« Polly on Psychology | Main | Careful Professor »
April 24, 2007
A World Parliament
George Monbiot wants a global or world parliament so as to have true global democracy. Representatives would be elected nation by nation.
Hhhm.
Currently 90 countries are free, 103 are not, judging by the standards of the UN Declaration on Fundamental Human Rights (which is pretty much what Freedom House uses as it's benchmark). 46% of the globe's population lives in countries which abide by those standards which they have signed up to, 54% do not.
So a global parliament would seem to be the victory of those not free over those who are.
Are we really sure this is a good idea George?
April 24, 2007 in Idiotarians | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d83430d3e053ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A World Parliament:
Comments
Good point, but would you have an objection if, one day, every country in the world were to be classed a democracy?
Tim adds: Yes, because I'm anti-monopoly.
Posted by: Andy | Apr 24, 2007 12:20:15 PM
"Good point, but would you have an objection if, one day, every country in the world were to be classed a democracy?"
Is that a question open to anyone to answer? My opinion FWIW, is I would have no objection to every contry being classed a democracy if indeed every country was a democracy. I would object to non-democracies being classed a democracies though.
Posted by: ChrisM | Apr 24, 2007 12:53:57 PM
FH seem a bit bonkers though: countries that are sufficiently-free-and-democratic that nobody sensible could really object to them (e.g. Turkey, Sri Lanka, Bolivia, Nigeria) are only classed as 'partly free', while usually-democratic-subject-to-disruption Russia and Thailand are categorised as actively "not free".
Tim adds: Well, the latter is a military dictatorship at present, isn't it? Or has that all blown over now?
Posted by: john b | Apr 24, 2007 1:17:24 PM
Temporarily. It happens every few years in Thailand; after a bit the King generally tells the generals it's time to have some elections. Anyway, AIUI they haven't suspended the rule of law.
I wouldn't say it's 'free', but 'not free' also seems a bit steep (to me, 'not free' implies draconian limits on everyday discourse, like NK or Saudi or China, not just an unelected government).
Posted by: john b | Apr 24, 2007 2:18:15 PM
Don't take it so seriously. All these supra-national bodies collapse under their own weight after a while (League of Nations, United Nations, Warsaw Pact, empires too many to mention, World Bank, EU etc).
Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | Apr 24, 2007 3:20:53 PM
More CO2 from MonBioRot.
Try fixing the UN first, as that is an example of how it might be - i.e. broken.
Better to move towards more democracy by rolling back the state apparatus and having regular referrenda that can be put forward by citizens.
Posted by: Roger Thornhill | Apr 24, 2007 4:01:42 PM
A World Government. I used to read of such a thing in comics and science fiction books when I was a youngster. Now the Guardian comes up with it.
Posted by: Pete | Apr 24, 2007 7:21:09 PM
He's just saying it to wind up the Christian fundamentalists who believe in the Book of Revelations and think that the Illuminatii are to blame for everything from the price of oil to earthquakes.
He's like a kid who's trying to get attention by swearing. Ignore him and maybe he'll shut up.
Posted by: The Remittance Man | Apr 24, 2007 9:01:40 PM
Perry de Havilland did a good job debating Monbiot on this subject a couple of years back. Perry's point was that he did not want to see everything politicised, and a world parliament would effectively make everything subject to politicisation and dictatorship of the majority, thus reducing liberty and individual freedom. Monbiot didn't seem to see what was wrong with that.
Posted by: Tim Newman | Apr 25, 2007 2:01:40 AM
It’s a right step towards the global village but there is no guaranty that new organization will be pious to the culprits, few question emerging in mind these are under.
1.misuse of powers like Veto, other powers.
2.untrained president, can demolish all the objective of organization, if they elected by leaders (because mostly leaders are illiterate around the world).
3.collision among the authorities of UNO and WPO.(that can emerge as a III world war).
4.there is essential to detect the systematic error in the UNO e.g. nobody have authority to possess nuclear weapon except few authorities. It’s an error, or governor general cannot be able to solve all the problems alone, it should be board of directors that exist on approximately 20 countries representative economist, socialist and judges. They should have equal powers and they can never use powers for self-interested.
shah jahan salim
pakistan
Note: plz, reply me to help to understand.
Posted by: shahjahan | Apr 28, 2007 12:16:01 AM
