Orion Digest №11 — A Proposal for International Politics

A world federation has two main components — the structure of member nations and the structure of the federal government. Neither side should have sole power — power concentrated in regional governments would lead to separation and nationalism, however, attempting to run everything through a federal government would be a management nightmare. The world is a big place, and there are a lot of concerns to handle, and I don’t believe that one organization could handle everything under the sun. That being said, a strong federal government is a necessary component, and just as I have talked about my personal proposal for an ideal member nation, allow me to broach the topic of what a corresponding federal nation would look like.

The Sword of Orion is a firm advocate for the UNPA — a campaign to institute a Parliamentary Assembly in the United Nations, to allow representatives from different nations to meet and implement international policy. I believe that the UN, while currently too divided and underpowered to accomplish anything, could provide a baseline for world federation once a UNPA is implemented. We have used the UN for years as a means of communicating and coordinating between nation, and on that foundation have been built numerous influential institutions, like the World Health Organization and World Bank Group. It is not a perfect system by any means, but it is something every one of its members has agreed to, and a key stepping stone towards the future.

Like an ideal member nation (see Orion Digest №10), democracy is a key part of a world federation, as while it will need to keep its members in line and standardized, the input of the people is necessary to prevent the emergence of an elite ruling class. As such, the core of this world federation should be a parliament, with population based representation. The question of representation (population vs. region) is one that holds different importance depending on who you ask. Supporters of population-based representation will likely be groups of people that lose voting power simply because they are concentrated in a region. They will be dissatisfied with much smaller parties having more authority.

On the other hand, region-based representation supporters will fear what is called a ‘tyranny of the majority’, as in the favoring of the concerns of the majority over minority groups. While majority opinion is typically the voice of the people, to say minority groups do not matter is highly disrespectful to the idea of free speech. The majority often doesn’t understand the struggles of the minority, and may not accommodate properly for them, meaning that while some decisions may benefit most people, they will still inconvenience or harm others. We’ve seen it happen many times with different categories of majority and minority — sexuality, race, physical ability, religion, etc. A solution isn’t universal just because the majority agrees with it.

Because of this, organizing a world federation’s government by population alone may alienate people from smaller regions of the world with drastically different cultures and needs, and make their concerns and interests mean less. Every current (and future) region/nation of the world should have an equal representation in at least one part of the world federation, so the concerns of individual groups can be heard, as well as of the people in general. In our current model, we have the UN General Assembly, a policy-making branch of the UN comprised of one member representing each of the member nations — much like the U.S. Senate, this number is static, and allows for equal representation of nations, regardless of population (save for the world superpowers, though this concept would diminish in a world federation).

Much like a member nation, the world federation would have a split system between region and population based representation, though in the interest of the people and of avoiding nationalist power, the Parliamentary Assembly (population), would have more of a final say in matters. The General Assembly (region) would bring their concerns and propositions to the table, submitting laws and policies to the Parliament, who would vote on approving or vetoing said propositions. As members of the PA would be elected outside of the regional governments, this would give yet another layer of power to the people, as they would be represented directly in the federation rather than just through their government.

The concerns of a world federation would be the coordination of nations and movement of resources, something that would obviously concern the regional governments of member nations, which is why they’d be the first line of policy. Individual member nation representatives would be able to propose policies to the general assembly, which would be addressed by the speaker and voted on by the members of the assembly. There are two possible means of handling voting: either it would be one country, one vote, or (and the system could vary depending on the context) member nations would be divided into their respective groups (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania), which would all have an equal number of votes. (The regions of the world as listed are currently based on usual continent-organization; this could be subject to change if the people should find more appropriate boundaries).

The Parliamentary Assembly would be the house that evaluates and carries out the proposals and policies put forth by the General Assembly, and as such, would usually be receiving suggestions from the GA, though the PA could vote to send their own suggestions to the GA — the suggestion of the PA would have the same effect as the suggestion from one member of the GA. When a policy is sent to the PA, it will be voted upon — if it is vetoed, the PA must provide specific reasoning and data on why it was removed, and it will be sent back to the GA for review. The GA may, of course, propose a new policy with the knowledge of why the first failed, but it is then up to the PA once again to approve of it or not. While up to debate, there could always be the implemented feature of a ‘veto override’ in the powers of the GA, where a majority vote could forcibly put the policy through.

However, whether the veto is overrode or the PA approves the policy from the get-go, how the policy is implemented is entirely up to the PA (the finer details of that can be relegated to PA committees), which means that a forced policy can still be put in place according to the design of the people. The only caveat to this system would be the possible policy gridlock that could arise during the early years of a world federation, when unpopular policy (slowing of economy to help environmental recovery, distribution of resources to aid struggling populations) might have to be put through, but for a fully operational federation, this system would ensure that regions make the decisions and the citizens of the world get a say in whether or not they are put through, giving both sides power.

As for all other matters outside of policy making, there would of course be departments dedicated to the finer matters (space travel, environmental protections, health, economic study and management), that would be overseen by the two assembly houses (GA-PA policy can be variable, and can include budgets and operational strategies for the departments, but there can also be select committees formed by the GA or PA depending on what function the department serves). Once again, this concept has precedence in the UN — specialized agencies like WHO and WBG and the IMF are technically distinct, but are overseen by the greater authority of the UN, and similar agencies would take their place in a more comprehensive world federation, dealing with matters best standardized across the board.

I will elaborate more and potentially revise this model I have made of member and federation as time goes on, and I am welcome to any additions or criticism, but after reflection, this system of democracy from top to bottom is what I think best for the future of my own nation, and for the world.

- DKTC FL