This booklet was made
The mundialists are united in their desire for the birth of a world authority and institutions to guarantee the vital interests common to all men. However, they are not unaware of the diversity of cultures and of the technical level of the peoples which seemingly must lead a federal structuring of the world. In theses few pages some aspects and various conceptions of federalism are examined.
There exist, on one side, ideas, theories and philosophical federalist doctrines and on the other side, federal structures and institutions.
Certainly the federalists look forward to federal structures, but it must not be forgotten that in regimes like those of the U.S. of the Soviet Union, for example, where federal structures exist, the rulers profess opinions vera far from the ideas and theses of federalism.
It is therefore necessary to explain this somewhat ambiguous relationship between federalism and federation. In the world of politics, a "federation", in the narrowest sense of the word, is only a federation of states ; the members-states of the federation renounce certain of their prerogatives, specifically stated, in favour of common institutions called federal institutions. The whole of the common institutions and those of the member-states form a federal structure.
Such a federation already possesses certain of the characteristics that one will find in slightly modified form in a larger federal structure, via :
Existing federations show these characteristics. They must appear clearly different from all centralized systems or all unitary organizations practicing decentralization (that is to say the delegation of power "from higher to lower").
Experience shows that things are not always so clear as this from the fact that federations constitute nations and that a nation-state, when it feels, or declares, itself threatened by other nations-states, attempts to overcome an encroaching power. The balance of federal structure between common institutions and those of the member-states remains dependent on the external threats (military, economic, etc ) which menace the federation itself.
Historically, certain states, in other places, have constituted themselves into confederations. In a confederation, the member-states are content to co-operate in certain areas, with or without special machinery, but they do not, as in a federal system, renounce the exercise of certain of their functions for the benefit of common institutions.
Neither the League of Nations, nor the United Nations, have been federations. On the other hand, the majority of the peoples living in very extensive territories (the U.S.A., Canada, Brazil, Australia, India, the U.S.S.R., etc..) have been led to adopt federal structures.
According to the sense that one gives to the word "sovereignty" we say that the federal states have abandoned their sovereignty in favour of federal institutions or that they have ceded a part of their sovereignty to them.
We can extend this conception of federal structures in various ways : reckoning still with this preceding characteristics, we may conceive a world federation as a political organism in which all the states of the world will have renounced the exercise of certain state functions, perhaps for reasons, material (peace, security of peoples) or moral (the rights of man) perhaps for progress in the Third World, as in the industrialized countries (economic and social development) or moral reasons (adult education, professional training).
In a world federation what are the functions which will be exercised in common ?
This question will evoke a response from each generations adapted to the conditions of its time.
A present, in the absence of any world federation, some regional federations, a European federation for instance, could, amongst other functions, exercise those (security, development, the human rights) which are removed to a higher authority with the possibility that they may be discharged later by the world federation.
These considerations lead us progressively towards another method of enlarging the notion of federal structure in the political domain, from communes to continental regimes. The political organs would conserve the autonomy needed for the proper ordering of public affairs and the maintenance of fundamental rights. Only functions which cannot be effectively exercised at a given level would be transferred to a higher authority.
But this system implies that in each case the interested parties may exercise an effective control on the decision centers that concern them.
The primary characteristics which have been discussed above, in the nation-federations, therefore take the following form :
This conception necessarily goes in conjunction with that of participation by the citizens in the political organs at all levels, in order to ensure that the principle of autonomy should not be a delusion.
The conception of federal structures may still be enlarged to domains other than political. The federal structure must involve economic, social and cultural questions and not merely only political institutions.
We are then led to apply the notions of autonomy of division of functions and of the levels of centers of decision in the field of industry, in that of education, etc
In industry the decisions are taken from workshop level upwards until it reaches the levels of groups of enterprises, regional, continental of even exceptionally, world-wide in scope.
And in education, from that of the basic team of teachers and pupils (the class) to that of the universities and group of universities.
These are not only examples, for it is necessary to envisage a society in its multiplicity of complex ramifications. The federal structures in the different areas would not elsewhere be entirely independent the one from the others ; their links are often very important. Certain of these structures, moreover, evolve, in a natural fashion, without any great attempt to organize them.
The global conception of federal structures in the different areas, including all levels, in geographic or hierarchic progression, is the aim of federalism which places it in its human context. It justifies the federal structures by reference to Man ; for him respect for the dignity or the personality of the human being is the base from which must flow the form of public institutions. It affirms the federal structures as the only ones compatible with human dignity, and that in all walks of life.
