The idea of a world-State is one of the oldest dreams of mankind. Great religions have preached it, thbugh in the vague terms of human brotherhood. Great thinkers, like Kant, have taught it in more explicit, albeit impracticable, terms. Great conquerors, like Alexander, Timor the Lame, and Napoleon, built vast empires as the foundation-stone of a world-State. While these were mostly individual efforts, more collective efforts have been made in recent times. The League of Nations was founded with a dim hope that it would become a world-State in the future. At present, the United Nations Organisation has been established with more explicit hopes that it would become a world government in not too distant future. But in spite of these dreams, hopes and plans, the concept of a world-State is not feasible, and is beset with many difficulties.
Difficulties of the World-State
The idea of a world-State is easy to dream of, but difficult to realise. Any idea of establishing the world-State is always confronted with several difficulties and opposition. They are, to mention a few, the concept of national sovereignty of the modem States, the global interests and designs of some Great Powers and even of some lesser Powers like Israel and India, the difficulties of disarmament, the desire of certain States to maintain the international status quo, which means to maintain the unjust frontiers of certain States and the suppression of the urge for national independence and self-determination of subject nationalities and minorities in various multinational States of today, the parochial and selfish outlook and ideologies of certain nations and States, cultures and religions and the national prejudices and hatreds, ambitions and designs of several States and governments.
Factors in favour of the World-State
At the same time, there are several tendencies and forces in the modern world which favour the establishment or the emergence of the world-State. They are, to mention a few, the terribly destructive power of the nuclear and thermo-nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, the need to ban nuclear tests, the need for world-wide collective security, the great scientific and technological advances in industry, communication and transport, the ever-closer interdependence of the world-economy and industry, the growth of a universal human culture and the demand for equality of nations and peoples, etc. In other words, the ancient barriers of colour, class, creed and clime are crumbling down before the advance of modern science and intellect, industry and technology, culture and arts, which are knitting the whole humanity into ever closer bonds of mutual aid, understanding and fraternity.
So, there are two contradictory tendencies in the world today, one threatening it with total destruction and annihilation and the other making it one-world of the whole mankind. It is in the context of these conflicting tendencies that we have to consider whether the world-State is a feasible concept or not.
How to set up the World-State
There is no unanimity of opinion among the thinkers and planners of the world-State as how to establish it. Some propose a world federation of the existing States in the world. Others propose the transformation of the United Nations Organisation into a world-govemmenL Still others hope that the present regional alliances, like the NATO, would one day emerge into a world-government. Socialist movements and Communist panics aim at a socialist or communist world order or society as their ultimate goal. Some plan to establish an international police force which will replace the armies of the various States. But all these plans and proposals have remained on paper only.
Arguments for the World-State
Many arguments have been given by eminent writers in favour of a world-State or universal State, as summarised here:
Nationalism and national State are dangerous.
Nationalism is a great force in the world today and the national State is a very popular way of organising political life. But both nationalism and national State have proved to be a very fertile source of war and hatred, jealousy and antagonism in the world. The only way by which mankind can rid itself of the dangers of endless wars and feuds among nations is to organise a world-State. It will abolish national States and deprive the warring nations of their sovereign power to wage war on each other. Instead of national States and national sovereignty, the world State will consist of autonomous units of the world-wide political union. National disputes will then be settled peacefully rather than by war, just as the disputes between two citizens are now settled peacefully in the courts of law rather than by family vendetta as it used to be in the past
The world-Stale will end wars.
In the past, wars were petty affairs of kings and warriors and were confined to the armies fighting on the fields of battle. But in modern times, they have become very costly, burdensome, very destructive and global in their consequences. Moreover, they now make no distinction between the combatants and non-combatants, citizens and soldiers, battlefields and peaceful towns and cities. If mankind is to escape from utter destruction of the modem weapons of war, it will have to federate or unite into a single world State, which alone will put an end to wars for all times.
‘World-State will eliminate discord and waste.
World-State is also an economic necessity. National States seek selfish ends and narrow gains, without caring for the needs and sufferings of other peoples and countries. Economic competition and rivalry causes much wastage of economic resources. World prices of various commodities are artificially kept high by certain States in order to make great profits, while there is scarcity, famine and starvation in other parts of the world. There is over-production in some States, while poverty, misery and undernourishment exist in others. Such inequalities, waste and sufferings can be removed from the face of the earth by establishing the world-State. It will put an end to the exploitation and oppression of one nation by another.
The productive resources of one country will benefit others. The surplus production in one country will be available to other parts of the world. In short, a world economy will replace the wasteful anarchy that exists today. Moreover in the present-day interdependent world, the world-State will foster the growth of a world economy and industry which will benefit all nations equally and equitably.
Sense of world-unity is growing in the world today.
There is also a revolution in man’s way of thinking and belief today. In the past ages, man lived in isolated communities and regions, behind the barriers of culture and beliefs of local nature. Localism, even parochialism, was the order of the day in the past. They had divided mankind into small and separate communities of tribes and towns, villages and localities. But progress in science and means of communication has broken down these barriers of localism and parochialism. Now localism is replaced by a growing idea of internationalism and universalism. World public opinion is growing up in many ways, and a world culture or a worldwide uniformity of opinions, beliefs and ideas is coming into being.
This has created a sense of world-unity and a belief that this earth is one-world of the whole mankind. We find free exchange of ideas and techniques among the scientists, philosophers, engineers, thinkers, artists and men of literature. This growing unity of thought, beliefs and opinions is creating a world-consciousness among large numbers of peoples in all countries of the world. This is one of the most powerful psychological and intellectual force working in favour of the emergence of the world-State.
