Glen T. Martin
The Philosophy of Anarchism versus the Philosophy of Democratic World Government
Glen T. Martin
During my college years at the University of Buffalo in the late 1960s, I studied the philosophy of anarchism and thought of myself as an anarchist. The background for my interest included the tumultuous events of that era – riots in the urban ghettos, mass protests against the Vietnam War, police repression of dissidents, and my understanding of the corruption of democracy and government within the U.S.
I studied the classical anarchist writings of William Godwin, Prince Peter Kropotkin, Michael Bakunin, and Pierre Joseph Prudhon and did an independent study in my senior year in which I attempted to systematically compare the philosophies of Anarchism and Marxism. Anarchism spoke to my socialist and communitarian sympathies and to my insight into the need for rebellion against the repressive and authoritarian nation-state.
I understood that the state in the United States was a class-based state, not a true democracy, with a government that protected vast accumulations of private wealth. It was a system that repressed the people and human freedom in the name of the legal right of corporations to exploit people and nature to steal ever greater wealth for themselves.
I adopted the main principle of Anarchism – the belief that the seemingly "corrupt" human nature that we see all around us is due to the authoritarian and illegitimate coercive structures of government. I embraced the basic anarchist view that the removal of these structures would result in our innate goodness and communitarian human nature emerging.
Without the coercive apparatus of government and its protection of unjust property relations, I assumed that people would begin living on the Earth in peace with one another, in voluntary communities, controlling their own productive facilities and reaping the full benefit of their own labor. There would no longer be war, racial or religious hatred, greed, or the desire of some people to interfere with the liberty of others.
Over many subsequent years I continued to study socialist theory, democratic theory, theories of government, theories of imperialism (such as those of Vladimir Lenin and Immanuel Wallerstein), psychoanalytic social theories (such as those of Herbert Marcuse and Eric Fromm), and philosophies of liberation (such as those of Che Guevara and Enrique Dussel). I also began to travel widely outside of the U.S. and experience different cultures, religions, ethnic groupings, and governmental systems. From this process emerged several conclusions incompatible with anarchism.
1) My most basic conclusion from these years of study and experience is that there is no such thing as an "innate human nature" waiting to emerge if all forms of governmental organization are eliminated. Neither is human nature "innately bad" as advocates of strong, coercive government assume.
Human nature is extremely malleable – we become one kind of creature in one social-cultural-governmental setting and another in another setting. Eliminating government will leave people victim to the chaos of social prejudices, bigotries, fears, angers, stupidities, and unjust cultural practices (like female circumcision) that sweep through any social community. How do we promote human freedom, democracy, intelligence, mutual tolerance, and understanding? Both attempts to eliminate government, and structures of coercive government, tend to destroy these qualities.
2) I reflected long on hard on the concept of human "equality" and "freedom." Regarding the concept of equality, it is patently obvious that people are all individuals – with different physical and mental strengths and weaknesses and unique characteristics that defy any concept of general equality. Even though there are theoretical perspectives that posit equality (we are all "children of God"; we are all of the same "species-being"), these have very little force in actual human interactions where the strong (mentally or physically) will nearly always take advantage of the weak if they are not constrained from doing so.
I began to realize that human equality and freedom are political concepts that must be legislated. We are all free and equal if we have an enforceable bill of rights that ensures equal protection before the law. We are all free and equal if we have real, functioning democracy that enforces freedom, equal treatment before the law, equal due process, and equal rights for all citizens. The U.N. Declaration of human rights, which is unenforceable, is practically meaningless in today’s world where rights are violated with impunity by any group with unaccountable power over others. There can be no universal human equality without universal, enforceable law legislating and mandating that equality.
For example, if men and women are to be equal, they must be equal before the law and because of the law. Universal suffrage that women struggled so hard to obtain would not exist today if it were left up to the "innate goodness" of men. Women, like everyone else, are made equal by law. Human freedom and equality are the goals. And these will come about as the result of high quality, well written enforceable laws – laws that will create a framework of freedom and equality within which our uniqueness and individuality can flourish – laws that still need to be written.
In the thought of Karl Marx, the legislating of political equality in the newly formed political democracies of the 18th century was a "great advance" in human freedom and equality. But it did not achieve real freedom and equality because it left the system of economic domination and exploitation in place. Human freedom and real equality can only be created through legislation that protects a basic economic freedom and equality in addition to political freedom and equality. Good democratically formed laws, in which people have really participated in the making and enforcing of these laws, are the only effective basis of human freedom and equality.