Political Federalism is a system of constitutional law. It is at present in force in a large number of countries and it is the origin of the other forms of federalism discussed below. By that one can see its importance.
In France, Great Britain, Italy and some other countries, the state exercises practically all powers. All the political authority is in its hands or stems from it. It is true that for governmental convenience, these countries are divided and subdivided into administrative areas - provinces or regions, departments, communes, etc , but the administrations of these areas, even if they are chosen by way of election and controlled by elected assemblies, still must submit to control by the state. In France a prefect named by the government can annul a mayoral decree or a decision of a council.
Opposed to the concept of the unitary, highly centralized, state is that of the federal state. The latter is a state composed of other states, which are called member-states. In contrast with the administrative division of the unitary states, these member-states enjoy complete autonomy to act in certain specified sectors provided for by the Constitution.
As their name implies, the United States of America form a federal state : similarly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics forms another. There has been a great increase in this type of state during the last century. the following governments are notable examples : West Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Canada, Australia, the South American republics, etc The states of California and Texas, for instance, the Canton of Zurich, the "country" of Bade-Wurtemberg, Ontario, Sao-Paolo, have all preserved a certain number of independent functions while remaining members of a federal state. Many have kept control of education and training, justice, supplies, health, etc They have generally given over control of national transport, etc.., to the central government. Consequently, a federal state comprises a sharing of state powers between the central government and those of the member-states. This sharing is determined by the constitution and embodies a twofold advantage : on the one hand, the member-states maintain their individuality through their customs, life-style and laws while on the other hand they strengthen the powers taken over by the federal or central authority. Nevertheless, the latter remains subject to control by the members-states. Thus, in a federal state, one of the houses of Parliament is composed of representatives of states of the Union, by beans of an equal number of representatives for each state independent of the population or economic importance of the state. This house assembles to pass legislation and by this means to control the policies of the federal state. The Senate in the United States, the Council of States in Switzerland, the Bundesrat in the Federal Republic of Germany - all are examples of this type of house. The other House represents the people of the Union and its members are elected without interference from the member-states in proportion to the population. This popular House is not a characteristic of federal states because it is also found in all unitary states. The House or Representatives in the United States, the National Council in Switzerland and the Bundestag in the Federal Republic of Germany exemplify this second house. However, it we will show later on why a federal state, in order to be so called, requires the coexistence of both these Houses.
Although the separation of powers is initially determined by the Constitution, not all instances where the question of state activity may arrive can be foreseen and provided for. Provision for exceptional powers or the need for new state powers dependent on circumstances may also be omitted from the Constitution. In one or other of these cases, which ought to hold the new power, the central government or the member-state ? More important, which of the two sectors will make the decision ? Such a decision ought to be made by a court at central government level whose independence from both the central and state governments is guaranteed by statute and in the means by which its members are appointed.
Most federal constitutions specify the basic powers of the federation or central government, stating in the text that those powers which are not mentioned belong either to the sphere of the members-states, or to the people. this method runs contrary to the general tendency which leads in time towards an increase in centralization of power. However it expresses the fear of this very tendency which the member states have stated at the formation of the Union. The latter, in forming the Union, are careful to alienate only a few of their powers and jealous to preserve their remaining authority.
On the other hand, in order to safeguard the very existence of the Union, the member-states leave the final world in questions concerning the conflict of powers to the central authority. That is to say that if one of the member-states and the central government come into conflict over an unforeseen or poorly defined power in the Constitution, it is up to a central authority, the type of court defined above, to decide whether or not the power in question ought to be given to the federal authority or to the members-state.
Furthermore, it is the right of a court set up at central government level to settle those conflicts which, in the eyes of the jurists, constitute a claim that the sovereignty enjoyed by each member-state before the Union has been alienated.
Very briefly outlined, that is the general appearance of a federal state. To mundialists, world citizens and world federalists that is also an outline of one kink of rational organization of the planet that might be put forward.
Such an organization would indeed protect the particularity of each nation, its internal political structures, its government - in short, its individuality - while delegating to central authorities those powers which may no longer be exercised at the national level without serious danger for some nations and failure for others. The delegated powers would essentially concern the manufacture and control of armaments, nuclear energy, the economy, commercial exchange regulations and the development of the Third World.
An explanation must be given why the federal state, rather than other types of state unions, is best adapted to the aspirations of humanity. It is relatively recent, since its origins may be traced to the end of the 18th century and it took definitive form in the second half of the 19th.
