Towards world government and understanding global politics

International organizations are transnational and exercise jurisdiction within international arena. Typically, they have been set up by a number of sovereign states to facilitate international cooperation. The principal reason for the growth in the number and importance of IO – is the recognition by states, that in some spheres (especially in national security and economic development) they provide a more effective means of pursuing national interests.

Today in the era of economic globalization and nuclear weapons, isolation – is a luxury, which states can’t afford. Their survival depends on the access to international and global markets, which can be achieved through cooperation under auspices of international organizations such as NATO, the OSCE, the WTO, the IMF. Moreover, ecological problems make the need to construct international and supranational bodies all the more pressing.

But that is not the only reason of a drift towards supranational organizations. To some extent, it reflects an idealistic commitment to internationalism and the belief that such institutions embody a moral authority. International organisations have given a new impetus to the notion of a world government and a global state (this idea can be traced back to Imperial Rome). To examine how viable such a project in modern circumstances we can look at the experience of European integration and the progress made by the UN.

The “European idea” – the belief that Europe constitutes a single political community – was born long before 1945. However, until the second half of the twentieth century, such aspirations proved to be Utopian. But after the IIWW, Europe has undergone a historically unprecedented process of integration and it is sometimes suggested that European integration provides a model of political organization to be accepted worldwide.

In strict terms, the EU is no longer a confederation of independent states. It has both intergovernmental (the Council of Ministers) and supranational (the Court of Justice) bodies. And because of superiority of European law over the national law of the member state, it’s perhaps accurate to talk of a federalizing Europe.

 

 

Political Socialisation.

The notion of political culture is connected to the individual perception of politics and the person’s place in it. That’s why the underlying process that shapes political culture is political socialization (PS). Through the PS process, individual acquires political beliefs, attitudes and behavior. The idea of political socialization is often disputed. Even though it is difficult to deny its existence, main principles and features of PS are still unclear. For example, Marxists claim that ruling classes and oppressing political regime indoctrinate the political conscience of a person. Being influenced by those powerful actors, the individual cannot but agree dominant political culture. However, conventional science acknowledges existence of various agents of socialization and the variety of influences they have one our personalities.

From the very start of his/her life, person acquires political views of the family members, and then views are shaped by the educational institutions, friends, mass-media, etc. In fact, scholars are currently divided over the level of pressure each agent exerts on us. It’s broadly accepted, that religion is less and less influential, while the importance of mass-media is still growing, shaping personality – dissemination of political information through latest means of communication is growing larger. However, that creates variety – and poses unanswered question – whether we can quantify single influences to create a comprehensive report on anyone’s political characteristics or that is highly individual.