The End of Unipolarity: a Case for a World Government?
The global political order of the last 30 years has been fairly unique, in that one superpower, the United states, has acted as a mostly unchallenged pre-eminent force in international politics. For much of history, the status quo has generally been a multipolar system, in which multiple great powers vie to expand their relative influence. However, despite multipolarity being the most common state of affairs throughout history, our generation’s international political system has been defined by unipolarity.. As the age of American global hegemony appears to be approaching its end, an investigation into the pros and cons of the unipolar system is particularly relevant and useful.
American policy makers tend to frame American hegemony as a force for good,: shepherding the rest of the world towards a brighter future by promoting values such as democracy and respect for human rights. Indeed, unipolarity has allowed the development of a rule-based international order which was never possible in a multipolar world. However, past super powers such as the roman empire have had no illusions of benevolence towards other nations, and there is plenty of reason to cast doubt on the US’s benevolence as well. Either conveniently or suspiciously, in situations throughout the cold war and the war on terror.The US has intervened in other countries affairs with the purported goal of protecting democracy and human rights, the intervention just so happens to also further America's realist/material interests. This raises the question of whether global governance is valuable when the governing power is only legitimized by its strength.
A multipolar system gives individual states more freedom in terms of how they conduct themselves on the world stage and who they align themselves with. However, freedom in this area is not always beneficial to general wellbeing. Without a global hegemon, states can commit atrocities for which they are unlikely to face consequences if their actions are not antagonistic to a more powerful state. When there are many states with close to equal power, there is a constant struggle for power between states, which translates into a constant threat of war. In a unipolar system, while different states might wish to shake up the global order, any attempts to do so would likely incur the wrath of the dominant power, which allows a tense peace to be maintained.
This issue follows logically into a conversation about the prospect of a literal single global government, which would intensify both the benefits and challenges that the world faces in unipolarity. If established, a world government could benefit global cooperation and peace, but perhaps external checks on state power are too indispensable to allow such a development to be advisable.
Which is better for the general wellbeing of humanity: unipolarity or multipolarity?
Can a unipolar global political system be stable? What about a multipolar system? Or will the world always flip flop between the two?
With regards to issues which require a global coordinated response, such as a pandemic or climate change, is unipolarity beneficial?
As China rises as a challenger to US hegemony, do you expect a transition to multipolarity to occur peacefully?
Is the world ever truly unipolar? Particularly when considering the existence of nuclear weapons?
Is there any scenario in which a single global government could be beneficial?