Toward the Future Multipolar World
I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?”
Irish playwright, critic, polemicist and political activist, Nobel Literature Prize laureate 1925.
Introduction - Why science must focus on possible and better futures
This is written in Sweden, in a Europe where the risk of war—most likely a conventional war between NATO and Russia—has increased markedly. We live in a time characterised by failure to solve humanity’s most urgent, existential problems, such as reducing poverty and militarism and stopping what is euphemistically called climate change, i.e. global environmental warming and rampant destruction of our environment.
Thus, it can be argued that, measured on essential criteria, the global system is approaching limits beyond which there will be no return. In an extreme scenario, the use of nuclear weapons would imply both omnicide (of human beings) and ecocide (of Nature).
It is, therefore, no wonder that many people turn a blind eye to reality, delve into entertainment, focus on their identity and appearance, and go about their “near” everyday activities feeling helpless or depressed at what they watch on the news (if they have not dropped the news completely).
While psychologically very understandable, this is devastating for every type of democracy and for the prospects of saving the world or, at least, changing it somewhat for the better.
However, this reaction of hopelessness and resignation - resigning from the larger dimensions of humanity into the culture of “me,” the world of play and games, pleasurable escapist activities, etc. - is exactly where society’s power players would like their citizens to be. Elites can make decisions to their own benefit more easily if their citizenry has given up engaging in society and the larger world.
I don't want to sound moralistic, but in my view, this is not a choice for an intellectual or a genuinely devoted change-maker. I would argue that it’s a professional duty to use the imagination and outline constructive “futures” and strategies to realise them, put them out for debate and avoid both criticism-only and defeatism.
There are various reasons behind this standpoint.
A peace researcher must be inspired by Gandhi’s Constructive Program and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Beloved Community - that is, the necessity of constructive thinking - or, as it is often phrased: plant a tree even if the world may end tomorrow - or, light a candle rather than curse the darkness.
Changing the world, big or small, cannot be fuelled by only empirical knowledge of what is wrong or critiquing what’s being done wrongly.
It can only be the result of constructive thinking, of a vision - of something we work for and not only by working against something.
The pioneer of peace and future studies, Johan Galtung (1930～2024 and one of my mentors) saw this as an integral part of the scientific investigation. Thus, what we do in social science in general and peace and future studies in particular is an interplay between three things - Data, Theory and Values, thus:
The classical—but limited—science process involves developing hypotheses about how the world works, testing them using consistent methods, and concluding what can be said about the world with reliability and validity. This is the main paradigm of natural science, but it is woefully insufficient for social science.
George Bernard Shaw: “There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why?”
In social science, we must acknowledge that we are investigating something that we ourselves are, in a fundamental sense, part of. That means being very aware of our values and how they influence our interpretations.
There is no perfectly objective truth possible - objectivity is nothing but inter-/ or multi-subjectivity: Something can be confirmed with the same quality methods employed by a number of scientists who come to the same conclusion about how the world works. If just one comes to another result with the same methodology, the theory cannot be confirmed. But it can still be discussed and lead to new, refining research.
This is where the similarities between peace research and another goal-oriented science, medicine, become clear.
A good doctor makes a knowledge- and experience-based diagnosis but does not leave the patient with a prognosis to the effect that the patient will soon be dead. An absolutely essential element in medicine is to answer the fundamental question: Given what we know, what can be done to create health and prevent a fallback to the disease? That is treatment or therapy vis-a-vis the individual, and - in a similar manner - peace and future research produces exactly that type of future thinking, visions - simply new concepts and good ideas - at a higher level: How to create a better world and devise scenarios and strategies on how to realise them despite - and beyond - the present crisis situation.
People in power are not afraid of criticism; they live in a world of criticism from peers, the media and the citizens. What we can assume that they are afraid of is that there exist much better ideas and strategies than their own and that millions of people shall begin to do two things: 1) Ask themselves: Why did I not think of that? and 2) Decide to mobilise people for change with a positive vision based on the conviction that that is much healthier for me than becoming more and more frustrated by only criticising the present.
The idea that There Is No Alternative (TINA) - and therefore also only one narrative - is what politicians adore and cultivate on their way to authoritarianism. Democracy, in contrast, recognises that The Are Only Alternatives (TAOA) - and many possible narratives. TINA people see only the past and present. TAOA people see various possible and desirable futures.
That illustrates why research on peace and research on futures are so intimately connected—they are two sides of the same coin. Peace is about envisioning a future that is fundamentally different from the present, with its armament, militarism, warfare, social inequality, and far too much violence against other peoples, genders, cultures, and Mother Earth. Peace is about how we can realise (hidden) potentials that are now being violently abused by the dark forces of the present.
In other words, we are grappling with this issue: What kind of (academic) thinking promotes democracy, vibrant societal dialogues and strategies for constructive change - what serves to create “critical mass” for nonviolent revolutionary change for the betterment of humankind - and before it is too late? What can liberate our minds from the dystopian, repressive past and present and free our minds for the future?
This is probably where the traditionalist, positivist empirical science advocate would break in and say: No way! You cannot call it science if there is no empirical evidence - and you cannot produce empirical evidence about the future, because - simply put - it does not exist yet and cannot be measured by any method.
My answer is: “That’s outdated thinking by which you only focus on the past and the present, dear colleague! We cannot change the past. And we cannot change the present before we know where we want to go. So how do you see the possible futures?”
As social psychologist Kurt Lewin argued in 1943, “there is nothing as practical as a good theory.” Good theories - and theories are nothing but ordered clusters of hypotheses - about the future are extremely practical.
Science simply can not leave the question, “What to do?” to politicians, who tend to be neither practical nor theoretical but stuck in the short-term present. Instead, as part of the research process, we must produce ideas and strategies beyond the present—expand the time and space horizons—and change the empirical reality until it fits our values of what is desirable, given what our empirical work has yielded.
