bray/courses/49s/studentsurveys... · web view2012. 10. 9. · paul mihai lazureanu. paper 1 –...
TRANSCRIPT
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.