Other less evolved federal forms had been known earlier. Greek antiquity was familiar with the outlines of federation. Etymologically speaking federation comes from a word meaning "alliance". In Greece there were alliances of cities, leagues of cities endowed with the embryo of organization. In more modern times, before the appearance of a federal state, a kind of union called a "confederation of states" was frequently adopted. Thus were formed confederations of the following states : the United Provinces of Holland from 1589 to 1795, the Swiss confederation before 1848, the German confederation from 1815 to 1866, the United States from 1778 to 1787 and the confederate Southern states during the Civil War from 1861 to 1865. This form of union was much looser, much less organized than a federal state. Confederation was a permanent alliance endowed with several common agencies. However, each member-state preserved the right to arbitrate conflicts of powers, the right to veto a decision of the central government, and the right to secede, that is to say, to withdraw from the Union.
Here we must pause a moment over this form of federation because many of our contemporaries, among them many well - known names, have thought of it and continue to consider it, whether for the creation of a United Europe or for the creation in 1919, and again in 1945, of a world organization of nations. The "old countries" of Europe would become a confederation of states. The United Nations is such a confederation.
Now it is an historical fact that confederations of states have all known a troubled existence and that the central power in this type of union suffers from weakness both of force and authority, whether for carrying them out against the wishes of the citizens of the member-states. In certain areas they have the right to do so. But in practice, in order to carry them out, it was necessary for them to have recourse to the member-state's civil service, which tended to oppose directions from the central government by means of inertia. Conflicts arose among members-states. Decisions arising from arbitration were not respected. These were of a force equal to the resolutions of the UN Security Council of our time. Members-states could not regulate their foreign commerce in a manner which was equitable or profitable to all. Each sought to satisfy its own interests. Financial contributions due to the confederation were poorly paid. In co federal Switzerland one could find seven different kinds of coinage. The confederate regime everywhere hampered the economic growth of those states which has adopted it, provoked political disturbances, upheld an atmosphere of insecurity, encouraged the threat of armed conflict among the states and, in many cases, the government did not even stop the actual outbreak of such conflicts. In addition, the Confederate state is a type of union which belongs to the past. The states which have practiced it abandoned it after their troubles of conflicts, in order to adopt the regime of a federal state from which they drew prosperity, cohesion, vigor and authority in external affairs.
In order to separate in future all forms of organization among states which drew their inspiration from the confederate state, the principal characteristic of this type of union and the differences between it and the federal state will be outlined before the end of this short exposé.
Governmental organization in a confederation is much less defined than in a federal state. Parliament is composed of only one House. State delegates convene there, the people having no representation. Their will remains unexpressed. There is generally no judicial body belonging to a confederation. There is no common legislation (only the southern confederacy had a state apparatus).
Finally, and most important, as we have seen, each member-state in a confederation retained the right to change its own sphere of power, to veto ea decision of the central government and to quit the union. In a federal state, these rights are given up and in that way, the stability and general prosperity of the community are preserved.
THE BASIC PRINCIPLE
The economy of a region, a country, a continent or of the world ought to be in the service of man. In other words natural resources, the labor force and the means of production wrought form these resources through labor, ought to be combined in such a manner that the welfare of every individual is realized in a manner compatible with the greatest good of all. Guiding the choice of developments among the means of production ought to be the dignity of the human being, equal for all.
Respect for the human personality requires that systems or organizations that men ascribe to the various levels of activity keep maximum autonomy and self-administration compatible with the realization of the objectives for which they were created. Systems or organizations ought to possess real powers, necessary for carrying out duties with the cooperation of men who are concerned with these duties.
A definition which thus places the emphasis on men and their organizations is that of a social economy. Social reasons must take precedence over the economic.
For example, to assure efficiency in the struggle against pollution and the general degradation of the human environment, it might be necessary to restrain some aspects of economic development in the industrialized countries, in the sense of what Nobel Prize winner in Physics Gell-Mann has called "ecological self-denial".
But man is one and indivisible. He is not "homo oeconomicus" on the one hand, a political being of family on the other, nor yet a man seeking self-perfection through the harmonious flowering of his innate or acquired abilities. He is all of these things at one time. All economics is political economics because it is situated within the framework of certain political structures which must correspond with the principal goal of its economic activities. And all economics must take into account the aspiration of men towards the expansion of their abilities to the extent that this is compatible with a like growth for others.
A federal type of economic system thus conceived excludes certain economic structures and consequently certain institutions in this field.