George Bernard Shaw: “I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?”
That may sound like turning science on its head. Most social scientists were told during their education that we must revise our theory and its hypotheses in the light of our results until our theory fits reality. That, however, can never lead to change, only to confirmation of what is - and what is wrong.
That is what in Galtung’s brilliantly simple model above is called “constructivism.” Neglecting that is to just hand over social science to be (mis)used by people in power and signal that they, better than people in the know, can create a better world. That sort of thinking may have had some - empirical - value and relevance decades ago when creative, visionary politicians indeed did exist, but today’s general Western leadership exhibits no such qualities. For many, it seems that even thinking four election years ahead is too challenging…
One critical aspect of the constructivist approach is that it changes the discourse. When we present criticism of what there is, we operate within the discourse of the present; we re-act to something we do not like - say over-armament or threats of war. Arguing against that will always take place within the paradigm and the discourse of those we criticise. It is a fundamentally defensive strategy.
If, instead, you argue, “Why do you not avoid war by taking the following constructive steps towards conflict-resolution?” - you set the agenda, shapes the discourse, and puts the advocate of the negative present—of the war—in a defensive mode.
Another critically important aspect of this constructivist approach is that it offers much more positive energy. It can operate on empathy and good will, keeping people hopeful. It also does not imply an attack on anyone.
People can work for something for as long as it may take, but human beings tend to give up if they only fight against somebody or something and do not “win” relatively quickly; that is when they say: This is impossible, I give up. Or they continue struggling but are increasingly driven by anger and even hatred.
This may be a classical psychological observation - but there is at least one basic philosophical addition I’d like to make: Remember, that until we have tried to create that better world, we do not know what is possible and what is not. That is why it is too easy for traditionalists to just kill good ideas with - Oh, isn’t that unrealistic? Are you not too idealist/romantic/naive…?
When those words are uttered, it’s quite likely that something exciting, new and perhaps even correct has been said or done.
The beauty of constructivism is that it invites intellectual and practical experimentation. It is no coincidence that Gandhi’s most well-known book is entitled, “My Experiments With Truth.”
In what follows below, I make a modest attempt at practising what has now been preached.
Popularly speaking, democracy is often equated with “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” as famously articulated by US President Abraham Lincoln. He did not say democracy because that word does not exist in any US foundation document. Jack Matlock, the last US ambassador to the Soviet Union, argues that:
“The fact is, the United States is not a democracy. That word does not occur in any of our foundation documents. It is not in the Declaration of Independence, or in the Constitution, or in the pledge of allegiance (‘to the flag of the United States of America and the republic for which it stands,’) or in the oath of office every federal official takes.
The United States is a republic which at present is controlled by an oligarchy. It is also becoming more authoritarian. The separation of powers among the three branches of government, essential to avoid autocracy, is deeply eroded.”
So, the leader of the democratic, free Western world is not (even) a democracy. Despite that - probably surprising to a few - democracy is a core feature of Western society, normally understood as representative parliament – i.e. in free elections, citizens vote for people to represent their interests in a parliament consisting of parties of which some form the government and some the opposition.
It must be added that democracy requires a reasonable level of knowledge and information that is freely available. For instance, while India is often cited as the world’s biggest democracy, 26% of the population (287 million people) is still illiterate.
So the “world’s largest democracy” also has the world’s largest population who can’t read and write. In comparison, China’s illiterate citizens make up about 3% and that country is regularly called a dictatorship by the West.
Furthermore, in a society where the persons running for office are – or have to be – extremely wealthy to pay for their campaigns and where large corporations make multi-million dollar contributions to certain candidates (presumably not out of altruism), falls outside a reasonable definition of democracy – even though they may also not be dictatorships; there are many stations in-between the two.
Whatever merits democracy can be said to have, it is not that easy to distinguish between the democracy propaganda and true democracy. More about that below.
When I was in my high school years – a few decades ago – and wanted to contribute to changing society for the better, the most natural - and finest - thing to do was to join a political party. Not so today. My students in peace studies around the world often ask me at the end of a course when it is time to say goodbye whether I can help them somehow in making their career. Their career dreams may be to work for the UN, for human rights and the environment, start their own NGO with a peace profile or set up their own consultancy firm for a better world.
Significantly, over all these years, only one student asked me what I thought about contributing to peace and development by becoming a politician.
As is well-known, people today engage in social issues mainly through civil society and the use of social media and protests as their primary tools. This is good from most perspectives and holds fascinating prospects for de facto global citizenship and action, but it also does something to the old type of representative democracy populated by parties as they still make up the system’s main decision-makers.
When we talk about global crises, people think much more of the environment, identity issues or warfare than of democracy being in crisis. I think Western democracy is in fundamental crisis for at least the following reasons.
1. The state is being challenged from below and from above.
Democracy is tied to the state, to “my country” where I go and vote, and not to the world society. But the state is getting weaker due to pressures from both below and above. It’s often stated that global problems can only be solved by supra-national co-operation but those issues are discussed in various interest and regional associations and ad hoc forums. There exist no democratic decision-making mechanisms at the global level.
2. Society’s economic issues dominate
The primary cluster of issues discussed in democracies is the economy, and that threatens to reduce democracy to the politics of the wallet. The pervasive focus on the economy signifies a) that national democratic politics conducted in parliaments functions to try to mitigate the effects of the economic globalisation that is roaring ahead, and b) that most of society’s problems and challenges are managed through economic parameters, the market. Or, rather, the marketisation/commodification of virtually everything. One may question whether in Western (neo)liberal societies, the market is more of a decision-maker than democracy itself.
