“As we look ahead into the next century, leaders will be those who empower others.”
~Bill Gates
Abstract
This essay focuses on the formation of a new world order in an hypothetical scenario of wiping out of majority of human population due to an epidemic strike out. The essay points out the problems in the existing ideologies of ideas for justice and aims to suggests an idea of new world order based on the idealist theory of justice while following liberalism in an abstract sense to create a homogeneous system for governance of the entire human population around the globe and imagines the non-existence of political boundaries and separate entities of different nations which can be implicated and engineered specifically for different states as per their needs in such scenario in order to reach the goals of establishing global justice in the world.
Understanding the Problem [Problem for Section-A]
Before proposing an appropriate solution, it is very necessary to briefly understand the problem being faced hereupon. The hypothetical problem that is critically analysed in this essay asks the readers to imagine the wiping out of entire population of the globe due to a pestilence, except for 5 people who are distinguished personalities from nations of USA, Russia, China, Brazil & Nigeria respectively and are left with all the technologies and scientific developments that humans have achieved till date which made them all to able to communicate with each other and to treat such devastating situation as an opportunity for creating a new world order. They all are left with one question, i.e., ‘How should a model for new world order be like?’.
Ideologies of different Personalities native to different systems of Governance
Now let us look at the ideas put forth by the distinguished personalities from various regions all around the globe who all are saved from the strike of the epidemic. Mr. Goldman from USA takes proud in the achievements of the humanity as well as in the pre-existing mechanism for world order and suggests to continue with the same, while being slightly inclined towards the ideas of ‘capitalism’ and pointing out to the achievements made in terms of growth and development of the world. Ms. Tereshkova from Russia arguing against the ideas put forward by Mr. Goldman while grieving about the never ending struggle for development of humanity suggests that the pre-existing world order was rather experimental in nature and if an opportunity is there, then ‘socialism’ should be accepted with an idea of peaceful co-existence of all humans worldwide. Then Mr. Liu from China proposes that the experiences and history of humans are their treasure which should never be neglected and thus the pre-pestilential era should be continued in an abstract sense while its application locally all around the world should be specifically engineered for every place and thus provided a mixed idea of capitalism with a bend towards socialism. While such debate was going on Ms. Marizu from Nigeria puts forward the point of view, sufferings and the experiences of being native to a third-world country in the pre-pestilential era.
But later Ms. Marizu poses a very critical problem which needs serious consideration that all these models discussed above were tried or were being tried in the pre-pestilential era of collective societies but now their world is individualistic in nature and now the above discussed models would not work in the same way as they had in the collective societies earlier.
In the present scenario, where the individual is severed from the collective, such ideologies cannot be applied as the way they are but can be applied in a hybrid form in order to create an ideal world order.
Ideologies of Justice in the Pre-epidemic Era
All the ideologies discussed by the distinguished personalities were pre-existing in the pre-pestilential era but carry their own characteristics and flaws and are not perfect absolutely which had been already tried or were being tried in the pre pestilential era.
While the world is familiar with Capitalist approach focusing on the materialistic development of society by free flow of trade regulations in the developed nations, such an approach rather creates imbalance in the distribution of wealth in the society where the developed gets more opportunities for development and on the other hand the underdeveloped are neglected, which could not be an ideal form of development for any society.[1] A Socialist approach on the other hand aims to grant power in the hands of society at large rather than individuals. A Communist approach to justice developed by Karl Marx, also known as Marxism, focuses on the materialistic interpretation of the historical development of society and aims to development of classism as a form of structure in order to regulate the society.[2]
Third World approach to international laws on the other hand signifies the lack of consideration of the point of view of third world, i.e., under developed nations of the globe in the pre-existing philosophies and ideas of social justice. B.S. Chimni, an Indian philosopher and professor for ideologies of justice, while putting forward the third world point of view towards International law, states a lot of examples wherein it can be seen that third world nations are simply neglected in the international laws. For example, a source of international law is customary laws of civilised nations, but the term ‘civilised nations’ have never been defined anywhere. Now the third world philosophers argues that why only customary laws of civilised nations are considered to be a part of international law and why the term ‘all nations’ is not used instead of ‘civilised nations’ in such provisions.[3] Such approach majorly points out the flaws existing in the existing ideologies of justice from the point of view of undeveloped nations as almost all the philosophers who were responsible for development of those ideologies were belonging to the western part of the world, i.e., developed nations primarily.
