It would seem that short of a nuclear holocaust or similar catastrophe on a planetary scale, the world is on an irreversible path to integration. There is an observable shrinking of the physical distance between human beings and societies. As communications become easier, cheaper and quicker, capital, goods, techniques, ideas and values, and to some extent people, also circulate more easily. The same applies to diseases, pollutants, weapons, narcotics and other criminal endeavours. These various trends constitute the current process of globalisation and have in common their contribution to the emergence of an interdependent world. 

    Yet, an integrated world is not automatically a world society, or a world community. There are many types of integration, from the suppression of the identity and autonomy of the parts, to the free adhesion to shared values; from a monopoly on power by a group of nations and individuals to the exercise of democracy at the international level; and from integration around a few economic and financial poles, such as a dominant currency, to cohesion around an accepted diversity of cultures and ways of life. 

    Short of advocating a new mobilising Utopia, it would be useful to reintroduce an element of idealism in the debates on world affairs. An assessment of current trends should be anchored in a meditation on a desirable world community and renewed universalism. And the same reflection should be framed by the conviction that international and global democracy, of which there is at present a great deficit, is as necessary as local democracy. There are problems to solve and threats to overcome, and there are trends which appear too strong to be influenced, but there should be also aspirations to formulate and dreams to fulfil. From this normative perspective, some desirable features of a world society are evoked below.

Economic justice and social equity at the world level

    The notion of development has emerged from the conviction that “the betterment of the human condition”, to use the terms of the UN Charter, had to be pursued on a universal scale. Much has been achieved, and much remains to be done. But, the persistence of poverty and the resurgence of inequalities and inequities, throughout the globe, suggest that a number of concepts and policies need to be revisited. The path to global economic integration is tarnished by a process of marginalisation of individuals, groups and nations. 

    A “society for all”, advocated by the Social Summit, remains an elusive goal. Issues to be explored include the role of distributive and redistributive policies at the world level, the conditions and modalities of a culture of solidarity, the domains where competition should operate and the domains where compassion should be the dominant value, the practice of partnership in situations of strong inequalities in the distribution of power, as well as the critical role of access to education and knowledge. It is quite obvious that a laissez-faire attitude, even with occasional correctives imposed by the seriousness of some problems, is conducive to a concentration of power and the creation of inequalities.    

Increased economic exchanges and cultural richness

    While openness to others is a virtue in itself, the advantages of commercial and financial exchanges without barriers are often extolled by comparison with purely theoretical situations of isolationism and autarchy. More relevant are the precautions to be taken to avoid  the “deregulation” and “liberalisation” feeding crisis as those that are currently shaking the world economy. Free trade and free circulation of capital are neither moral nor political imperatives. They are useful economic policies only under specific circumstances and assumptions. 

   Economic integration carries with it a significant amount of uniformisation in patterns of consumption, aspirations, and perceptions of what constitutes a good life. Mass advertising is a powerful feature of the contemporary world. At the same time, and apparently at odds with interdependence, internationalism, and globalisation, is the often mentioned urge of individuals and groups for a localisation of their interests, emotions and aspirations. There is in the modern culture a search for roots and for a sense of “belonging” that takes a large variety of expressions, from participation in local affairs to nationalism, and from the defence of a language to religious fundamentalism. There is a renewed attraction for the notion of community, as applied to an area small enough for people to interact or to an idea precise enough to generate a sense of common pursuit. 

   The tendency of people to seek the security of familiar horizons is not incompatible with a sense of the universal. More troublesome is the possibility that localism would become only a convenient footnote to economic and cultural globalisation. There would be a powerful world culture co-existing with a large variety of mini cultures. Such dualism would be incompatible with cultural richness. 

Rights, responsibilities and the common good

    A more integrated, more interdependent world is also a more fragile and more dangerous world. With the techniques that human ingenuity has created and will be creating, both the good and bad take rapidly a global dimension. The fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals sharing a common humanity across borders, races and cultures, will need to be protected against all abuses of power from governments or other public or private authorities. There will be recurrent and new threats to human dignity and the integrity of the human person. The modalities of the creation and distribution of information on a global scale will have to be considered. 