3. Materialism over life values
Parliamentary democracy’s obsession with - capitalist - economics makes it uninteresting or unviable for those who believe that democratic debate should also deal with values, ethics, and concepts such as justice and peace. Over the last 2-3 decades, democracies have phased out every quality of intellectualism and philosophy – even public discussions of visions of a better future society citizens may want to prioritise.
4. A time horizon far too short
The perspective of 4 years – from one election to the next – is, of course, hopelessly inadequate in a world that is haunted by complex problems, the solutions of which would require that we all operated with time horizons of, say, 10-25 years, or more. The visionary politician who has a long-term vision simply doesn’t fit and can hardly be found in today’s Western parliaments.
5. National parliaments less and less important
Less and less of what decides the future of our countries is decided by national parliaments. Instead, the real binding decisions that influence our lives and those of our children are taken by larger, more distant and elite-based structures such as Wall Street, NATO, the EU, the IMF, banks, stock market manipulations, etc. When they have made up their deals, national parliaments have to cope with how to adapt and adjust to the global framework conditions.
6. Global economy and military but only national democracy
The most globalising sectors of our societies are the corporate world (think, for instance, of the global economy/market, exchange rates, borrowing, trade, investments, finance, infrastructure, global sourcing, etc.) and the military (think of weapons production, weapons exports, bases, interventionism, war planning, doctrines, long-range-missiles, satellites, navigation systems, anti-submarine warfare, regional and global wars, and nuclear annihilation).
The elites in those two spheres of society think globally. They see the world as one system in which to operate. While the nation-state—their own country—may be important to them, it is not their primary, chosen perspective in time and space.
Therefore, democracy’s perhaps biggest problem is that we don’t even have the embryo of a global democracy that can match these two powerful actors.
7. Politicians must choose between getting elected and speaking the truth
Candidates in democratic election campaigns can’t be honest even if they want to. Any candidate has to promise “gold and green forests” about how much better we will live and consume in the future if only we vote for her or his party. Someone who hopes to make a political career can’t tell the voting citizenry that we must also take some painful steps and give up some activities to save the planet for future generations. Power is about promises - whether kept or not after election day - and there is, therefore, very little “gold” and “green forests” left.
To a dangerously large extent, democracy now rests on pulling the wool over the citizens’ eyes when it comes to the state of the world and what it would take to solve, deeply and broadly, say the environmental problems.
In addition, democracy is a very slow decision-making process in a world where complex solutions are urgently needed.
8. Politics becomes public relations which replaces knowledge
Politics is increasingly seen and practised as a game, pragmatic navigation, positioning, and horse trading. In general, reforms, laws and political standpoints are marketed and sold to the citizens as if they were commodities. For that, you need short, punchy soundbites, spin doctors and marketing campaigns, whereas traditional public dialogues and debates throughout society are too time-consuming and imply a meeting between elites and masses (and could lead to a change in what decision-makers have already decided over and above their citizens’ heads).
Media developments are resulting in shorter and shorter statements. Everything must be expressed within a maximum of, say, 30 seconds, and the concentration span is decreasing. Deliver the essence in 30 seconds, or we lose our viewers! In terms of public education and furthering democratic debates, it’s a vicious circle.
This leads to personal positioning rather than perspectives of substance. As a politician, you don’t have to know much about the complexities of, say, the Middle East or Ukraine; it has become more important to be able to take sides—good guys versus bad guys. Narratives, which are often incredibly simplistic, are frequently imported from a power centre abroad, such as Washington or Brussels.
So, instead of publicly educational dialogues (exploring issues) and debates (allowing various standpoints to meet and be backed up by arguments), citizens are fed the typical sports match-like televised confrontations: Our policies are better than yours!
And the one who is most eloquent, deceives more smartly or is nicely dressed “wins” the confidence and the votes.
Thanks to modern communication and media demands, the time available for knowledge-based political decision-making has been reduced enormously during the last 20-30 years. This impacts the quality of most decisions negatively.
And like all coins, this coin has a second side: Corporations and their brands increasingly mix and melt into politics. For instance, the Edelman Trust Barometer for 2024 states that
“With politics top of mind for consumers, they see brand actions through a political lens: nearly 8 in 10 consumers feel brands are doing things they consider political or politically motivated. But consumers do not want brands to shy away from politics. In fact, they expect brands to address key issues like climate change, fair pay, reskilling, public health, and diversity, seeing their action as pivotal to societal progress. And 71 per cent of global respondents say brands must take a stance on issues when under pressure, while only 12 per cent say that brands must avoid taking a position.”
https://www.edelman.com/trust/2024/trust-barometer/special-report-brand/brands-frontline-strengthening-trust-political-volatility
In recent times, we have seen how corporations express/brand themselves as anti-Russian and pro-Ukrainian - while they lie very low when it comes to positioning themselves vis-a-vis Israel’s genocide on Palestinians.
To summarise, while Western society's political sphere becomes more commercial and market/marketing-oriented, the economic sphere—corporations and their brands—seems to become more political. These long-term trends may further undermine the ’classical’ theory and practice of democracy.
Closely related to these two sides of this coin - that cannot, however, have three sides - is that money influences and corrupts politics. In almost all constitutional democracies, citizens and corporations can donate money to election campaigns and political parties. The point hardly needs elaboration, also not right after the US elections in the autumn of 2024. And it is all stated succinctly in a book from 2002 - “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_Democracy_Money_Can_Buy by Greg Palast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast
9. Politics as a calling versus a career path
Once, politics had a focus on aiming to promote a particular future development, and ideological differences between parties were visible. Today’s politics has become more of a profession, a career option; you take some years in politics and then go on to corporate business board rooms or whatever that may give you fame and funds.
