Global feudalism or global social contract?
Troy Davis, speech at World Political Forum

Humanity today is in danger, not because it does not know how to solve the problems it faces, but because it has been brainwashed into believing that the only legitimate way to solve these problems is by using the “grammar” of international relations invented by Sumerian Kings 5000 years ago. This grammar, by definition, was a human invention, and not a Law of Nature.   It is based on two methods commonly known as “diplomacy” and “war”.   Its principles are that 

nș 1.  Only states are legitimate international actors - humans have no international standing, and 

nș 2.  it makes no difference to a state’s legitimacy if it mistreats, tortures or kills people.    

The existing world political architecture is based, still, on fundamentally anti-human principles: principles that deny human freedom, deny human dignity and deny humanity itself, principles which emerged under absolute monarchy, and which still define the “World-Machine”.  Present global rules are the outgrowth of fundamentally unjust initial conditions which emerged historically in the pre-democratic age.  And the world order is still pre-democratic, feudal and militaristic.

To change this destructive world architecture, we must understand that it is a paradigm, which I call the Old Paradigm, not just a set of more or less benign rules that could be adjusted on a case by case basis.   In reality, it is the Old Paradigm which killed 8 000 men in Srebrenica, which killed 800 000 people in Rwanda, which is killing hundreds of thousands in Darfur today.  It permits the killing under our noses because we believe -schizophrenically- that though it is normal to prevent the Mayor of a City from killing its people - and we have laws against it - it is abnormal, nearly “impolite”, to prevent the President of a State from killing its people.   This demonstrates the vise-like mental grip of the Old Paradigm which says that States are more important than Humans, that States have an inherent legitimacy to do what they want, though States are a human invention, and not the other way around.

The Old Paradigm thus shapes our beliefs about what can be done, and prevents us from applying to global problems the concepts we accept in modern times as central to human progress.   What are these “new” concepts that contradict it?  Concepts universally recognized today normatively -though often not applied- and if so, only nationally?

They emerged 2500 years ago in Athens (though only for some of its people), and are based on the subversive notion that people matter, that humans have innate dignity.  A precedent was set and these principles gave rise to a “New Paradigm”, defined by freedom, democracy, accountability, justice, the rule of law, transparency, consent, checks and balances, civilian power, constitutions, parliaments; in short, the idea that political sovereignty belongs to a people composed of individuals with equal dignity, and that “Right makes Might”.  In comparison, the Old Paradigm is based on fear, force, coercion, military power, on secrecy, spying and arbitrariness, on the rule of Men and the cult of Kings, Heroes, Messiahs and other Strong Men who will save us in exchange for unchecked power.  The Old Paradigm is based on the idea that sovereignty comes from above and is mediated by one man and an elite, and that “Might makes Right”.  By nature, it structurally allows -even invites- abuses of power, which is why it cannot be reformed.

Because of its arbitrariness, the Old Paradigm is inherently immoral while the New Paradigm, based on human freedom and dignity, is inherently moral.   In mythological or religious terms, the Old Paradigm is the one of Darkness and Evil, and the New Paradigm is the one of Light and Good.

Using the prism of these paradigms, we see History as an epic struggle, and we see that human civilisation progressed most when elements of the New defeated elements of the Old.   The rapid developments of the last 200 years bear witness to the New Paradigm’s powers, reborn in the American and French revolutions.   This is when the Old Paradigm started dying in national political architectures, ultimately freeing billions of minds from feudal shackles.   

The ethical case for replacing the Old Paradigm by the New Paradigm is clear, but there is also a pragmatic case now.   Before, the co-existence of pockets of tyranny and of freedom did not endanger Humanity as such.   But because of globalisation and the shrinking of the planet to a village, if we do not consciously kill off the Old Paradigm, it will kill us (including its own proponents now blinded by ignorance and arrogance).   And if it does not kill us, it may lead to a nightmarish global regime based on fear, arbitrariness, war and the cult of personality.

We must also kill the Old Paradigm because it is actively corroding the New Paradigm which is still fragile nationally.   Global feudalism and national democracy cannot coexist for long.  How could national democracy die?  In an easy two-step process.   First, the structural injustice of the Old Paradigm feeds terrorism and wars instead of preventing them, and its logic forces national democracies to create a control and surveillance infrastructure because of the international chaos which it itself maintains.   The next step is a catastrophe which governments use as excuse to “flip the switch” and turn on the control infrastructure formerly constrained by flimsy safeguards, thus legally turning former democracies into police states.   This is how democracy could die, killed by the Old Paradigm, and why we must replace it before it destroys the New Paradigm even nationally.

Here halfway through my speech, I wish to state my conclusion so that the explanation of how we get there is easier to follow:  for Humanity to preserve its freedom, and to survive at all, we must consciously design and invent a global social contract in the classical political sense of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, based on human dignity and a global ethos.   Such a process should be open, broad-based, iterative and itself be part of creating our contract in a global feedback loop. What we need to do is switch off the existing World-Machine and replace it with another one based on the principle of human dignity.

