The world is divided. It is our task to unite it and establish peace and harmony.
At present, the UN consists of 206 listed states, of which 193 are member states, two are observer states and 11 are other states. Of these, there are 191 states whose sovereignty is undisputed, while the sovereignty of the remaining 15 is disputed. The sovereign states are nation-states, using the rather old-fashioned term nation-state, as each state is both a nation and a state, the words nation and state being often used interchangeably. But while the definition of a state can be clear-cut as having a well-defined territory and a sovereign government, the definition of a nation is nebulous, as a nation can be described with ethnicity, language, culture, religion, political movement and a combination of these, etc., in which a large group of people may feel that they have a common identity to form a nation.
Many trace the origin of nation-states to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, which ended the 30 years’ war in the Holy Roman Empire and the 80 years’ war between Spain and the Dutch Republic, with Spain formalizing the independence of the Dutch Republic. But there are writers who consider Ancient Egypt as the first nation-state. However, by the end of WWI, the warring nations wanted to stop world wars, and with that objective in mind they formed the League of Nations on 10 January 1920, the Covenant of which was included in the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. At the time there were 43 nations who joined the League, and now we have 206 listed states in the UN. But the present nation-states are not the end in themselves, as there are an estimated 8000 nationalities in the world today. Even London, according to a 2011 estimate, encompasses more than 270 nationalities and 300 languages, and they all have existential and developmental aspirations, and they all live within the borders of the present set-up of states.
A nation faces the questions: who are we, and how do we develop further? The categorization “we“ is a differentiation, which labels the rest of the people in the world as “they”. And to develop nationally, according to many, we need a national “narrative” to describe who we are, and how we develop. In this respect, the narrative is the totality, or the compact, of the foundational story of the nation, along with its principles and aspirations, from which we chart our multi-faceted path of progress in ideological, political, economic, social, religious, and cultural fields. As the nation’s narrative can be multifaceted, for example, religious narrative, political narrative, linguistic narrative, etc. we can think of a grand narrative or a metanarrative.
The term metanarrative was coined as a neologism in 1979 in a philosophy book by Jean-François Lyotard, in which he analyzed the epistemology of postmodern culture as the end of ‘grand narratives‘ or metanarratives, and he said, “Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity towards metanarratives”.
Many have criticized his view as internally inconsistent and a metanarrative by itself, so that the statement could be seen as paradoxical. In my view, as opposed to Lyotard’s view, there can be, and should be, a metanarrative for the whole of human society in the world, a metanarrative of universal humanity.
We can see that there are narratives of religions, for example, the Christian narrative, the Islamic narrative, the Jewish narrative, the Buddhist narrative, the Hindu narrative, etc. There are political and economic narratives, such as the narratives of capitalism, socialism, developmental economic theory, etc., there are ethnic narratives, linguistic narratives, cultural narratives, etc. Similarly, there are narratives of Freudian theory, feminist theory, periodization of history theory, etc. to mention some. The question is: Is there a grand sum of all these narratives?
The answer, in my view, is an emphatic yes. We can take the grand sum, or the compact, of all these narratives as an inclusive total to construct the metanarrative of universal humanity, provided the component narratives are beneficial to the entire human society in the world, for example we would reject the narratives of fascism, racism, apartheid, etc. And in that spectrum of narratives, which constitute a metanarrative, any heterogeneity between the component narratives, such as difference in outlooks among religions, nations, etc. can be gradually accommodated by respecting all religions, nations, etc. Various narratives can be synthesized or assimilated by tolerance, peaceful cooperation, or peaceful conflict management, etc. provided the contrasting narratives are beneficial to humanity. But the narratives, which are detrimental to the existence and development of humanity should be discarded by consensus, or defeated by justice systems, etc.
Like many others, I consider the whole human society as one family. This is both consistent with the scientific studies of the origins of humankind, as well as the views of the Abrahamic religions that humans in the world are descendants of Adam and Eve, and similar concepts and assertions in other religions. History has shown us the rise and fall of empires throughout the world. Our accumulated experience shows that all nations are equal, and they are equally noble or glorious. So, for peace and harmony in the world, we should develop a metanarrative of peace and harmony for the whole world. Promotion of universal human rights and global economic development should be viewed as unifying factors of humanity.