The first component discussed in this connection is a concentration of economic power which is incompatible with the principle of maximum autonomy at each compatible with the principle of maximum autonomy at each level, that is to say an excessive centralization of this power.
This abusive concentration may take two very different forms : on the one hand, it may be exercised by gigantic industrial, commercial and financial enterprises and the trusts or agreements by which these enterprises are formed. On the other hand, it may be exercised by state systems, which, by means of authoritarian planning, unite to form one system with very extensive powers, one economic complex encompassing the entire economy of a country.
To understand difficult cases better, it will be useful to glance at the basic excesses.
Excessive concentration of economic power, which is incompatible with the respect for the human person and with the basic economy is thus a concentration which creates relationships of a unilaterally dependent nature of one economic group towards another. In fact, it is these relationships which are in fundamental opposition to the principle of federalism, since they represent distortion in human relationships which interfere with that essential self-determination which was discussed above.
Slavery, feudalism, classical capitalism, colonialism, modern capitalism based on the monopolies of large trusts, economic state control are the best known examples of this type of situation.
1) For reasons of a technical nature, the size of enterprises has become so large in certain branches of the economy that only one or a very small number of enterprises dominate the market, each being sufficiently strong to modify market conditions at will by changing the amounts of merchandize it puts on sale.
2) Following a large increase in population in many countries and the rise in the standard of living in certain regions of the world, the value of urban and suburban land increased considerably without the proprietors having made any contribution whatsoever.
In the same line of ideas, deposits of certain natural resources such as oil, certain non-ferrous minerals necessary to modern society, have increased in value following economic activity to which the owners of these deposits have frequently not contributed. The benefits which they draw from it are the expression of excessive power.
3) For reasons which are partly technical, partly economic or political, nearly everywhere, agriculture is undeveloped in relation to industry and in relation to a large part of the tertiary sector.
4) Automation, the use of computers and the whole system of computer programming, in present times, encourages an increasing part of the active population of our countries towards the tertiary sector. But this sector is equally affected by this phenomenon, in such a way that there is the apparent danger that even with an equitable distribution of word, there will not be enough available to allow each person to support himself through his work. In addition, shorter working hours in there areas, below a certain minimum, will become less profitable.
N.B. Serious inequalities of opportunity resulting from these situations are in conflict with the respect due to the human personality and with the ideal economic structure which derives from it, namely a maximum of autonomy for each economic level permitting those who work there to participate in decision-making and to help run each level of institutions having at their disposal limited but real powers.
There is certainly no panacea or universal remedy for this situation. It is typical of the characteristics of federalist solutions that they foresee a multiplicity of structures and institutions taking into account as well the fact that each comprises the many aspects of society : economic, social, cultural and political.
The society in which we live has not always remained indifferent to the serious consequences resulting from undesirable situations. Within the framework of the capitalist system, society seeks to apply, with more or less success, different measures which nonetheless imply contradictions hidden beneath more than one aspect.
Those who consider that capitalism is condemned to disappear because of its internal contradictions, proclaim with only a few exceptions, that they favour state control of the means of production within the framework of a planned economy, in accordance with rules set up by a bureaucracy for the distribution of the elements of production and consumer goods as well as their compensation and prices. Today this remains the outline of the structures of the Governments in the Peoples' Republics, including the Soviet Union. According to the official declarations of government officials and even of their most ardent supporters, the results of the actual workings of these structures and the institutions proceeding from them are unsatisfactory.
Consequently, we appear to have come to a full stop, since neither reforms within the capitalist framework nor its replacement by state collectivism resolve the issue. One of the federalist tenets is precisely this, that the two opposite economic and social systems capitalism and state collectivism are inadequate when faced with the problems of the modern economy.
Before discussing those measures which federalists recommend in this situations, several misunderstandings which might result from the two-fold rejection outlined above ought to be cleared up.
The rejection of capitalism based on the excessive concentration of economic power in the hands of certain groups on which others depend, is not to be equated with a wholesale rejection of all market economies. Salary scales established through negotiations between workers and managers on the basis of balanced economic powers are not to be replaced by privilege or exploitation of workers or consumers.
Thus the essential question is to discover how those particular balances could be set up and maintained. If balance is destroyed, that is to say, if the concentration of power in the hands of some groups create dependency on the part of others, all the mechanisms are warped and the abuse discussed above recur.
The opposite error consists in rejection of bureaucratic and state economy based on state ownership of the means of production necessarily indicates the rejection of all public intervention in the economy all economic planning and all public ownership of the means of production.
