|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
A World Order for the 1990s
| Article
# : |
17454 |
|
|
Section : |
SPECIAL SECTION
|
| Issue
Date : |
1 / 1990 |
4,348 Words |
| Author
: |
Morton A. Kaplan
Editor and Publisher |
One of the most urgent tasks facing humanity is the construction of a democratic world order. Despite its urgency, there is no sign that the political leadership in any nation has thought of this task, let alone placed it on its agenda.
The job of beginning to create a democratic world order is important for a variety of reasons. The old myths of empire as a source of strength can now be recognized either as rationalizations of the needs of otherwise functionless political elites or as requirements of an outmoded world order. Factors of scale in trade and the use of materials have made these matters world--not merely national--problems. Matters of urgency such as the possible greenhouse effect require international management.
The preconditions for democracy, even if not yet universal, have reached a stage in which the transition process requires and can accommodate international assistance. Many nations--either individually or in their associations with other countries--are either too small to permit effective participation on the world scene or too large for an effective relationship between the state and the individual. Furthermore, the present boundaries of nations intensify legitimate demands for autonomy that cannot be met within the existing system of state structure.
Finally, but extremely urgent in terms of preparation if not in terms of immediacy, is preparation for the scientific revolutions that are just over the horizon. These revolutions will challenge our identities as human beings. If we do not prepare to cope with their challenges, we may produce a future that is so inhuman that nuclear war would be a preferable alternative.
A democratic world order should not be thought of as an analogue of a democratic domestic system. If it were, movement toward a democratic world order would be a goal so distant that it could have little discernible impact on contemporary policy. Moreover, if it were achievable, it might be undesirable.
Democracy, at least in the contemporary sense, rests on a consensus of values. We accept majority rule because of the belief that certain limits will not be breached by the majority, whether because of cultural or constitutional constraints and also because of the belief that society places no barriers to our advancement because of our line of biological descent.
Extending
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