There are many such universal factors, such as, the universal adult franchise. We must be careful that human rights are not applied selectively. Similarly, we must be careful that global economic development is applied fairly without any exploitative maneuvers, and it is not applied for domination and plunder, but for win-win relations, so that we may call it rational and humanitarian economic globalization, which is opposed to imperialist globalization.
So, what happens to the present-day nation-states? The present-day nation-states were formed through the break-up of empires, decolonization, national movements, contention of states, cooperation of states, etc. Many of these are multi-national states, such as the UK, where the English, the Irish, the Scottish, and the Welsh are different nations having a common nationality, the British. Again, there are supra-national or trans-national association of states, such as the European Union. With more cohesion and organizational steps, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation could have developed like the EU. Similarly, the SAARC in South Asia could have developed that way, provided there weren’t conflicts and hegemonistic policies for regional subjugation and exploitation. The Organization of American States would have worked, had the US not been imperialistic, or some fascist dictatorships in some countries in there had not developed. However, the present boundaries of the nation-states in the world may be transient, and there may not be anything sacrosanct about the present entities of geographical boundaries and configurations.
Keeping in mind the historical developments, it is indeed possible to envisage the whole world to be one country with one administration under a common organization, such as the UN. This could start with initial present disparities due to historical uneven development but would gradually become more harmonious with steps progressively taken to mitigate the disparities, and initially establishing freedom, democracy, justice, human rights, and harmonious development for all nation-states within the family of all nations and peoples of the world.
The idea of a world government has been there since the ancient times. The ancient Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and other ancient civilizations thought of it. Throughout the ages down to the present, many individual thinkers, writers, groups, etc. thought of it (for a detailed account of it, please see the article titled World Government in Wikipedia).
The important question is, can we achieve it? Is it just naïve optimism to think of it? It might appear so, in looking at the present-day intensity of wars and cold wars, the contentions of big powers and superpowers, the frantic arms races, and the nerve-chilling threat of nuclear annihilation of the human race. But humans learnt positive lessons too. From the worldwide death and destruction of the World Wars, they created the United Nations to control their passion for war, i.e. to stop world wars, which were in the main, colonial wars.
The UN has great ideas for the welfare of humanity, but very little power or resources to execute them. As the UN is composed of the nations of the world, it has the virtues and the vices of the nations of the world. The failures of the UN are invariably the failures of the states comprising the UN. But the UN has proved that the nation-states, or the nations and the states can work together. For it to work better, we need more cooperation and less contention between the states, we need more harmony, and less discordant notes.
We need to get more used to formulating policies that benefit the whole world evenly. The recent 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference, or the COP26, was held in Glasgow and attended by 197 countries. Whatever its success or failure, it is an example of formulating policies for the whole world. Similarly, the UN should be empowered to deal with the basic amenities, such as food, clothing, education, health service, housing, etc. and the basic rights such as human rights, democratic rights, etc. for the whole world.
The big powers and superpowers often create stumbling blocks in formulating policies for the whole world. This is basically why we advocate more cooperation than contention between the big powers and superpowers. In this respect, the recent virtual summit between Biden and Xi was a good thing. There may not have been a significant breakthrough in the summit, but it has given reason for hope. Similarly, the possible virtual summit in December between Biden and Putin despite fierce contention, and the possibility of an in-person summit between them in June, give reason for hope. Let the spirit of cooperation overcome the mad race for escalation of contention. The big powers and superpowers must try and cooperate more than contend.
So, let us conclude that it is possible to establish a world government, without going into the details, although the details are very important. Let us also conclude that it is possible to achieve a metanarrative for the entire humanity, and it is possible to establish peace and harmony in the world.
Humanity shall surely prevail. And our endeavor and movement to unite the world and establish peace and harmony must be apace and continue in earnest.
*The writer is a London-based political analyst, commentator and a former activist and columnist constantly campaigning for Freedom, Democracy, Justice, Human Rights and Harmonious Development in Bangladesh. He appeared many times on Bengali TV talk shows in London speaking on the political affairs of Bangladesh. A retired computer consultant with a master’s degree in Mathematics, he left his PhD studies in the UK to travel to Kolkata, India, in 1971 to join the Independence War of Bangladesh.
November 27, 2021
The viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints and editorial policies of Aequitas Review.