People with a burning passion for some social issue choose not to become politicians but instead join NGOs, blog, do social media or become entrepreneurs. As my students mentioned above have taught me. Politics, rather, attracts people without such passion – except perhaps for personal privileges, limousines, and frequent 1st class travels paid by taxpayers. And, not to forget, for the attraction to power.
This means that politics no longer attracts the visionary leader, the charismatic personality type who can inspire the young, those for whom politics should be made.
With the standard exception stated – and there are individual exceptions to the above – most politicians lack humour (at least on-stage), charisma, enthusiasm, personality and vision – combining to make democratic activities and debates utterly boring most of the time.
10. Democracy is about voting but not about selecting
Most people rightly believe that democracy is distinguished by the citizens voting for some person or party and laws or voting yes or no to some alternatives set up by the political elites (also called referendum).
But democracy’s fundamental idea is not to vote on an issue set up in advance by people we do not know. Democracy is - should be - to contribute to establishing the agenda in the first place.
Democracy is also not to decide between only two alternatives, like: Shall Switzerland remain a neutral country in the future? Yes or No! Ideally, it would be to develop a broader spectrum (moulded and changed by public education and debate) of which, say, neutrality is only one option/alternative among several.
Genuine democracy is about setting agendas. It’s not about voting yes or no to somebody’s pre-determined and more or less cunning agenda and candidates.
You could, perhaps, summarise it all by saying that democracy is no longer lived, it is being performed. It’s become a ritual without much ethos.
11. Citizens’ sense of not getting through to decision-makers
The sentiments expressed by an increasing proportion of citizens in the Western world is that it is extremely difficult to “get through” to the people who make decisions on the top. That is, frankly, my own experience over the decades, too.
Compared with a few decades ago, these top decision-makers also seem to feel it less important to be in direct dialogue with their constituencies. While before, it was a duty to send answers back to a citizen in an envelope, they no longer receive even an email or other response when writing to their representatives or ministers. The political system has its gatekeepers, and even if you send constructive proposals or research reports to politicians, it is naive to expect a reply, acknowledgement of receipt or a word of thank you. The same, by the way, applies to attempts at communicating with the media world.
In summary, I find it difficult to disagree with Gandhi’s radical criticism almost a hundred years ago:
Mohandas K. Gandhi's famous statement
In one of his last interviews, French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (1905~1980) said that every time a citizen votes, s/he gives away power. That statement points to the essential, classical distinction between representative democracy and direct democracy. In the first, the voter delegates to someone else who has convinced/seduced her or him to take care of citizens’ interests.
We know this generally leads to false promises and considerable disappointment with politics. In the second, citizens take issues into their own hands—which, of course, has disadvantages and encompasses a whole series of other problems, not the least of which is how to organise it. That said, without a vibrant, active, and educated citizenship, genuine democracy becomes impossible.
In summary, while democracy perhaps still remains the least bad system, we should take care not to equate that statement with democracy being good enough.
Comparing Western democracy with authoritarian regimes over time does not prove its quality or perfection. Every good system can and should be improved—i.e., we need to democratise democracy to simplify it a bit. At least some elements of it ought to be taken to higher levels—globalising democracy to democratise the globe and its outdated Westphalian-national(ist) decision-making procedures.
Secondly, Western democracies will have to accept and respect that there can be non-Western models of democracy and that these are not necessarily un- or anti-democratic and should not necessarily be fought. No system should become universal. We are all better off with unity in diversity, also when it comes to democratic governance.
Complacency in this matter could easily and rapidly lead the West towards the authoritarianism that it maintains that it is the antidote to. Such indicators are already flourishing…
The United Nations, the world’s single most important peace-visionary organisation, turns 80 on October 24, 2025. Since its establishment in 1986, TFF has been focused on promoting Article 1 of the UN Charter, which states that peace shall be brought about by peaceful means.
That is a Gandhian inspiration. As he said “the means are the goals in the making.” You can not use destructive means to achieve constructive goals.
Regrettably, people often accuse the UN of being too expensive, too bureaucratic, too ineffective, too corrupt, or too this and that.
Here is why this author considers such statements intellectually poor - and dangerous too:
First, as Norwegian Trygve Lie, the UN's first Secretary-General, stated, the UN will never become stronger or better than its member states want it to be. Sadly, they are still far more nationalist than globalist.
Lie’s words are still spot-on correct. They simply mean that it is the member states (some more than others) that behave internationally and in their UN policies in ways that weaken the world organisation and its norms, undermine its power and role, and marginalise its operations.
Secondly, those who say that the world could just as well close down the “outdated” UN just don’t consider how small its budget is and how impossible it would be to make the world a better place with so few funds, given the destructive forces that are pitted against the UN and its norms by the world’s MIMACs - Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complexes.
The UN regular budget for 2024 is USD 3.59 billion, nearly USD 300 million more than the previous year's budget. This budget supports the core functions of the UN Secretariat and includes funding for various operations, including peacebuilding efforts. The total annual expenditures of all its member agencies (such as WHO, UNICEF, etc.) are US$50-60 billion.
Now, compare that with the costs of global militarism: Today, the UN members spend the highest-ever total global sum on military expenditures, US$2400 billion.
This means that world military expenditures are 666 times larger than the UN's regular basic budget, including peacekeeping and about 40 times larger than the sum of all the - good - things the UN and its family organisations do.
What fires can you prevent or extinguish if militarist pyromaniacs have 40 times more resources at their disposal to start new fires? Admittedly, this is a rhetorical question, but it makes an existentially important point: The world’s priorities are absurd, if not perverse, and there are still virtually no discussions of these priorities.
Most people seem to accept that this unimaginable waste of humanity’s resources is the price to pay for what is euphemistically called ’security’. However, as of writing this at the end of 2024, warfare is looming large, at least in Europe, and virtually all countries worldwide plan to increase their military expenditures.
