Is it safe to say democracy continues its reign as king? When different government systems come to mind, are the feelings of “good vibes” applied to the likes of communism? Right now, citizens all over the world are fighting, in one way or another, for their own ideal version of democracy. In Hong Kong, the condensed population – Hong Konger’s – stand against the most dominating figure of communism – China. However, upon review of each country’s political regime, not one has a system labelled as just “democracy.” According to the CIA WORLD FACTBOOK, Switzerland is a federal republic while the USA is a constitutional federal republic. Canada is a federal parliamentary democracy whereas Belgium is a federal parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy. In finding this level of diversity in governmental regimes, a follow up question is raised – Since government regimes change so frequently, especially in the past few decades, why has the international system remained relatively the same?

Historical events have been popping up more and more in just this year alone. The youth of Hong Kong have taken to the streets to fight the strongest communist State in the world. Greta Thunberg’s activism paid off in having the largest global youth protest against climate change in history. And now an impeachment inquiry for President Trump has been opened up. With these events taken under consideration, we the people should refrain from trusting the government, but not in the way you might think. This isn’t a position coming from the left or the right, the crazy left or the alt-right. On a general scale, people want the utmost democratic system possible. A political system where the power is in the hands of the people. To lobby. To vote. To protest. The majority of countries theoretically fall under that category (rather loosely, in all fairness). Yet with the world becoming more connected than we’ve ever seen throughout history – personal relationships thriving regardless of the oceans between them, business transactions between two distant continents processed within the hour – there are now massive problems growing outside the people’s control.

Our means to combat these international problems is typically between two options – war and peace. This is where diplomacy shines. Recently, however, preference to traditional diplomacy has become de-valued. Governments embracing nationalism, excommunicating any foreign benefactors. Authoritarian regimes dishing out direct threats of war. Real facts (the truth) no longer take preference (i.e. alternative facts). With the latter seen as foundational to any country’s intelligence agency, if alternative facts are taken as truth, how far until we have our own Ministry of Truth straight out of Orwell’s 1984?. At an annual event hosted by the more conservative publication, The Economist, I was an audience member listening to the invited speaker Steve Bannon, who dictated to the Editor-in-Chief that, while they’ve got all the right facts, their interpretation is completely off base. In this post-truth era, are century-old, well-trusted publications now being told they’ve been doing it wrong? Are we now compromising with self-interested extremists? What good is a Nation-State if it’s diplomatic decision making ability embraces rather than confronts the post-truth era it itself created?

The friction between decision making and the post-truth era.

The State and the international system present a contradiction through their process in achieving results. Social or civil problems at the State or federal level take time. One bill can be introduced but may still take a few additional years to work out the kinks. It’s through many, many hoops where decisions are made, voted on, and new government regulations are either created or perhaps improved upon (examples being as simple as the air we breathe and the weapons we use). But when these problems surpass borders, co-existing with our worldly neighbors – time is seemingly illimitable. Change becomes exponentially more difficult. Why? Perhaps those with absolute authority don’t like being subordinates to overarching institutions of authority. While the State theoretically works with (and occasionally for) the people on issues within a nation’s borders, world leaders turn their backs to us when standing at the international podium since State interests take priority, which the people must accept. The intelligence a State holds is more often than not classified or confidential. With this, they protect us from foreign threats. Without the State, who would protect us? Why does everything have to feel like chaos?

When the Blair and Bush governments wanted to go to war for oil, they didn’t ask for permission. They’re grown ups. They’re all the wiser. They share whatever information they want in order for them to successfully then turn their backs to us. Dictating to the world how they all must cooperate.

It’s not difficult to dig into each and every country’s past choices in order to reveal the darker side of things. From this article’s perspective, the State appears to lack ability in solving specific present day problems that are advancing quicker than the era of the Industrial Revolution. These are problems that the State has created or exacerbated time and time again. Examples fall in the realm of technological advancement (social media, cryptocurrency, citizens rights to personal data). Right now, no institution reigns with absolute authority over any government to ensure State protection is held intact. If an institution like this did exist though, should this be embraced?

