A while back I came up with this slogan:
IGNORE THE ILLUSION
THE SOLUTION IS DISSOLUTION
This came from an American perspective. I may be an "Earth Patriot", but I happen to live in the so-called United States and in fact have not yet physically travelled beyond US borders, and so here I am, in this poor excuse for a country, with its controlled media and rampant blind nationalism...
The dissolution the slogan refers to is the elimination of the nation known as the United States of America, but the thought behind it was incomplete. I was merely thinking there was no need for a Federal government overseeing the individual States...
In a recent post I outlined a Global Union and proposed that larger countries be broken up into existing states and provinces for the purposes of representation within said Union. This seems only fair, since many of these states and provinces are larger than many entire nations, and should not be grouped together into huge and disproportionally influential political entities.
Smaller countries are already banding together to form unions, most notably the European Union but perhaps more ominously the African Union, which covers a very large continent. While it is certainly understandable that smaller and less influential countries should seek strength in numbers in response to the influence of superpowers such as the United States and (yes) China, what we will end up with is a few large entities that may find themselves at odds with one another, along with many smaller entities acting independently and perhaps causing serious trouble (such as North Korea).
Even if the larger entities were able to meet and agree on a course of action (i.e. what to do about North Korea), we would have the problem of major decisions being made by too few individuals. How few is too few? Good question.
Each of the 50 United States has several representatives, including 100 congresspeople and 435 voting members of the House of Representatives, and yet these 535 people are not enough to resist the pressures of large corporations -- and the pressure of the power elite. Bills pass into law without having been read -- Patriot Acts 1 & 2 were both much too long to be assimilated in the short time given between presentation and vote.
We could have one person ruling the entire world, as long as he or she wasn't corrupt. Proper representation is not a matter of numbers, but a matter of whether the people are truly being represented. Here in the relatively small state of West Virginia, we are 'represented' by not one, not two, but FIVE individuals in the House and Congress, and all of them are part of our 2-party system.
Yes, that's right, somehow we have allowed our entire country to be run by a pair of political parties. Right down to municipal elections, it is quite rare for anyone who is not a 'Democrat' or 'Republican' to gain any office, however small. This 2-party system only serves to perpetuate our lack of true representation.
Instead of 5 people elected to represent West Virginia in the United States government, I would prefer ONE person elected to represent the 2 million people of West Virginia as part of a "Global Union", and I'd really really like the Republican and Democratic parties to be left out of the process.
Then there would be 50 representatives of the former USA, plus a few from outlying territories (Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands etc) and who-knows-how-many from other places, to decide on the fate of the world. Maybe some states and provinces will feel the need for more than one representative, and perhaps each 'global city' should have one. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there would be an even two thousand.
There are 6,550,671,884 people on Earth to be represented as of this writing, and a projected 6.6 billion by July 2007. That's an approximate average of one GR (global representative) for every 3.3 million people. Is that adequate? Can one person effectively represent 3.3 million, more or less?
The real questions and issues are not about forms of government, nor the size of government, but how much corruption we allow within it. Many current forms of government serve to perpetuate the status quo. Once again I point to the government of the United States of America...
The way they've got it set up, it really can't be changed from within. In theory, maybe, but in practice, no. The 2-party system gives the illusion of choice while perpetuating an exclusionist tradition of grooming and selection. The candidates we are presented with are not the best 2 people for the job, but the 2 people who have managed to jump through their respective partisan hoops. Yes, other parties and a few independent candidates have managed a certain amount of success, but the vast majority of 'public servants' in the USA, down to the lowest positions, belong to one or the other of the 2 major parties.
It is a system that rewards officials who do favors for one another. Screw the populace, what have you done for your fellow politicians lately? People who enter the system with the best intentions find that they have to make sacrifices to get anything done. Some soldier on and try to make a difference, but others get discouraged and do not seek reelection, while some are compromised and keep going along for the ride.
Meanwhile, our national government has turned into a monster. Laws affecting 300 million Americans continue to be passed by a mere 535 of us (or as few of that number who choose to participate). We are not consulted on how we feel about the bills they draft and sign into law, and they just keep piling on more and more legislation.
Where will it end?
It ends with a new beginning.
I'll be taking a look at the 230 countries on Earth -- and their states, provinces, and cities -- in an attempt to determine probable representational divisions. [The State of New York, as one example, has a population of about 19 million, approximately 8 million of whom reside in New York City.] A work of speculative fiction may very well follow.
Stay tuned.
Phil Smith
October 15, 2006