Thirdly, whether intended or not, these critics implicitly say: We’d rather have a world run by the US Empire (and a few others) than by the UN. This is a dangerous way of thinking that totally undermines international law and the extremely important UN Charter – the most Gandhian document the world’s governments have ever signed.
It deserves to be pointed out that at this particular moment of global and UN history, there are reasons to be extremely concerned about the very future of the United Nations in the light of US President Donald Trump’s attitude to the UN and the people he has appointed to manage the UN policy of the US. See Thalif Deen’s “US Envoy-in-Waiting Blasts UN as Corrupt – & Threatens Funding Cut” at the Inter Press Sevice of November 29, 2024.
This is definitely not the time to criticise “the UN” as such, at least not without also presenting visionary reform proposals and proposals for global governance.
There is no doubt that saving humankind and our common global future goes through the United Nations and its Charter norms – not as the only change-maker but as the most central.
It is certainly true that the UN must be reformed. But as we show below, governments and people, including the media and politicians, need to reform their attitudes and policies regarding the UN much more.
When we give it a more profound thought, this issue is part of a much larger process of democratising decision-making beyond the national and regional level and begin to think of global governance in completely new, future-adapted ways.
If and when humankind develops something far better than the UN, we may switch to that and close down the UN as we know it today. But not a second before that has happened.
And that new institution shall not be located in the member state that has harmed the UN the most. But until that moment, let’s make the present UN stronger so it can eventually do what it was intended to: Serve the common good and abolish war - and make peace by peaceful - civilised - means, thus making the use of collective violence the absolutely last resort.
“We, the people” must work on that from below since “They, the governments” have consistently violated that tremendously important Article 1 and the entire normative framework embedded in the UN Charter. And continues to do so!
Below, please find a series of proposals for global democracy and a strong UN. Some will surely find proposals such as these “unrealistic” or “romantic.” That’s what many also thought and said when it was suggested that slavery should be abolished, when Europeans protested the deployment of nuclear intermediate-range missiles in the 1980s and did get rid of them, when it was predicted that the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact would soon dissolve and the Berlin Wall come down…or when people started campaigning to reduce smoking tobacco…
Let us first focus on democracy in relation to the United Nations. It deserves emphasis that there are many problems pertaining to democracy and the global system (we avoid calling it ’the international community’ since inter-national is an outdated term, the US has misused it for the Western world only, and ’community’ de facto doesn’t exist in these times where the West is self-isolating through rampant militarism and confrontational policies).
First, democracy itself is a complicated term and what philosophers call an essentially contested concept. But this is not the place to write a treatise on what democracy is philosophically.
Second, what to do with the fact that democracy, although perhaps being the least bad theory so far, is considered “pseudo” and ineffective and is systematically circumvented by a number of power elites in the Western world (and Japan)?
Third, it is a Western-biased concept that is most often taken to imply only elements such as a multi-party system, equality before the law, free speech, free elections and a set of social institutions such as parliaments and the free press. Thus, many considered the Soviet Union a dictatorship because it has one party and the United States a democracy because it has two parties. However, true democracy is also about a special political culture that naturally seeks to incorporate non-majorities.
Fourth, while democratisation is desirable, how do we avoid, on the one hand, the politico-cultural imperialism of universalising a deeply Western definition and concept/theory and, on the other, the cultural particularism in which any system or dictator is permitted to call a society democratic with reference to local values and interpretations?
Fifth, there is no democracy at the international level, no institutions that resemble those of the nation-states; therefore, we will have to build on the only globally-oriented institution that can be reformed in the direction of a multi-cultural democratic institution at the supranational level: the U.N.
But the UN itself must be democratised, and it must come to embody, sooner rather than later, a democratised world order. It is time to take “we, the peoples” seriously and look into which peoples should be given a say in world – and UN – affairs. The catchword here, of course, is popular sovereignty, i.e., a systematic acknowledgement of the principle that sovereignty resides with the world’s peoples, with global citizenry.
Sixth, as pointed out by Gandhi, democracies are based on regress to violence (armies, state repression, prisons, courts, capital punishment, etc.) to uphold their order. And all democracies, with exceptions such as Costa Rica, Iceland and perhaps a few more, profit/benefit from arms exports and they support, more often than not, political interventionism and nuclearism. In other words, Western democracy and Western militarism are deeply intertwined - although it is still empirically true that democracies usually don’t go to (military) war with other countries they consider democratic - which does not exclude that economic warfare can be pursued.
Seventh, the same could be said about the attitudes in most democracies about the relationship between society and Nature. Modern democracies' complete, general entanglement in capitalism entails environmental destruction. The democratic world, not communism or dictatorships, chops down rain forests and kills species, languages, and “primitive” cultures, and it has done so for centuries.
Fortunately, the environment and socio-economic (mal)development serve more convincingly than any other problem as arguments for restructuring existing international organisations, creating new ones, and changing the meaning of government politics to encompass the regional and global levels.
This is what eco-politics is about.
Today, the United Nations is totally unable to deal effectively with this civilisational challenge. The fact that sustainable development is a concept that has come to stay points to the necessity of establishing an entirely new organisation within the United Nations. Additionally, the environmental agenda is the one that, more than others, seem to reflect the common interest of all humankind.
In 1991, the Board of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, TFF, in Sweden published TFF Statement # V entitled A United Nations of the Future. What ‘We, the Peoples’ and Governments Can Do to Help the U.N. Help Ourselves.
In it, we suggested radical reforms in peacekeeping, development and environment and democratisation of the U.N. itself and of the world community.
Here follow some of the proposals - revised, re-phrased and updated where necessary:
• The UN Security Council must be reformed and the veto power be restricted.
The exceptionally strong influence of the five permanent Security Council members is incompatible with any conceptualisation of global democracy. Likewise, its composition does not reflect the global society and its dynamic changes.
