people

have chosen to answer this question):

Plurality

A – 8 votes

B – 9 votes

C – 1 vote

D – 0 votes

The winner is option B (GDP/Budget contribution), with A (Population) only one

vote behind.

Instant runoff voting

D is eliminated first, with no consequence. C is eliminated next, and its vote goes to

A, creating a tie between A and B. My tie-breaking vote goes to A, therefore A

becomes the winner of IRV.

Borda count

To determine the winner of the Borda count we use a Margin of Victory Matrix:

A B C D Total

A 0 9 14 16 39

B -9 0 14 17 22

C -14 -14 0 12 -16

D -16 -17 -12 0 -45

=0

The Borda winner is therefore A (population).

Instant Runoff Borda Count

A B C D TotalD

eliminated

C

eliminated

A 0 9 14 16 39 23 9

B -9 0 14 17 22 5 -9

C -14 -14 0 12 -16 -24

D -16 -17 -12 0 -45

Winner is A again.

Least worst defeat (Minimax)

A: 0

B: -9

C: -14 A is the winner

D: -17

Ranked pairs

17 B>D

16 A>D

14 B>C

14 A>C A > B > C > D

12 C>D

9 A>B

A also wins ranked pairs.

Conclusion

A (population) is the winning answer for question 11 by five of the six voting

methods used. B (GDP/Contribution) only wins by one method, namely plurality.