In looking at the current international system, its ability to deliver levels of positive progress is questionable. Anarchism is what the international system abides by. Simply put, it is the idea that every individual works together, cooperating in order to bring an equitable world everyone can enjoy. Imagine your dream job – perhaps you prefer it remain a dream, you’re currently working on making it a reality, or quite possibly living it already. How much would you want to be paid? What would you buy? How would your lifestyle change?

Now imagine being unpaid for your dream job, yet little has changed. Your desired lifestyle is still ongoing, the things you need or want are still within reach, and you’re doing work you love. Taking under consideration the direction our civilization is headed, it’s possible to see this as an open choice for societies to take. The advancement of machines will replace the laborious jobs, people can stop worrying about the next two detrimental paychecks that keep them from homelessness, and we can live in our utopia. Or dystopia… (all depends on how you look at it). But again, this is the general idea behind anarchism. Is the current international system utopian or dystopian? Could a democratic world order deliver the change we need or want? Is a new world order something to consider?

No matter how one looks at our current status, it makes sense to evaluate all the options. Right now, our civilization is evaluating our next frontier – space. Similar to the internet, governments remain ill equipped. There is currently no qualified authority to prevent corporations from traveling to the Moon or Mars, extracting minerals, and reaping the consequential profits. If governments have opposing priorities, war can continue to erupt in space. Our ability to conquer, colonize, and destroy would become galactic.

Ridding the world of the Nation-State and creating area specific councils (e.g. internet, environment, criminal, space travel) is not a simple option. A currency, perhaps even cryptocurrency, would have to be adopted in order to have a currency that worked no matter one’s location. A means of control by the people through the internet would need to be developed and programmed in a way to bring political accountability. That said, we wouldn’t be transitioning overnight into some utopia but…it could be a second chance. An alternative we have yet to try. Is it impossible? Is it even worth discussing?

Having a government to protect the people from neighboring threats is critical. Regulating and punishing criminal activity within society is detrimental. The point here is to understand the accountability placed on governments when they begin to represent the people up there in the international scene – whether they are able or even willing to represent the people they are obligated to protect. There isn’t one present institution that can completely hold a State accountable for its criminal activity. And seeing where civilization is headed next – space – some level of order is required. Even looking back at the WWII, international institutions couldn’t just walk into Germany and slap on handcuffs. It was war. Countries were either for the cause or against it.

Anarchy is the defining characteristic separating the domestic order from the international. The deeply unresolved circumstance throughout the international system. If you’ve grown up in a first world country, the idea of democracy is imbedded into your system, a system we understand as something we deserve. The rightful system of the people. If you grew up or live in a developing country, democracy was a system your government either says it is (but isn’t) or continuously promises its people (yet never delivers). What we were never taught though are the alternatives (at least not directly). Communism? Pass. Socialism? Difficult. Fascism? Apparently they’re pigs, and not in the Piglet sort of way. What political ideologies remain include the likes of democracy, conservatism, and anarchism. If the international system was less anarchical and more democratic, could the world achieve more or meet even greater barriers?

The two options on the table are complex, but when put in general terms, we have one path that involves anarchism maintaining its reign within the international – soon universal – system. The second however can have several diverging paths but with the same hopeful goal – building a new democratic world order. The issues we face today deliver massively horrible consequences and aren’t easily solved since every nation is focused on their own specific needs and wants when negotiating. Compromise can become impossible when this is the case, and even when it’s achieved, governments can opt out later on without any authority to stop them. Now, before the mind begins to race into some fictional dystopian world similar to the likes of Brave New World or 1984, understand that any era from history can be easily labelled dystopian or utopian. Thus, if the world opted for global democracy – a democratic world order – could it be safer than what we presently accept?