   A world community will require a truly global implementation of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The possibility for an individual to have a recourse against an abuse of power, which is now a rare exception open to the citizens of countries having ratified the Additional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, should be extended to all. The development of international law remains a critical facet of a political culture for a world society. 

   Together with such rights, and in strict conformity with the spirit and letter of the Universal Declaration, the responsibilities of individuals vis-à-vis their fellow human beings, their community and their planet ought to be re-emphasised. Duties are not separable from rights. On a large number of fronts, from the protection of the environment to the welfare of the poor, and from the fight against criminality to the good use of scientific advances, the search for the common good will take a new urgency. In the financial and economic domains, new regimes of global regulations are clearly required, as recently acknowledged by powerful actors on the world scene.

A political culture for a global democracy

   The building of a world democratic order will require the interplay of 4 major actors: nation states, regional and international organisations, the civil society, and private corporations. 

   The nation states should remain the basic elements of a world society. Only strong and democratic countries are in a position to give deliberately parts of their sovereignty and power to public regional and international organisations. In that sense, the current shift of power from governments to private entities, notably transnational corporations and banks, is antinomic with global democracy. 

    Regional organisations such as the European Union, the Organisation for African Unity, ASEAN, or MERCOSUR, could be the building blocs of an integrated world economy. Competition between regional entities will have, however, to become a path to economic prosperity for all. 

    At the international level, the United Nations has been supplanted by the Bretton-Woods institutions and the World Trade Organisation, whose function is to assist in the construction of a global economy along the line of the neo-liberal model.It has been crippled by the use of the non-payment of its financial dues by the United States to impose a reduction of personnel and activities through “reforms”. A positive development has been the creation of small secretariats to negotiate and monitor the implementation of treaties and conventions on the protection of the environment. But major conferences organised by the UN, on the situation of women, on social development, on population, have not led to a significant strengthening  of existing entities. Some programmes, for example on science and technology and transnational corporations, have actually declined.

    It is not tenable to continue to affirm that no new institutions are required and that the United Nations should not be allowed to play fully its role of global forum on critical issues for the future of humanity. Debates on public institutions have been too often reduced to issues of cost-effectiveness, moreover treated within a narrow economic and financial type of rationality. 

    Some major issues, most notably the protection of the environment and the situation of women, have been given visibility through the efforts of groups of the civil society. These institutions of the civil society ought to strengthen their role without attempting to become substitutes to political parties and political structures. As all persons and institutions of good will have a contribution to make to the search for the common good, there is urgent need to conceptualise a complementarity of roles between representatives of governments and organisations of the civil society, including the main religions of our world. 

    While pursuing expansion and profit, corporations have increasingly social functions, notably in the domains of employment, the protection of the environment and the life of the communities in which they are physically located. Issues of ethics and social responsibility have gained recently some visibility. There are efforts at involving the business community in international organisations, notably the UN, that are intergovernmental by their constitution. For global capitalism to become a valuable cement for a world society, it would be desirable, and in line with democratic principles, to request corporations with a global reach to explain their strategies in international fora.

    These main actors on the world scene ought to contribute to the elaboration of a common project for the future of humanity. A solid moral foundation for such a project is perfectly compatible with various traditions, religions and cultures. In fact, short of being overtly or insidiously oppressive, a world community requires pluralism. But, to address common problems and engage in common pursuits, a world society calls for shared values. Tolerance and civility will not be sufficient. 

    The notion of a common humanity will have to be given a renewed content. It is necessary to explicitly recognise that human beings are not only motivated by a narrow utilitarian perception of their self-interest and that solidarity, generosity, responsibility and the search for the common good could become serious, respected and operational values.
  
 
Jacques Baudot is Senior Advisor and Secretary of the Copenhagen Seminars  at the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The views expressed here will be among those to be debated at the Third Copenhagen Seminar, entitled Political Culture and Institutions for a World Community, to be held in Copenhagen, 
29 October - 1 November 1998. 
Tel: 45-33-92-02-33;  Fax: 45-33-92-0812;
E-mail:dorvil@um.dk