In the U.S. today, we do not have true freedom, nor equality, because the U.S. is not a democracy. It is an oligarchy of the rich (mostly Caucasian males), a propaganda system run by the rich, and a system of injustice and coercion enforced against the poor at home and abroad. However, we are morally obligated to demand and live by principles of freedom and equality as the great 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant argued. For these are the fundamental principles of all morality.
Hence, in the U.S. today, we are in a condition of what I call "structural immorality." We are morally obligated to live under free, truly democratic government, for that is the only possible basis for actual, functioning freedom and equality. To live without good government, is to live in what Kant called a "state of nature" which is really a state of defacto war. For without good government the stronger can always attack, dominate, exploit, or coerce the weaker. We must oppose both the destruction of all governmental authority (anarchism) and the imposition of unequal unjust coercive government (our present system in the U.S.). Freedom and equality must be legislated by truly democratic, participatory government. There is no other way to achieve these goals, goals that are inherent our human moral and spiritual lives.
3) Third, I began to understand the hundreds of everyday functions of government from which we all benefit that have little to do the highly visible repressive features of the undemocratic aspects of government. When I go to the doctor or dentist, I am very happy that the government certifies their competencies. Imagine people "free" to set themselves up as doctors or dentists without government regulation? When I buy drugs or foods, I benefit from enforceable standards of drug and food quality. Imagine what corporations would do to us if there were no such standards? When someone is hired for a job on the basis of their college education, imagine what it would be like, if no such awarded certificates were coordinated or sanctioned by law?
When I draw water from the tap, I benefit from uniform, enforceable standards of water quality. The same is true with air quality, automobile safety, and every other aspect of life. Fire codes and building codes evolved from very real experiences of gigantic fire tragedies or building disasters during a period when government left people "free" from standards with respect to these things. The very real failures with regard to good doctors, food, fire or building disasters of which we are all aware are due to lack of good, democratic government. They are not the result of government itself, but of bad government as the rich or unscrupulous distort good government for their own purposes. What we need is good, citizen run, democracy that serves the interests of everyone by promoting true freedom and equality.
Government is a designed social institution that can be substantially improved through building in checks and balances, citizen oversight, true freedom of information, and democratic participation. It must be "federated" in a series of levels from the smallest community units, to the largest planetary units in order to preserve citizens’ control over their local affairs. The point is not to get rid of government but to create good government.
For the last 40 years, the propaganda coming from the big corporations has been anti-government (anarchist) propaganda. They tell us that the source of our problems is "big government" that takes our taxes and inhibits business enterprise, creativity, etc. But the truth of the matter is that good government is the only thing that can prevent the domination, exploitation, and injustice flowing out of corporate greed and all other forms of unaccountable power.
4) But why are there so many "bad" governments in the world? Why is it so difficult to create good government? A fundamental reason for this difficulty emerges if we study the world system that developed from the Renaissance of 16th and 17th century Europe and soon became the dominant world system. The governments of the world system, which have always been largely controlled by the wealthy classes of their respective countries, understood that control of the wealth-producing process internationally was essential to the power and wealth of nations.
Spain, Portugal, Britain, Holland, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, China, Japan, the United States, and other nations began the race for domination of the wealth and resources worldwide with the horrid history (continuing to this day) of wars, conquests, colonialism, slavery, mercantilism, and other forms of exploitation of the world’s cheap labor and resources by the imperial centers of capital. Thus emerged the modern system of territorial nation-states – all in competition with one another for wealth, military power, and spheres of hegemony.
Under this system, authentic democracy is impossible. Under this system, nations are impelled to militarize, to operate through a secret foreign policy, using "intelligence" gathering, diplomatic deception, treaty alliances, and economic, political, or military coercion to secure their control over the wealth-producing process and their spheres of trade, domination, and exploitation. Democracy cannot flourish within this system, since governmental secrecy, militarism, and lack of civilian oversight are entirely incompatible with democracy.
