Unity-in-Diversity Global Style
by Garry Davis
Two seemingly opposing views generally dominate our thinking about the world we live on. One is what might be called relativistic, that is, from a particular or partial position to the general: the individual to humanity; a drop of water to the ocean. The other is from the general or whole to the specific or the part: the cosmos to an atom, God to the individual human. In psychological terms, the latter is known as deductive reasoning; the former, inductive reasoning.
The deductive reasoning is the so-called absolutist or holistic view: one world, one humanity, one God or Truth. Another terminology is ontological, positing the whole as a given, a priori or, in visual terms, vertical; in temporal terms, the eternal "Now."
Inductive reasoning by definition is teleological, establishing a from "here" to "there," or "beginning" to "ending" or "horizontal" viewpoint. This in turn gives rise to the humanistic "we-and-they" or relational rather than holistic mindset.
The two viewpoints seem paradoxical and opposite. They are, however, both "true" and "correct" depending only upon the viewpoint, and, when properly understood, can be made to function harmoniously together. The familiar social formula "Unity-in-diversity" comes inevitably to mind.
Take the word "peace," for example. It can also be viewed from both viewpoints. The first or relativistic considers "peace" as between various elements of society such as nation-states, tribes, cities, religions, ethnic and linguistic groups: peace between Americans and Russians, Jews and Arabs, Catholics and Protestants, Indians and Pakistanis, China and Tibet, etc., groups of world federalists urging nation-states to "join together" in a world federation.
The wholesale or a priori view, on the contrary, recognizes the world itself and humanity as indivisible, single, and therefore already united. It is the viewpoint one enjoys while standing on the moon regarding the planet Earth revolving in boundless space. Thus, with this realistic, if transcendent vista, "peace" is recognized as an integral component of that unity. All wisdom teachers, sages, gurus, masters have expressed and lived that fundamental unity throughout all ages and climes. That ís why their words and lives are considered "holy" or whole. "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven," "Thou art That," and "Do unto others, etc." are classic examples of the unitive and universal teaching.
Given this viewpoint, identifying that unity, morally, socially, politically and biologically, becomes the self-evident strategy of peacemakers worth the name.
Myriad accepted tools already exist supporting this wholesale or absolutist position.
Human rights, for instance, are a major one.
The right of humans (and other species) to live is obviously the first natural right for without it no other rights can exist. Since 1945, when the so-called Nuclear Age began, that right was dynamically connected with humanity's right to live for if humanity was threatened with extermination, then all humans were likewise threatened.
Therefore, each and every human since 1945, willing or not, was bound by a dynamic "contractual pact of life" with humanity itself as a unit. (The planet's "right" to live is, of course, primordial giving rise to grave environmental concerns).
In other terms, despite specific or particular differences: national, social, linguistic, gender, religious, economic, age or place, all humans were bonded by and to humanity's (and the planet's) fate.
This contractual pact found latter-day individual political/moral expression in the age-old term "world citizenship."
The recognition and claim of "world citizenship" thus became the duty corollary of human rights.
In human rights terminology, each and every individual claiming world citizenship was exercising his or her sovereign will as an inalienable right to legitimize a primal "life contract" not only between fellow humans but also with humanity as a species in symbiotic relationship with Earth.
Another word for contract is "law."
An axiomatic condition for world peace, therefore, is world law.
The result of that legitimate individual sovereign claim of world citizenship is the evolution and development of a legitimate and democratic world government as its political corollary.
The specific human rights provided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights justifying this claim are articles 21(3) and 28: "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government..." and "Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedom set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized."
What then of the extraordinary proliferation of international non-governmental organizations, the INGOs, in the 20th century? How do they fit into the picture of a democratically governed world? Representing every myriad interest of humans wherever and whoever they are, INGOs render services obviously "outside" the strictly political parameters of the nation-state. And yet, being non-governmental, they must refer illogically back to the nation-state for executive and enforcement power. Here lies a fundamental and potentially mortal contradiction. Whereas they fulfill needs vital to the well-being of humans throughout the world community, yet they have no overall political framework in and by which they can achieve their given missions.
The millions of humans who have already allied themselves with various multinational non-profit organizations, have, by that very membership, given tacit, if unwitting consent to a de facto world citizenship, for without the protection of world law, the INGOs themselves remain impotent to fulfill their stated purposes. But what is more alarming, the exclusive nation-state structure itself contradicts the inclusive purpose and practice of INGOs. In the delusion of preserving its spurious claim to sovereignty, given the nuclear potential, the state can legitimately-through war-eliminate all INGOs along with the human race itself.
Thus the apparent paradox of non-governmental international organizations actually fulfilling certain aspects of governance and the right of the individual to choose now his/her political allegiance directly in a participatory world democracy is reconciled in a congruous whole.
In conclusion, relativistic "peace" between parts of humanity, allied with "absolute" peace recognizing humanity and one world as is, becomes a powerful and complementary strategy via the perennial concept and millenial timeliness of world citizenship.
*A complementary site is in construction for potential world candidates to declare their candidacy and present their platform for world public office to the evolving world constituency: www.worldcandidates.org.
(Copyright © World Service Authority. All Rights Reserved)
The World Government House
Publishing House of World Service Authority
5 Thomas Circle NW, Washington, DC 20005
T: 202 638-2662; F: 202-638-0638
Email:info@worldservice.org