Response to Ole

I don’t want to interrupt the flow of nice pictures either, but I have some questions and maybe I am looking for a break from writing my thesis. Please let me know if this offends or even worse, bores anyone, and I will go back to posting bad poetry and nice pictures. I should also add that this opinions expressed in the this article do not reflect my country, family, University, romates, friends, old work places, ex-girlfriends etc...

As you can tell, I was having some fun with an idea. I was also genuinely interested in what a legal war would look like. In his response (http://nilsole.blogspot.com/) Ole proposes that a majority court decision would uphold a legal war if the offending country did not convince the majority of judges of their innocence. I assumed that rather than simply convincing popular opinion, they would have to convince a group of judges, like the Superior Court system in Canada, who would be responsible to interpret the law rather than appealing to popular opinion. However, that law would have to be formed by some sort of world-wide democratic system to start with.

The problem I see with democracy on a world-scale (UN) is that many people do not trust big governments. The country with the most experience (500+ years) in democracy in the world, Switzerland with their 8 million people, rarely chooses to be part of bigger governing bodies. Perhaps this is because democracy would not work at such a scale, or would work much differently. The government of the most populous country in the world, China (1.3 billion), is strongly opposed to democracy. And although India (the second most populous country at 1.1 billion) does have democracy it also has a stringent kaste system which works to keep order even when people are dying from lack of food and clean water.

That said, it is commendable how quickly and smoothly the European Union has been formed to its present state. When I was living in Leipzig and travelling around Europe during the introduction of Euro (2001-2002) it was surprising for me how fast incremental steps were being made towards a unified European governing body because the various peoples in Europe have such different cultures, languages and histories from one another. So if anyone has earned the right to advocate big democracy and be heard today it would be Europeans!

But still, all too often even within one western country certain areas do not feel represented properly. For examples look at the recent history of French speaking Quebec in Canada, who has their own federal separatist party representing only Quebec! This party frequently ends up forming the official opposition party (second most popular party) responsible for keeping the elected party (usually the liberals) accountable to the desires of all Canadians. Newfoundlanders in eastern Canada still complain loudly that they have been disadvantaged ever since joining Canada in 1948. The United States has examples of this too (Civil War, 1861), as in many other modern countries where part of the country has threatened to secede.

So my question is this:
If it is difficult to make democracy work on a country scale, who thinks it is such a good idea on a world-scale? And why?

To be clear about my position, I love democracy and want to make it work. I have lived in a former communist country and seen the effects it has on silencing views opposing “the party” and discouraging free thought and free discussion like in this essay. For myself I will always work towards a society where every individual has a say through referendums, education and voting.