Many global problems cannot be solved in the short-term and demand intergenerational deals.   Scientific discoveries confirm what we knew empirically: that humans are not rational, and that they "discount" the future even against their own interests.  This has crucial implications for the survival of our species.  It means that we need to find ways to counteract the tendency to think short-term.  This problem has always existed, and in the past, it was solved by autocratic governance.   If there was an enlightened ruler or dictator, he could take the wiser longer-term view against popular will.   In some cases, benign dictatorship was better.   But it is not sustainable because it inevitably degenerates.  Today, with democracy expanding and ordinary people gaining influence, this seems good, but it could be bad for long-term thinking.  An example: what if, for the world to achieve ecological equilibrium, consumers need to reduce their consumption?  Can this be done if consumers are also voters who refuse to act rationally now, even if it is to reduce real global risks?

This is where the concept of a global social contract is useful not just politically, but most crucially, symbolically and psychologically:

- it helps to explain, conceptualize and rationalize the need for commitment today for rewards tomorrow, as a contract between peoples and generations,

- it thus helps to educate the citizens of the world why there is a need to behave well today in a certain way, as part of a reciprocal deal

- it follows the insights of evolutionary biology which teach us that humans have a very keen sense of reciprocity and fairness: the main pillars of contracts and of ethics itself.

- it is a simple, obvious and basic notion that no serious politician could oppose.

- it is a notion known by and supported by major religions, especially those seeking justice.

The idea of a general global social contract is needed because many problems are interrelated, and even if they are not, since some countries would gain and others lose from a global deal, a global contract provides the overall win-win framework.  There always was an implied social contract, but, it was not global, it was not explicit, and it was not negotiated consciously by the people.  

Our collective mind is trapped in a way of thinking which prevents us from solving the big issues and therefore, as the world system continues to produce misery, we keep on trying to alleviate symptoms, but we don’t have the strategic vision to stop the hemorrhaging.  Standing in our way is the mistaken belief that values we accept nationally are not valid internationally.  Most do-gooder organizations do not address the fundamental systemic issues that cause the problems: the inherent unjust structure of the global political architecture.   And so our World-Machine produces misery and injustice on a massive scale every day, with industrial efficiency.  Unless we rethink and redesign the existing global framework, which is only a slightly improved Law of the Jungle, then people will continue to believe deep down that the world really can’t be changed, that there always has been and always will be misery and war, and that therefore, what is the purpose of fighting for a better world if only marginal improvements are possible?  This leads to large-scale existential despair, alienation, depression and diseases, and selfish, wasteful or amoral behaviour. 

The fact that there is no global social contract based on human dignity also means that the view that the world is intrinsically evil is comforted, which leads millions to reject science, embrace superstition and sects, further reducing the chances of a just world, and increasing the risk that our end will be precipitated voluntarily by fanatics.

The conclusion is simple:  without a global social contract, the chances for a future global dictatorship that will rule the world with an iron fist under the pretext  of "saving Humanity" is much larger.   Environmental devastation will bring chaos and then, authoritarian government.   This will bring wars and millions will die, until global tyranny is established by a powerful elite that, in the worst case will enslave us with computers and nanotechnology, genetic engineering, drugs and other more subtle controls.  Already some are suggesting that millions of poor Mexican immigrants be marked like cattle with RFID radio-activated microchips.

What should today’s “Heroes”, Elder Statesmen in general, and those here today, do?   The right and moral thing for them to do is to use their courage, wisdom and intelligence to extend the human-centered paradigm to the global realm, and bury, once and for all, the Old Paradigm.  In so doing, they may save Humankind from extinction or global tyranny, and will be remembered forevermore.  They should give the impetus for Humankind to consciously build and negotiate a global social contract with several components.   The most obvious one is a basic document stating the fundamental principles of the planetary rules of conduct.   It should be based on universal principles, and its core should be that global rules be based on human dignity and human freedom. 

Another component is mythological.  To survive, and to convince humans everywhere to cooperate, we need to develop the sense of belonging and solidarity to one human race on one planet, to deepen the idea that we are all world citizens.   Nationally, this was done throughout history by the invention of “national creation myths” that tell the mythical story of a nation, usually forged in blood and sweat against some enemy.   Today, we need to invent a “global creation myth” that tells the story of the birth of the “nation” of Humanity, not one based on an enemy, but instead on the scientific fact that Humanity is one species living on one small planet.  There is no “Outside” anymore, the world is now one “Big Inside”.

My appeal to Elder Statesmen:  If you only allow yourselves to be “recycled” in do-gooder organizations, your conscience will be soothed, but this will perpetuate the Old Paradigm by giving the impression that only you, as Big Men, have the authority and charisma to broker deals, make peace etc.   But your successes will be temporary and illusory if you do not use your authority and charisma to change the system itself, if you do not help to replace the existing anti-human world architecture.  If you do so, you are more likely to enter History and be remembered as the midwives of a new global democratic civilization than by helping one more orphan, AIDS or environmental group.    Paradoxically, by killing the Age of Heroes, today’s Big Men can become the greatest of Heroes.  If not you, others may do it, or, we will suffer from the combined onslaught of wars, diseases, and famines.  We need a new world where new heroes are celebrated:  scientists, teachers, artists, philosophers, doctors and nurses, entrepreneurs and workers, as well as the millions of mothers and fathers who teach their children basic decent values.