Similarly, the modern world system has generated vast concentrations of private, corporate wealth that operates in secret from the public (since corporations are considered to have the same "right to privacy" as persons) in an undemocratic and unaccountable fashion. Corporations under this system operate not out of a concern for the environment, democracy, or the public good but to maximize profits for investors regardless of the consequences. They also operate in cooperation with imperial nation-states to dominate and control cheap labor, resources, and the wealth-producing process worldwide.
Study of this world system shows that two fundamental presuppositions of bad government are monopoly capitalism and the sovereign nation-state. These are the two anti-democratic pillars of the world system since the Renaissance. Therefore, we can only create true democracy and true good government on the planetary level.
Democratic world government under the Constitution for the Federation of Earth demilitarizes the world entirely (and the world government itself by law has no military). Hence, it makes possible for the first time the elimination of governmental secrecy and true citizen oversight of all government functions (the necessary basis for any functioning democracy). Only complete government transparency can give authentic democracy. Without military or international competition for unjust wealth both national governments and the world government will be completely transparent for the first time. Citizen privacy must be respected but there is no legitimate reason for government or its officials to claim the need for secrecy. Hence, only a demilitarized world under world government can give us real democracy.
Secondly, democratic world government under the Constitution gives the people of Earth through the World Parliament the power and duty to make corporations accountable to the common good (of freedom, equality, and environmental integrity). Just as democracy cannot function while there is governmental secrecy, so corporations must be publicly accountable and not be allowed to exploit, price fix, bean count, buy political favors, bust unions, suppress unfavorable research, funnel funds into off-shore accounts, manipulate the market, etc., etc., in secrecy. Under today’s world system, where corporations dominate nations in their own interest and some corporations have more assets (and more power) than many nations, democracy cannot flourish. Only the authority of world government can control multi-national corporations, since these are beyond the legal reach of any particular national government. Here also, democratic world government makes possible real democracy on Earth for the first time, from the local to the planetary level.
5) Finally, the global crises that our planet faces today can only be dealt with by democratic world government. Anarchism, like theories of political democracy focusing on nation-states (such has those of Jeanne Jacques Rousseau or John Locke), arose in the 17th and 18th centuries when people did not dream that there could be such a thing as "global crises." With the dawn of awareness (beginning in the 20th century) of our planetary crises that are beyond the scope of any nation-state to deal with, some have realized that we need to have a new political philosophy, and an entirely new understanding of our human situation, if we are to survive much longer on this planet. To put it bluntly, we must unite under non-military, democratic world government or we will not survive the 21st century.
The global population explosion is threatening our existence on this planet. Eighty million new persons are added to the population of the Earth each year. Some scientists predict nine to eleven billion people by the year 2025. In 1900, the Earth had only one billion people, today: over six billion. Every person alive impacts the world’s resources and environment. Sustainable economists such as Herman E. Daly assert that the Earth can only sustainably support two to three billion people. The impending consequences of overpopulation, already beginning today, will be massive migrations, starvations, wars, refugees, environmental damage, and economic chaos.
The global environmental crisis is also happening here and now and includes multiple forms of destruction leading to a possible collapse of the planetary ecosystem that supports life through global warming, ozone layer depletion, or other massive disruptions. Globally, soil erosion is devastating the farming lands of the planet which are disappearing at an astonishing rate. Fresh water aquifers are disappearing as is the total supply of fresh water from the Earth. Global deforestation occurs on the scale of an area half the size of California each year. Grazing lands are rapidly disappearing on which much of the planet’s population raise animals for food. Ocean fisheries, which supply a large portion of the Earth’s food, are collapsing everywhere. These are all well documented facts for anyone who cares to find out for themselves.
Global militarism and wars continue unabated. These are extremely destructive of the environment, of human rights, cause massive refugee problems, and cause the destruction of cultures, livelihoods, and civilized living for hundreds of millions. Nearly one trillion U.S. dollars per year and immense human resources are wasted world wide. Less than half this amount could supply clean water and sanitation for every person on Earth. Who is to stop this madness? The imperial nations themselves lead with world wide sales of "conventional weapons" on the scale of many billions of dollars per year – breeding conflicts, terrorism, dictatorships, genocides, and wars.
Global poverty and misery continue to increase. Current U.N. figures estimate 1.5 billion persons or 20% of the Earth’s population are living in "absolute poverty," with hunger, malnutrition, and no hope. Three fifths or 60% of the Earth’s population live in a condition of relative poverty that gives them little hope for education, freedom from disease, or a fulfilled life. There is massive international debt of the poor countries to first world lending institutions and hence massive undemocratic control over their destinies. The result is dictatorships, as well as social and economic chaos in "third world" countries that give them little hope under the current world system of ever seeing anything resembling freedom, equality, or democracy.