At this point in the argument, one could well ask whether it would not be sufficient to apply certain measures that would prevent the exaggerated or excessive concentration of economic powers which create the dependence of some groups on others, and besides that which clear the way for the relationship of supply and demand whose fluctuations, variations and modifications determine economic life.
This formula is not sufficient for the creation of an economy which would fulfill the conditions discussed above. This is the case because it is not possible to determine through general economic considerations the type and degree of restraints which must be applied in order to assure the essential autonomy at all levels.
This situation is due to the fact that men and women, producers and consumers, and not objects pawns, numbers, statistics compose the economy. It must not be forgotten that a large part of the population are only consumers and not producers : children, the elderly and the handicapped. Now it is a peculiarity of man to wish to follow his personal motivations. These are numerous and not solely economic or reducible to economic causes, by they nonetheless act upon economic factors.
In order to bring economic considerations closer to reality, it is necessary to lay abstractions aside momentarily and to examine the role of man in the whole of what constitutes the economic life or a society.
From the bottom to the top of society, man wishes to be in a position to decide for himself, as far as possible, his economic activity on the whole and in detail and in co-operation with others. His social needs are as real as his material needs. With regard to his economic activities, this means that man wishes to participate :
Now the wishes to participate not so much as an individual but as a member of a collectivity.
The enterprises themselves will be conceived of in such a fashion that at the level of technological coordination, management, offices, workshops, etc., autonomy will be at its greatest. According to basic principles and granted that at each level the entire personnel will be directly concerned, the latter must be represented at each level by councils of the enterprises.
Then, returning to the center of the system in the opposite direction, councils of consumers on the one hand, and of businesses on the other, will be coordinated for the scientific and technological development of the methods of production, for the use of computers, laboratory work, etc..
This co-ordination could be local, regional, national and even world-wide.
The most suitable scale of the enterprises will depend both on technological factors and on the magnitude of the demand. Excessive concentration of power in sectors whose size is very great will be prevented by coordinating bodies which will create a licensing system in each sector based on conditions of contract guaranteeing the rights of consumers and personnel.
In principle, the sale of part of share enterprises to the public will be approved as well as dividends on those shares according to results of business activity. But the structure of the latter will be very close to the formula of cooperatives, both in matters of production and consumption, meaning that most of the shares will be in the hands of the staff and regular clients. In some sectors the coordinating bodies will nevertheless be obliged to keep the majority of shares to prevent abuses.
Plans for the economic and social development of a region, a country or a continent will be established by close cooperation among political authorities, the enterprises and consumers. The necessary techniques for this cooperation are well-known ; at present, it is the decision-making power which ought to belong to each level which is most often lacking.
Within this framework, there are possibilities for resolving the different problems characterizing our period : the danger of economic domination by large businesses, unjustifiably large benefits for owners of urban land or natural resources, the danger of unemployment due to the absence of sufficient purchasing power, the consequences of colonialism, the slow growth of agriculture in relation with the rest of the economy.
Some coordinating bodies will have world features, specifically where economic development and the struggle against some forms of pollution are concerned. In these areas, world federal institutions would be closely linked on the economic and political plane.
In addition, the system will be based on self-administration at all levels : it is necessary to learn this in many parts of the world, and in numerous areas of economic life a large-scale effort in mass-education will be necessary, especially where international or world cooperation are concerned. All those involved in the steps to be taken in the matter, business councils, workers' unions, chambers of commerce and industry, specialized commissions of national economic bodies in Europe, Africa, etc., as well as in the United Nations, ought to be coordinated under the supervision of the United Nations itself.
This is a major imperative in considering the realization of an economic system based on federalism, and one whose setting up is yet linked with the creation of federal political structures at all levels.
Federalist principles applied to the coexistence and growth of civilizations and cultures.
"Cultures" and "Civilizations" are words heavy with prestige : there are patterns of association of ideas such as "the culture of fine arts and peace " which succeed in presenting them in an idyllic light. It must not be forgotten, however, that these differences among cultures and civilization have greatly fed the aggressiveness of peoples towards one another. For a given people, the fact, that another people spoke another language, held other religious beliefs, or simple ate other food, made the others suspect and gave rise to wariness that could easily become hatred. Certainly when an enemy was attacked it was often but not always, for material reasons, but the struggle was nonetheless elevated to a higher plane, thanks to the superior worth of civilization, morality, religion, etc.. Nowadays, despite the stirring-up of ideas due to communications and the progress of international understanding, these differences among types for of civilizations and cultures continue to contribute to the perpetuation of crimes against peoples.