Reimagining a ‘New World Order’ – A Hybrid Model for Governing Individuals
If a new world is to be imagined and an opportunity for doing the same is presented to the human race, then why not to imagine a world with no boundaries, where earth itself is the nation of every citizen and various states are governed by common laws and policies governed by a unified government while making special reservations and policies as per the requirements of each of its states specifically designed for the equitable growth of such states governed by a common constitution and which are protected by a common super structure of judiciary worldwide; a world where all the humans existing on the planet enjoys equal rights and are imposed with equal duties based on the common human conscience; a world where there is no religion except for the religion of humanity and all the humans are supposed to mandatorily follow it in addition to whatever religion they may want to follow; a world where protecting the nature becomes the primary duty of the human race, not merely within the boundaries of their state but protecting the environment of the whole planet as the issues of environment can only be dealt with at a global stage; a world where every individual belongs to a single nation and no one is considered to be an outsider, which will eliminate the complexities and problems arising due to the soft nature of international laws and would further lead to ways for elimination of global terrorism through unified efforts; a world where each state realises its duty to provide for the resources what it is having in abundance and other states are lacking because such resources belong to the earth and not to those states & thus creating a scenario of equitable distribution of resources of earth amongst each individual living on the planet; a world where there exist no borders, no wars, just a single nation with a single aim of establishment of justice which is within the reach of every single being equally.
OBriain suggests an idea of a global constitution whereby the constitution instead of creating nations as separate entities rather prohibits them from creating separate entities and to create one set of rules which are applicable on all the states around the globe which eliminates the political empowerment but rather empowers the individuals with common laws all around the globe.[4] A global justice cannot be achieved by a certain structure of political establishment, but can only be achieved by elimination of all types of such political establishments and unifying the entire world absolutely.[5]
But then the question arises that what ideologies should be best suitable in an abstract sense to create the constitution for such a world in order to govern it appropriately which can be agreeable to the whole of human race all around the world and also which can be applied individually rather than collectively. Also, a situation has arisen where collective societies have been eliminated and the new system is required to adequately govern the individualistic nature of the new world.
First, let us talk about some general characteristics that the new world order should possess in order to preserve the essence of justice, and only with those basic characteristics can an ideology be accepted to create further governing laws for the world.
An ideal justice system should not only be able to grant equal rights and impose equal duties to every human being existing on the globe but it should also include the principles of natural justice. Principles of natural justice are the ideas based on the human conscience which are commonly accepted all around the globe and such principles provides for abstract ideas absence of which would create an unjust system which does not treats everyone equally.
Also, it should be able to fulfil the needs of every human being only after which the humans can be free from emotions such as anger, jealousy, depression and other psychological emotions which leads a human to commit crime in a society. A good justice system must also be able to able to eliminate the possibilities of injustice in the world as much as possible.
“The world has enough for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed.”
~Mahatma Gandhi
Maslow, a philosopher and a human behaviour expert, suggests the need hierarchy theory which states that there is a hierarchy of the needs of human beings which only arise and can be fulfilled in a particular order. Such needs in their respective order can be seen in the diagram hereinafter. Maslow suggests that the primary needs of human beings are their physiological needs which includes basic necessities of food, clothing & shelter after fulfilment of which only a human desires for safety and security. Then comes the need for emotional fulfilment which includes having friends, family and creation of social bonds. After that comes the prestige and self-esteem of the individuals. Only after fulfilment of all these materialistic goals, a human being desires for the need for self-actualisation in which the human explores the purpose of his/her life.[6]
A new world order should be capable of allocation of limited resources of the planet to all the states in such a manner that the needs of all the human beings are fulfilled in order to establish true sense of justice in the world.