Worldwide, there is little or no global regulation or planning regarding the future. Instead, there is global competition between nations and huge corporations for resources, military advantage, cheap labor, and avoiding environmental regulation. The United Nations, premised on the present world economic system, on the system of territorial nation-states, and on the war system, is totally helpless to address these crises as its record of failure on all these issues demonstrates. The U.N. is based on the failed assumptions of the modern world system: the sovereign nation-state and monopoly capitalism. Our only option, if we are to have a future at all, is non-military, democratic world government.
All of these global crises destroy democracy, and the possibility of democracy, within the nations and localities of the world. They all portend the destruction of a future for humanity unless we unite as human beings, politically, economically, and democratically. The Constitution for the Federation of Earth, written with these global crises in mind, is directed explicitly to their solution. It is designed to rapidly control the world population explosion through non-coercive incentives, to restore and protect the global environment, to demilitarize the world and prevent remilitarization, and to eliminate global poverty rapidly and sustainably. It is designed to ensure global democracy from the local to the planetary levels, and I have argued that real democracy even at the local level is impossible unless we also have it at the planetary level. There is no other force on Earth that can accomplish these immense and immediately necessary tasks.
That is why anarchism as well as political liberalism under the system of sovereign nation-states are outmoded political and economic philosophies. At the beginning of the 21st century, we must develop a planetary economic and political philosophy involving non-military democratic world government or we will have failed our children and future generations – who will perish from the Earth.
Slow Evolution versus Rapid Transformation
Glen T. Martin
The issue of the long evolution toward a more just or better governed world versus a deeply transformed world in the relatively near future is a very important one. Some people believe that the most practical and realistic approach is to work to reform the United Nations, for example, as a first step toward a future world government, by attempting to get rid of the veto-power held by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. They argue that the creation of the Constitution for the Federation of the Earth and the work to get this ratified is A purely idealistic@ and unrealistic. They say that it is better to work for small accomplishments that are feasible than for some noble ideal that is entirely beyond our reach.
But is it beyond our reach? This is very difficult to know, objectively speaking. Many observers agree that history operates in periods of relatively slow change punctuated by periods of rapid, radical change. Many also point out that we are in a period of extremely rapid change. How are we to predict what form that change might take?
In addition, as anthropologist Margaret Mead said, A Never doubt the ability of a small group of devoted people to change the course of history.@ Tremendous things are possible that originate with relatively small numbers of people. Of course, circumstances must favor them: the accidents of publicity, finding the right connections, being in the right time and place, etc. But history is full of surprises. Over the centuries, dominant historical forces have often disappeared rapidly and new ones have taken their place. New ways of thinking, like the Renaissance in 15th century Italy, explode from obscure roots. It may be that the Renaissance of the 21st century will embrace democratic world government easily and naturally.
Secondly, it is important to realize that history also chronicles the process of humanity= s growth toward maturity. Many observers have pointed out that humankind in general (especially in the behavior of leaders of nation-states and global corporations) is presently in its adolescent, pre-adult stage. Mature people think holistically. They operate under the principle of unity-in-diversity that tries to build unities while respecting the individuality and diversity of all. Mature people understand the adolescent character of hatreds, prejudices, bigotries, etc. They understand that power and domination, exploitation and injustice, and "us versus them" attitudes are destructive and only perpetuate the cycles of violence and injustice.
The only exceptional thing about the Agreat teachers@ of humankind of our time such as Nelson Mandella, Mahatma Gandhi, Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King, Jr., Noam Chomsky, the present Dalai Lama, Bishop Desmond Tutu, and others, is that they are mature human beings and, as such, operate out of the principle of unity-in-diversity. They are not A ideals@ of what people should be so much as examples of what we are rapidly becoming.
Mature human beings easily see that uncontrolled capitalism is immature. The famous Adam Smith principle that if everyone acts out of their own self-interest and greed then the magical result will be Athe greatest benefit of the greatest number@ is childish at best. Mature human beings also easily see that the system of so-called sovereign nation-states is childish and immature. World Citizen Garry Davis has pointed this out repeatedly. To think there is something special about one= s accidental birth in this time and place (that separates one from all other humans because one is part of this pitiful little national territory) is simply childish.