Perhaps there should be no permanent Security Council members - and certainly not those that are the most highly armed, war-fighting and nuclear states? Perhaps there ought to be a Security Council with no permanent members but a Council where membership changes at intervals so that, over time, all member states have taken their turn at the Security Council?
The veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council (SC) ought to disappear or its use restricted to certain areas and situations. Instead of the veto power, the SC could work with a double majority among the permanent members and among the elected members. Whatever we prefer, we can no longer ignore the need for a comprehensive reform of the Security Council, its membership criteria, and modes of operation.
We believe that a gradual fading away of the veto power is not only desirable but also possible. Furthermore, it is important to strengthen the remunerative, peaceful and democratic powers of the Secretary-General and a new leadership structure as well as the General Assembly in the future rather than relying on the negative power of the veto. Hence:
• The UN needs a stronger Secretary-General and a new leadership organisation.
The provisions for the functions of the Secretary-General (particularly Articles 99 and 100) are, in fact, the only concession made in the Charter to supranationality. However, to fulfil all the requirements of a Secretary-General laid down in the Charter and practices developed since then, not to mention the personal qualities demanded, a superhuman personality is required.
Collective leadership in the top echelon is now a necessity. It could consist of five: the Secretary-General him- or herself, the three deputies – for peace and security, economic, environmental and social matters and for administration and management. The fifth would be a new deputy in charge of relations with the public, the non-governmental and the private sector.
• The General Assembly should be invigorated.
The General Assembly (GA) may have the most important role in the future in raising political awareness on global issues. It could sponsor Special Sessions to communicate the facts, evaluations, and urgency to a broader audience.
The GA's legislative authority needs to be binding and linked to actions decided upon simultaneously (as well as their financing). It has to be a consensus decision, and there need to be legally binding conventions. The November 1950 “United Action for Peace” Resolution provided that the General Assembly would meet to recommend collective measures in situations when the Security Council was unable to address a breach of peace or an act of aggression.
• The UN needs new constituencies.
The United Nations is, in fact, the United Governments. It is beyond doubt true that a number of governments are de facto “non-people organisations” (NPOs), whereas many civil society organisations, or so-called NGOs, are genuine People’s Organisations (PO) but have no access to the “We, the People” UN and its various forums. (Regrettably, there is also an increasing percentage of NGOs that, due to financing and leadership, could more precisely be referred to as Near-Governmental Organisations).
So, new actors should be brought into the picture in various ways and with guarantees that they are truly independent of states and governments. We suggest the following categories: a) international organisations, b) transnational organisations, in which people represent causes or worldwide issues but not parties or countries, such as various movements and initiatives, c) minorities and indigenous peoples, d) refugees and displaced persons, e) children and youth under 18 years of age and f) transnational corporations.
• Establish links and consultative processes between all these NGOs and all UN bodies - and using hearings.
Consultative status, direct participation in commissions and agencies, an elaborate system of hearings throughout the UN system, sounding of analyses and proposals and inviting statements, commissioning fact-finding, research, etc., with these organisations – are all measures that exemplify how much-needed democratisation combined with the collection of knowledge and innovative perspectives - can be implemented even if step-by-step.
Effectively tapping non-governmental resources would enrich the UN tremendously and transform it into a much more dynamic body perceived by citizens worldwide as relevant to them.
• A Citizens Chamber or Second Assembly must be developed.
One can only sympathise with the often proposed Second Chamber or “parallel structure.” It would probably be wise to introduce it gradually and to establish first which constituencies it should have (see above) and how to elect them.
• Direct election of UN representatives.
Today, Ministries of Foreign Affairs appoint their country’s UN Ambassador and staff. Citizens have no chance to influence who will represent them—“We, the peoples.”
This creates a sense of distance. However, nothing in the statutes of the United Nations forbids any member from appointing their representatives by direct election, but obliging them to do so would hardly be possible today.
For other bodies than the General Assembly such as for agencies and the proposed Second Chamber of non-governmental actors, citizens should be given the opportunity to vote for candidates.
• The United Nations must be “sold” efficiently as a global media.
More or less important news - combined with sport, entertainment, debates, etc - reaches the world 24/7, either in the traditional ways or through social media. But the United Nations has no similar structure with commercials, educational programs, debates, entertainment, no campaigns, no reports and no debates and analyses that reach us daily.
The UN is much too much at the mercy of the Western mainstream press.
Most UN documents and even public information materials appear anything but stimulating to ordinary citizens. We live in the age of global, digital, multi-channelled communication, and the UN must develop a creative media competence and worldwide daily presence as well as find sufficient funds to reach into our living rooms - at least to the same degree public service broadcasters, CNN, BBC or CGTN do. The UN Department of Global Communications does a lot of good things, but it will need resources to reach the level of the mentioned media, to distinguish itself in the future as the go-to source for world news, events, trends and discussion of them.
https://www.un.org/en/department-global-communications/news-media
And, now, what can the member governments do?
• Members must integrate UN norms and long-term goals into their national decision-making and give up some of their sovereignty
Obviously, the nation-state is losing influence over transnational actors and the environment. Governments should acknowledge that while they give up some sovereignty now, they will later reap the benefits of cooperation, early solutions to problems, and order instead of chaos. Taking others into account, thinking globally and cooperating in new ways is the sine qua non of survival for all.
The commitment of member governments can be seen from two angles: They can be encouraged to improve their policies and ensure that they align with decisions they have supported in New York. A more stern mechanism may also exist, namely, suspending members who repeatedly violate UN Charter norms, resolutions, and other decisions. The length of the suspension period should depend on the seriousness of their violations. That said, it may not be wise to permanently exclude any member.
• Members should develop true self-defence and new security policies.