Nevertheless, at this point in the evolution of humanity, diversity of cultures and civilizations would cease to be really dangerous if the outdated structures of our societies were ended. The most serious effects extant derive indeed from the concept of "national sovereignty". this concept began to take shape four or five centuries ago and has been in a state of hypertrophy for the last two hundred years. The nation is a political unity which always searches out reasons for existence. It is non content with a search for unity in rummaging through history and by embroidering legends, in defending "natural boundaries" or in asserting itself as an economic power.
It attempts in addition to convince its inhabitants that they constitute a civilized and cultural whole whose qualities are distinct from those elsewhere. From this it leads to intolerance and fanaticism being encouraged in external relationships, and on the domestic side, various misdeeds, according to periods and countries, which can lead to the stifling of the culture of minorities (asphyxiation of languages, beliefs, customs and art forms). The way is even seen clear to persecute those customs and art forms). The way is even seen clear to persecute those who wish to safeguard autonomy for their minorities.
The strength of empires and of nations has, in the end, overcome many original cultures. Despite such destruction, if world maps were drawn showing many different kinds of cultures and civilizations (especially maps of language and religion), it would be seen that the lines of national boundaries are even worse adapted to the essential characteristics of peoples than to the limits of economic entities. the system of sovereign nations has thus failed in the face of the lively diversity of human groups.
The systems is no more successful in the expression of what men of our own time have in common : a world form of civilization would require expansion in terms of the prodigious development of communications and exchanges. But national sovereignty transforms into an inextricable picture puzzle even the surrealist attempts at planetary organization that scientists and technicians in all domains have need nonetheless to make. Whether or not they are aware of the situation, these men cannot but continue in their path, and to weave a common image of Man, in his relationships with Nature, with his situation on the planet or in the universe and this conception reacts progressively on all kinds of civilizations, offering them a common basis without systematically sweeping aside the originality of each of them.
It is for this work in progress that federalism ought to encourage the possibilities of expansion. The desired objective is to permit the free expression of tribal feelings as well as those of a world people which begins to gain consciousness of itself and whose world citizens are the first witnesses.
In order to erect a world structure capable of being a radical solution to these problems, it would doubtless by necessary to seek a solution diametrically opposed to that of national sovereignty. While the latter claims to stabilize multi-faceted boundaries, that is to say within the context of geography as well as history, of the economy or of civilization, the federalist world, on the contrary, accepts the fact that men tend to organize themselves amidst flexible and distinct structures according to which they associate on the economic level or on the many levels of cultural expression. The geographical limits of institutional capacities of different areas will then cease to remain the same and to respond to the present fretwork of nations. One would see the erection of a kind of multi-dimensional society bearing hardly any comparison with the present types of society.
In such a world, the condition of today's populations classified as national minorities would be fundamentally transformed. Populations would cease to be at the mercy of the goodwill of governments. They would not simply enjoy an internal autonomy leading them to withdraw into themselves ; they would also have the ability to associate, in certain areas and beyond formerly intangible boundaries, with people of the same cultural group.
On the other side of this high respect for diversity, insured by those means that have been discussed above and by other means similarly effective, a federalist society would endow humanity in its entirety with all means fitting the flourishing of a world civilization. Doubtless, one may have an approximate idea of the world institution which would be possessed of skills in this area by imagining a transformed UNESCO, with real powers, and no longer emanating from nations state as today, but on the one hand, from groups representing cultural entities (linguistic, religious or philosophic groups, etc.), and on the other hand, from groups of men from the sciences, arts and humanities who would be associated on a world scale in order to pursue their area of research or opinion.
It is not intended that the preceding proposition ought to have attributed to them an intangible and absolute value. They are specially intended to demonstrate that structures common to the sovereign nation-state have held down human capacities to a minimum. There are many others and the federalist principle opens wide the doors to the imagining of yet more which would better meet the needs of our era than those adopted before the scientific and technical age.
We are not opening the debate in order to discover if federalist proposals appear radically new, and without standards in common with existing society, or whether if, on the contrary, they ought to adopt an air of reassurance by proceeding with successive adjustments of the established order. The different chapters of this brochure would have convinced the reader that in this area, as well as elsewhere, federalist ideas offer an extended scale of possible methods. It was essential to reply to those who would like to continue to have us believe that all may change in the world except the system of sovereign nations.
Formed in 1947 in Montreux (Switzerland) is the eldest presented mundialist organization.
10 STEPS TO WORLD LAW
About the Site