There is a large literature (some of which is examined in Chapter Six of my book Millennium Dawn) pointing to the fact that human beings are phylogenetically on the verge of maturity. The many global crises that confront us, for one thing, are placing a maturity-pressure on us that says AEither grow up or you will destroy yourselves and the Earth.@ Signs of this transformation are everywhere in literature, art, political thought, human rights work, environmental work, etc.
And just as an adolescent with his violence, rebellion, vulgarity, and irrationality may, within an amazingly short time, become a reasonable, decent young adult, so humanity is on the verge of what I call Aplanetary maturity.@ We are rapidly coming into our maturity as human beings and it may be that in 20 years the wars of the 20th century will seem like childish adolescent nightmares to the majority of persons on the Earth, or at least to a large portion of their leaders.
Mature people will simply see ratification of the Earth Constitution as the simplest and most common sense thing people can do. Of course, they will say, we need to non-militarily and democratically govern ourselves on this planet. It may be as simple as that. Those of us that promote the Earth Constitution are not radical idealists. We are simply activating and promoting the process of planetary maturity that is currently taking place worldwide. We are offering to people a concrete focus for their emerging understanding that unity-in-diversity is the principle by which mature and responsible human beings must operate on this planet.
However, there is a third principle that bears directly on the issue of slow versus rapid transformation that also interfaces with the other principles discussed above. This principle is that idea that fundamental problems cannot be solved on the same level in which the problem occurs. I first encountered this idea some years ago in the thought of the depth psychologist Carl Jung in his book Modern Man in Search of a Soul. Problems can seem absolutely unsolvable on the level in which they occur. For it is the unquestioned and unspoken premises of that level that create the seeming impasse.
For example, on the level of the so-called sovereign nation-state, the problem of war, militarism, and weapons development seems insoluble. On the level of the innumerable forces trying to influence the development of the UN or global Agovernance,@ the future does not look very bright because by far the greatest influence comes not from mature thinkers or high quality NGOs but from corporate power, national self-interest, religious hatred, and other undemocratic forces. However, the Constitution for the Federation of Earth exists on an entirely different level in terms of which the premises of the lower level (sovereign nation-states and monopoly capitalism) no longer interfere with humanity=s movement toward maturity.
That is why the Constitution for the Federation of Earth, is necessarily governmental, not just another proposal among the myriad of proposals that fly around the globe today. Humanity can only solve its problems by ascending to another level of existence. Of course, as Hank Stone points out, the ego of politicians will often reject what does not have their name upon it. But even this is a fact on the present plane of human existence (which is a chaos of egoisms, nationalisms, religious bigotries, corporate monopolies, and a science of military destruction out of control with no apparent way to restrain it). But the unquestioned premise of all these personal and collective egoisms is fairly easily transcended. When we recognize the unity of our common humanity under the sovereignty of the people of Earth, we are instantly on a higher level from which the old problems disappear.
By putting forward the Earth Constitution as necessarily governmental, we are offering the people of Earth a simple step-ladder to a higher level of existence on this planet. A few simple steps to this higher level and the chaos of seemingly insoluble problems on the lower level disappears easily and rapidly. From life on this higher level (real government addressing the global problems, ensuring universal human rights, and enforcing the process of creating a just and equitable world order), the old apparently insoluble problems become non-problems. Of course, people will say, all nations should work together to preserve the environment. Of course, corporations should be democratically regulated for the common good. Of course, all military and weapons of war should be abolished by law.
Anyone who has experienced this sort of change in his or her own life may well understand what I am talking about. Life seems hopeless and impossible no matter which way one turns. Then, two years later, when one has grown to a higher level, it is almost impossible to imagine what all the fuss was about. This is what the Earth Constitution does for humanity. It offers a simple, legitimate step-ladder by which to walk out of humanity= s current impasse to a broader level in which the former impasse is not solved in its own terms, but dissolved. Slow evolution cannot very well accomplish this, since it is likely to remain locked into the same set of parameters. People must take a step, they must make the simple ascent to the higher level. Then the apparently impossible problems disappear and life can go on.