Any national moves towards purely defensive military and/or civilian postures and doctrines would solve – automatically – a number of serious problems that would otherwise be dumped on the Secretary-General or settled through naked force in the battlefield.
The author has outlined such a possible system in a longer, detailed analysis published in 2023 by China Investment, entitled “Towards a new peace and security thinking for the multi-polar, cooperative and peaceful world.”
https://transnational.live/2023/07/23/towards-a-new-peace-and-security-thinking-for-the-multi-polar-cooperative-and-peaceful-world/
It argues for putting peace first and then securing it through defensive military and/or civilian defence measures that do not lead to arms races and threat perceptions and build on concepts such as human security from the local to the global, common security, prioritising civilian early conflict warning and mediation as well as conflict-resolution and a series of other constructive ideas. The fundamental idea of human civilian rather than national military security was developed by Johan Galtung and the author back in“The New Military Order - The Real Threat to Human Security. An Essay on Global Armament, Structural Militarism and Alternative Security,” Lund University Peace Research Department and the Chair of Conflict and Peace Studies, Oslo University, 1978.
• Members should allow for direct UN service.
Each member, through national law-making, ought to make it possible for any citizen otherwise eligible for military service to seek recruitment with the United Nations for military and civilian peacekeeping on an equal basis with national conscription.
• Members should refer more conflicts to the United Nations.
Past analyses showed that only around 32% of all disputes involving military operations and fighting were referred to the UN during the 1980s, the lowest share since 1945. Although data for today are difficult to come by, one must doubt that the level is higher today.
Right now the truth is that never before have there been so many armed conflicts across the globe.
https://www.uu.se/en/news/2024/2024-06-03-ucdp-record-number-of-armed-conflicts-in-the-world
Imagine that the whole range of ecological conflicts developing these years would also be referred to the UN.
Or imagine that the war in Ukraine and the underlying NATO-Russia conflict had been referred to the UN already in 2014, and UN peacekeepers had been deployed to southeastern Ukraine years before the Russian invasion commenced.
At the same time, a recent 2024 study by the Carnegie Endowment for Peace summarises:
“The quantitative data show that UN peacekeeping “has a large, positive and statistically significant effect on reducing violence of all sorts.” The findings are so strong that there is no question that peacekeeping reduces deaths, sexual violence, refugee flows, and the likelihood of the recurrence of conflict. Where there are peacekeeping missions, lasting peace agreements are more likely. In short, UN peacekeeping is extremely effective at bringing peace. Moreover, interstate wars have declined overall since World War II, in part because states have often chosen to work through the Security Council to resolve interstate conflict.”
See “Can the UN Security Council Still Help Keep the Peace? Reassessing Its Role, Relevance, and Potential for Reform” at
https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2024/07/can-un-security-council-still-help-keep-the-peace?lang=en
Therefore, there is all the more reason to argue for the world to use the UN more —the organisation with the longest accumulated experience in peacekeeping and peacebuilding. NATO shows no such results.
• Members should re-affirm their Charter obligations and develop common-sense coalitions.
This applies particularly to those relating to the non-use of force and the peaceful settlement of disputes, respect for the spirit and letter of the Charter combined with a firm commitment to make available all kinds of civilian and military peacekeeping forces as well as all expertise relating to non-violent, peaceful conflict resolution.
There is a need for a “new, common-sense coalition” consisting mainly of middle-size and non-aligned countries determined to use the UN machinery effectively. Common sense coalitions will be needed not only in the field of peacemaking but also in creating genuine, globally sustainable development and ecological security. The UN is no substitute for governmental action.
It is noteworthy that China is the only one among the UN heavyweight members which often and consistently emphasises the important role of the UN.
• Increase the UN budget substantially and share the burden of the future UN budget more equally.
No member should be allowed to exert political pressure within the organisation because of the size of its financial contribution. No member should contribute more than, say, 10% of its budget. Sharing in relation to the size of the population and/or GNP may be the easiest, with compensation for the poorest, i.e., resembling some kind of progressive taxation or tiered membership fees.
There is no doubt that, unfortunately, the UN is a heavy bureaucracy that needs to be streamlined and operate more efficiently. But there is also no doubt it is pitifully under-financed (as we have pointed out above). The entire staff of about 50,000 is equivalent to 1/8 of the world’s military researchers and engineers or half of the people employed in the British rail sector.
We doubt the bureaucratic problem within the UN is that much worse than in most other large organisations, say, NATO, the EU or the Pentagon. Evidently, it should be rationalised and better coordinated, and deep cuts should be made in extravagant salaries, per diem, and travel costs.
Having said that, the UN will need resources many times what it receives today to be an effective actor in the future world community. It is a shame for the world’s governments that the UN is constantly forced to live close to bankruptcy and that leading members ignore honouring the deadline for payments.
There are at least two ways in which the United Nations could supplement its budget: One, members could earmark a certain minimum percentage of personal income and consumption taxes or GDP. It would make much more sense than the idea to set off 2-3% of GDP for the military, irrespective of any threat assessment.
Two, the United Nations and its organisations could raise funds from not-for-profit foundations, small and big private donors worldwide. Undoubtedly, many citizens would be more happy to see their tax money end up at the UN than as contributions to their government’s militarism and warfare. The criteria must, of course, be that no formal or informal strings be attached.
• Member parliaments should establish multidisciplinary monetary UN committees.
They should be staffed with experts, politicians, public servants, and representatives of movements, minorities, refugees, children, and youth. They should be charged with raising issues, presenting proposals, holding hearings, etc.
Each such national committee would monitor their nation’s policies and programs for the UN and its agencies and help create a much wider public consciousness on world affairs. It should carry out “global impact assessments” of national decision-making, preferably in cooperation with UN agencies and regional bodies.