Now, except for theses specific characteristics that the new ideal world order should possess, a general ideology is required to inspire the formation of governing laws for the new world. In order to achieve such idealistic goals, ideas of Francis Fukuyama can be borrowed from his book ‘The End of History and the Last Man’ wherein he puts forward the ideas of Hegel, Marx and Kojéve. Hegel was an idealist philosopher from late 18th and early 19th century who was known for his writings on the German idealism which was further adopted by Karl Marx wherein idealism was crossed with materialism. Fukuyama states that history comes to an end as the society can develop to a certain extent only which is up to the final destination of development of ideas of justice after establishment of western liberalism globally which would in the end be an idealist state and no ideological development would be possible thereafter. Fukuyama supports his arguments with the words of Hegel & Marx wherein they state that the revolutionization of ideologies is a purpose oriented process which comes to an end when such purpose of ideal state of governance is achieved but at the same time opposes the materialist part of the Marxism and strongly supports the idealist theories of Hegel. Similarly, Kojéve interpreted the ideas of Hegel and imagined a Universal Homogeneous State which brings an end to all kinds of revolutions and brings justice to the entire world by a single structure. Fukuyama, though following the ideologies of Marxism, argues that the class based approach taken by Karl Marx is not relevant in modern era. Fukuyama suggests that there should be a balance between democracy and economy in order to create and idealistic world.[8]
Then Fukuyama discusses two more ideologies, i.e., religion and nationalism but argues that the reason for development of liberalism primarily was the failure of religion based governance and the nationalist approach further can be satisfied with the ideas of liberalism. Fukuyama’s ideologies are criticised by Gertrude Himmelfarb who does not considers religion and nationalism to be a competition for ideas of liberalism which are rather separate ideologies altogether non relevant at a universal scale.[9]
Conclusion
A great leader is not merely who leads and orders his/her followers efficiently but the one who believes in the growth of everyone and who knows how to make a win-win situation for everyone around him. Therefore, if the five distinguished personalities wants to be great leaders for the future of human race then they should think big for the growth of everyone altogether, leaving behind the systems that were prevailing in the pre-pestilential era. A new world order can be individualistic in nature if the entire world becomes a nation and common laws are created for everyone with the basic ideas of justice in mind.
Though money can buy a quality of life for individuals, but only to a certain extent and considering that human greed comes with no limits, isn’t it better to reimagine the world with an aim of not to make all the humans more rich and abundant in the resources available on earth but to make their lives more complete while living in harmony with each other and fulfilling each other’s life while contributing to the world in whatsoever productive manner that human can do it.
Only in such an idealistic scenario would the human race be able fulfil all their materialistic needs and would be able to then look upon the higher goals of achieving self-actualisation, higher consciousness and eternal blissfulness which is indeed the ultimate goal behind every idea for establishing a sense of justice in human minds. In such a world where all humans are more or less part of a family like structure as the ancient Vedas suggests ‘Vasudhaiva kutumbakam’[10], i.e., the entire world is my family, there can be a world free from hatred and all sorts of crimes existing in the pre-pestilential era, which can truly be referred to as a world with established global justice.
[1] Gilpin, Robert, ‘The Challenge of Global Capitalism : The World Economy in the 21st Century’ (2018)..
[2] Karl Marx, ‘A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’ (1859).
[3] B.S. Chimni, ‘Third World Approaches to International law – A manifesto’ (2006) International Community Law Review.
[4] Declan OBriain, ‘Three theories of International Justice’ (2013) E-International Relations https://www.e-ir.info/2013/01/25/three-theories-of-international-justice/ accessed on 20/12/2020.
[5] Jurgen Habermas, ‘A Political Construction for the Pluralist World Society?’ (2007) Journal of Chinese Philosophy 333.
[6] Abraham Maslow, ‘A Theory of Human Motivation’ (1954) Psychological Review 50.
[7] Abraham Maslow, ‘Need Hierarchy theory diagram’ (1954) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow’s_hierarchy_of_needs#/media/File:Maslow’s_Hierarchy_of_Needs2.svg accessed on 20/12/2020.
[8] Francis Fukuyama, ‘The End of History’ (1989), The National Interest.
[9] Gertrude Himmerlfarb, ‘Responses to Fukuyama’ (1999) The National Interest.
[10] See Rig Veda.
Testing