I think those people are correct who say that the real decision to become a world citizen is already an ascent to a higher level from which everything begins to look different. However, the decision to become a world citizen alone removes one from the imaginary sovereignties of the nation-states and projects one into a no-persons= land beyond all present governmental or democratic authority. (I explain this in detail in my Introduction to World Revolution Through World Law.) A second decision is required: to become a citizen of the Federation of Earth.
People are morally required to live under legitimate democratic sovereignty, which does not exist in the anarchic world of today. (The philosopher, Immanuel Kant, is excellent on the topic of this obligation.) Hence, the second act of a world citizen (after choosing to become one), must be the act of A civil obedience@ to the sovereignty of the people of Earth. I recognize the Earth Constitution as representing the democratic sovereignty of the people of Earth and pledge obedience to it. With this second act, I have submitted myself to the moral force that governs all people on Earth (their sovereignty) and that dictates a free, non-military world democracy as the legitimate expression of their sovereignty.
Some people have spoken of the necessity of finding some A agency@ existing within the heart of the current world order that is capable of promoting an ascent to a higher level able to "transcend, negate and include" existing arrangements. Such ideas, of course, follow Hegel= s notion of aufgehoven and I think are very much on the mark. The bearer of agency cannot emerge from Aoutside@ existing arrangements, or exist Aseparate@ from these arrangements, or Acompete@ with them. It must emerge from within, be part of the arrangements, and transform them from within. There is a nisus or force toward world democracy and world unity that must be encouraged and promoted as the transformative agency within our present world order.
That is exactly what the Constitution for the Federation of Earth does. I think it is important to take a large historical view of what is happening in the current transformation, as Hegel, for example, did. The idea of A sovereignty@ slowly emerged throughout the Western tradition and coalesced in the 17th and 18th centuries in the idea of the sovereignty of the people within democratic nation-states. The idea that the citizen owes allegiance to legitimate sovereignty and that it is not appropriate to live outside legitimate sovereignty (as Immanuel Kant expressed this) has also been pervasive since the 18th century (and, despite the influence of positivism, continues in various forms today). I am obligated to be a A citizen,@ that is, to live under what Kant called a ARepublican@ form of government, in obedience to democratically legislated laws governing all persons equally.
The idea of universal human rights has emerged in a similar way, going back to the ancients, but culminating in the last few centuries and expressed, as a number of thinkers have pointed out, in the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One key provision is that "The will of the people is the basis of the authority of government; Universal and equal suffrage shall express this will in periodic and genuine elections held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures" (Article 21.3). This principle comes from the heart of the modern world but is institutionally embodied nowhere in our world (the U.N. considers it "merely symbolic"). Territorial nation-states are an explicit contradiction to this principle because none of them can give this right to all citizens of the Earth.
All of these principles arise from within the modern world system and are, one might say, the very kernel and essence of the system, that is, the dignity of all human beings, universal human rights, and the democratic sovereignty of the people. The Earth Constitution was formulated by hundreds of world citizens not out of nowhere but as an expression of the very core of modernity= s ability to move to a higher level of existence implicit in the telos within the old. It transcends the explicit contradictions of the system of territorial nation states that falsely claims it can embody these principles within limited territories: for sovereignty not limited but universal, human rights are universal, and human dignity is universal. None of these can be limited by national territories. Rights do not end at some militarized border beyond which one= s nation uses only military violence - the very antithesis of protecting human rights.
The Earth Constitution arises from the very heart of the modern world system and explicitly Atranscends, negates, and includes that system.@ It does not abolish nation-states but restores their legitimacy as parts within the federated whole. It negates the fragmentation and explicit contradictions of the system: so-called sovereign nations and unrestrained capitalism, but includes, preserves, and A lifts-up@ (aufgehoven), the most fundamental principles of the system. From the ascent to this level, especially once it is ratified, it serves as a transformative leaven on the psyche of humanity and on world institutions leading toward a realization of our higher potential as human beings (as this is expressed in Part IV of my book, Millennium Dawn).
Neither is the U.N. abolished. The Provisional World Parliament has made explicit provisions for the inclusion of the many viable agencies of the U.N. into the various organs and agencies of the Earth Federation. The only real change is that the unworkable Charter is replaced by a real Constitution embodying, for the first time, the real democratic principles at the heart of the modern world system. That is precisely why the Constitution deserves our A civil obedience,@ because it raises all of us to a new level of existence from within the heart of the modern world order.