Arguments against a World-State
The idea of world-State is opposed and criticised by many writers, thinkers and Statesmen as a visionary and unpractical dream. They point out a number of reasons and tendencies which make it an impossible and unrealisable ideal, as given below:
National interests of the existing States are opposed to this idea.
The idea of the world-State is unacceptable to the existing States, big or small. The Great Powers do not like world-State, because it will deprive them of all that makes them great, while the super Powers as Great Britain, France and others will be gone as soon as a world-State comes into being, will lost their special position U.S.A. and the Soviet Union, which dominates politically and economically less fortunate nations and countries. At the same if the world-State is established shad, the neo-imperialist powers, like Israel or India will have to give up their ambitions and designs of conquering their neighbours hear and far and to become new world powers or super powers.
The national interests of these powerful or ambitions States demand that the present international order must be maintained. A world-State will strike a death-blow to the interests, designs and aspirations of these countries. Even the small States do not like the idea of a world-State, because it will merge them into a world-organisation in which they will not enjoy any distinctive existence or entity, as they do at present.
It is difficult to organise a world-State.
The idea of a world-State is an impossible and impracticable idea. The world State cannot be organised on any one of the well-known principles of Political Science. Should the future world-State be monarchical or republican, unitary or federal, capitalistic, communistic, democratic or dictatorial? If it is to be monarchical, who will be king of the world? If it is to be republican, what shall be its actual form — aristocratic, democratic, parliamentary or presidential? If it is to be unitary, what to do about the differences of national cultures and laws? Where will be its capital?
How will its parliament and cabinet be formed? If a federation, how will different nations, big and small, be represented in it? If it will be on population basis, will not be populous countries, like India and China, dominate it0 Will not then small nations with small populations become the slaves of the populous countries, because they will have no voice or place in such a world-government? If so, the world-State will be based on new injustices and tyrannies of the countries with big populations. Moreover, what will be the official language or languages of the world-State? These are some of the questions which defy solution and make the ideal of world- State to impracticable and Utopian.
The world-consciousness is cither non-existent, vague and rudimentary:
The critics of the idea of the world-State point out the fact that there is no world-consciousness, no world public opinion. There is only a vague notion of the world-wide movements and tendencies, confined mostly to a few educated. Overwhelming majority of mankind still thinks in terms of national interests and well-being. The national outlook still pervades the minds of the people everywhere in the world. Everyone thinks first of his country and then of other countries.
In all international disputes, Statesmen and peoples seek to defend the interests and advantages of their own countries and peoples. They have no idea and no interest in the common interest and well-being of the mankind as a whole. National self- interest is the law and the logic of the international relations and dealings even today. Hence there is no world-conscience and no world public opinion, without which the idea of the world-State is an empty dream or a remote possibility.
The U.N.O. cannot emerge into a world-State.
Its critics also reject the idea that such international organisations as the U.N.O. can emerge into a world-State in the future. They point out the shortcomings of the U.N.O, and the bickering in the U.N. General Assembly, where every international dispute is viewed solely from national standpoint of each member-State. Moreover, the U.N.O., like the League of Nations, has failed in many cases to solve the disputes on a global basis, such as the Korean War, the Middle East crisis today, the question of Arab Palestine, the Kashmir dispute, the U.S. aggression in Viet Nam, the Berlin crisis, the Soviet aggression, in Afghanistan and so on. In all these disputes, it has proved itself to be as ineffective and helpless as the League of Nations was before it.
Moreover, the very principles on which the U.N.O. is based are against its becoming a world-government. It acts through the support of the Big Powers, especially the two Super Powers U.S.A. and Russia. When this support is not forthcoming, it does nothing. It has no sovereign authority. It has no international police force and no executive authority to act on its own rights or enforce its decisions.
A world-State will retard progress, abolish competition and suppress individual liberty.
The world-State is also an undesirable ideal on moral and progressive basis. Human progress has been possible due to national differences in outlook and culture and by competition between these different and diverse attitudes and aims. But the world-State will substitute these differences by a dull uniformity of thoughts, ideals and institutions all over the world. It will thus mould human life into a single pattern, in which there will be no competition, no variety and no diversity of cultures, thoughts, customs and institutions, and also no liberty for each nation to live in its own way.
Individual and national liberty will be replaced by the dull uniformity of a world-culture, world-language and world-outlook. Such a dull uniformity of thought and belief and institutions will put an end to all human progress. The very charm of human existence would then vanish from the world.
Conclusion
Looking towards twenty-first century. The idea of a world-State is, indeed, a difficult, if not an impossible ideal. The very proposal of establishing a World State provokes some deep-seated moral, political, psychological, economic, national and international complications and objections. Nevertheless, there are also a number of trends and developments in human life, culture, society, science, technology and politics which are tending towards the emergence of a world State in some form or other in near or distant future. The history of mankind today has reached a stage where a world-State in some shape or other is bound to emerge or the world of Man is to meet with an utter destruction and extinction by the terrible forces of modem warfare and human ingenuity to kill each other.
A global holocaust threatens mankind in the form of nuclear weapons and missiles, including those of the so-called “Star Wars” or the S.D.I. (Strategic Defence Initiative), of U.S. devising, which will be unleashed once a new world war breaks out. Only a world-State or world- government can effectively save mankind from this terrible fate. Moreover, the arguments that the world-State would suppress individual liberty, retard progress and create a dull uniformity are also not valid.
A World-State, consisting of various national units, of different cultures and different historical origins and languages, may stimulate greater efforts, energy and activity by their inter-stimulation and intercourse than ‘the present-day mutual hatreds and threats of mutual destruction and wars. The idea of a world-State may be distant ideal, but it is very much in the shape of things to come, thanks to the evolution of modern science, industry, technology, tele-communication and information explosion also lead mankind to the age-old dream of human brotherhood and equality. Will this dream become a reality in the human world of the twenty first century?