|
Is better to agree in minimal values rather than romantic notions of equality or personal change
Troy DAVIS
Friday, November 22, 2002 4:38 PM
ººº Abstract: We need values, but what we need most is a consensus on values
which most people share . We should stop talking about very romantic notions
of equality, all should love each other, etc. Someone said that the Founding
Fathers of the USA were geniuses who designed a system so that even idiots can
run it. That should be the goal of the WP, and its values should be the
minimum values which we can agree on, not some maximal values. The WP is an
expression of 7 design principles, which are those of the Campaign for World
Democracy ººº
After reading the views expressed about the values of a WP, I am very
concerned by their romantic idealism. Granted, we need values, but what we
need most is a consensus on values which most people share. After all, a WP
can only work if the people of the world want it, and if it is to be more than
a joke, or even an excuse for some pseudo fake world democracy, then it must
be respected and ultimately be listened to and obeyed. This is true power. Its
power will come from fundamental rights, from the realization that to actually
truly represents better than any other body in the world the will of the
citizens of the world.
For this to be true, we should stop talking about very romantic notions of
equality, all should love each other, the members of the parliament should
have the interests of humankind at heart etc. People are not saints and we
cannot expect world parliamentarians to be saints as well. This is very
dangerous and leads to disappointment. What we *should* do is design the world
parliament as the key component of a new global political architecture, as
part of a global system of check and balances. Someone said that the Founding
Fathers of the USA were geniuses who designed a system so that even idiots can
run it. That should be the goal of the WP, and its values should be the
minimum values which we can agree on, not some maximal values.
This means that the WP should reflect in its very structure and process its
values, but *not* in its content. These values should be kept at a minimum to
achieve maximal consensus around the world. For example, the entire new global
architecture should reflect on the twin values that all humans have equal
dignity and that all political sovereignty ultimately belongs to the people
(and can only be delegated, never taken away completely). From there on, all
flows. This implies a process which is fair, which is perceived as fair.
The whole idea of a WP derives from the notion that we are trying to solve
global problems in a systemic fashion, rather than by appealing to/ seeking to
change human nature, or appealing to the wisdom of leaders, which is the
beginning of the road to totalitarianism.
Operationally, the WP is an expression of the following 7 design principles,
which are the principles of the Campaign for World Democracy:
1. Ultimate political sovereignty resides in individuals 2. Collective
sovereignty of the people must be expressed through direct or representative
democracy 3. Rule of law 4. Solving problems at the most practicable local
level (Subsidiarity Principle) 5. Institutional and procedural transparency to
create and maintain trust 6. Use of peaceful means to build such institutions
7. Non-discrimination (article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
I just want to add one comment on 4 and 5 each. 4 means that the WP should
only deal with truly global problems, and minimizes the risk of concentrated
power, and 5 is the absolute condition to minimize or avoid corruption, thus
also reducing risks of concentrated power.
sincerely,
Troy Davis
WP21 Alliance Forum on a World Parliament for the 21st Century
E-mail : world-parl@forums.alliance21.org
Fax 1 717 264 5036
Information, inscriptions, désinscriptions: germa@alliance21.org
|
|
|
english ·original·
[FORUM]
[DISCUSSION]
[SYNTHESES]
[DOCUMENTS]
[CALENDAR]
[PARTICIPANTS]
[SUBSCRIBE]
[CONTACT]
[HOME]