It could also facilitate better national and regional coordination of UN activities. While governments often demand “improved coordination” of the UN, they themselves have created a loose system and often fail to coordinate their own policies in different forums within the UN system.
• Set up UN “embassies” in member states with transnationally recruited teams.
They could operate together with the United Nations associations and monitor security, development and environmental policies and actions and report back to regional organisations, UN agencies and central UN bodies on these matters. Naturally, they should place their advice and analyses at the disposal of governmental and non-governmental groups and associations, as well as explain UN affairs to the media.
In other words, they would serve as “go-betweens” in each country, with consultative and observer status and no more. They would make the presence of the UN and its norm system felt locally and balance the governments’ representatives to the UN. This is an obvious solution to the problem of the very low worldwide profile of the UN.
It is essential that these bodies monitor the degree to which national decision-making is aligned with decisions the countries have endorsed at various UN bodies. While they may not be able to prevent a country from going to war and violating a series of Charter provisions and resolutions, they would still make a point and contribute to other bodies whose role is to hold decision-makers accountable according to international law.
• We should revise the UN Charter so it gives appropriate attention to environmental issues.
The Charter does not mention environmental problems or ecological balance at all. Peace is understood as non-war between governments and not as harmony between Nature and human beings.
Few would dispute today that the two are intimately linked and that peace with Nature is existentially important.
• An Environmental Security Council (ESC) must be set up and given very comprehensive authority and peaceful enforcement capacity.
It will have to have very extensive non-violent powers but operate in a manner totally different from the present Security Council. It should deal with all matters related to issues such as global warming, ozone layer depletion, pollution, waste, ecological assessment (also of consumerism in rich countries), clean water and air, urbanisation, transport systems and infrastructure. Further it should decide global environmental standards and depletion quotas of threatened resources and energy sources.
• A Declaration of Human and Governmental Duties and Obligations.
The United Nations, its Charter, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are “anthropocentric," placing the individual at the centre of all concerns. The UN should strive to establish a normative framework that integrates humankind and Nature.
Even if we cherish and care for Nature and its bio-diversity in consideration for human beings or believe that Nature has rights and values in and of itself, we shall not be able to solve the environmental problems - climate change - and learn to live in sustainable ways without a concept of human duties and obligations vis-a-vis Nature.
Gandhi’s succinct argument that there can be no rights without duties is as simple as profound. It is time that the United Nations, in cooperation with all relevant constituencies, begin the work of drafting a “Universal Declaration of Human and Governmental Duties and Obligations”. The Earth Charter can deliver some of the inspiration for such an endeavour.
More about this dimension here - and see Note 1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujIQBB9aarU&list=PLYF0JPfanRdzMRORJokjTmzZWXIP9juG0&index=96
and here in an earlier article kindly published by China Investment:
https://transnational.live/2023/07/23/towards-a-new-peace-and-security-thinking-for-the-multi-polar-cooperative-and-peaceful-world/
• Demilitarization of the common heritage and protection of parts of the earth.
The Environmental Security Council (ESC) should cooperate with the existing Security Council about demilitarising humanity’s common heritage and developing a global governance over the parts of the earth not now under national sovereign control: outer space, Antarctica and the high seas.
Closely related to that is the implementation of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, or the Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty, of January 2021. Nuclear weapons are based on the philosophy of terrorism and are part of the ’balance of terror.’ Were they ever used, the consequences for humans and for the environment/Nature could amount to omnicide and ecocide.
• The Trusteeship Council could be revitalised.
Today it is virtually without tasks and could be given authority over the common heritage areas, resources and culture. The modalities for such a new, much larger role for the Trusteeship Council should be investigated and proposals made.
If territories, resources and various objects could, either permanently or for limited periods of time, be entrusted to the United Nations, it would solve many problems and reduce environmental damage.
• UN protection and management of humankind’s most important resources and species.
We think here of resources such as oil, rain forests and resources threatened by depletion that could be protected and managed by the Trusteeship Council. Depending on the circumstances, the Council would cooperate with the ESC and perhaps the SC. Setting depletion quotas for resources and reduction standards for threatened species should become the prerogative of this part of the UN system.
• A UN ecological security monitoring agency and regional eco-security commissions are needed.
The first step would be to coordinate existing institutions worldwide. For the first time, the word “regional” would not mean political or geographical but biological or ecological regions. Governments and many other actors would cooperate in new bio- or eco-regional patterns, often crisscrossing other types of boundaries. The commissions would report directly to the Secretary-General.
Global democracy is much broader than what pertains to national democracies and the globalisation of democracy discussed above. The UN that we have focused on is not the only, albeit the most important, supra-national organisation; let us think also of all the rising regional organisations and various types of governmental groups such as NATO, ASEAN, SCO and BRICS+ where ministers or heads of state meet, discuss and issue a resolution most often without the slightest anchoring among the people they purport to represent and often with Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) petitioning indoors or demonstrating outdoors.
There is a very long way to go.
It’s fairly easy to continue proposing reforms and putting them up for reflection and global dialogue. If multi-national and multi-cultural future workshops—a method for generating constructive ideas and visions of the possible futures associated with Austrian future researcher Robert Jungk—were to become frequent events worldwide, only humanity’s collective imagination would set the limits.
Outside the elite circles that mastermind the present trends, which point toward a partial or complete global breakdown, there is boundless creativity under the sky.
The world will be looking intensely for good ideas about global governance and peace – after nationalism, militarism, racism and imperialism, as well as other constructs of lesser minds have declined too.
Why not let thousands of flowers bloom for humanity’s better future already so we can rationally prepare for a future that is still eminently possible and can be developed only through global democratic dialogue?
Translator | Hu Hao
Design | Demi
版权所有，侵权必究
欢迎个人分享，媒体转载请回复本微信号获得许可
