The Futures of the United Nations

 

by Sohail Inayatullah

This essay explores the need for a new world system, focusing on the transformation of the United Nations (UN). It discusses the limitations of the current UN structure, particularly the Security Council, and proposes various models for a more inclusive and effective global governance system. These models include the creation of multiple houses representing different interests, such as nation-states, commerce, non-governmental organizations, and citizens. Drawing from macrohistorical thinkers like P.R. Sarkar and Sima Quan, the essay also emphasizes the importance of inner change and the role of ethical and wise leaders in achieving a just and prosperous world. Through scenarios and causal layered analysis, the essay envisions a future where the UN evolves to meet the needs of a rapidly changing world. Case studies from workshops with actors from the UN system are used to highlight the argument.

What Good Is Strategic Foresight?

Recently at a training course on Strategic Foresight for the United Nations System, experts expressed frustration at the inability of the UN to live up to its dream. The on-going war against Ukraine as well as other conflicts led to despair among participants– and this was prior to the judgment of plausible genocide against the Palestinians by Israel and ICC criminal warrants issued against Israeli and Hamas leaders. What use is strategic foresight if the information obtained about alternative futures is not only not used but the system is designed to ensure futures avoidance and injustice against the weak. Why engage in this work at all if power over others trumps vision, if structures cannot stop Empire and war? The structure of the UN Security Council (UNSC), argued participants, has ensured that a global democracy, the democratization of knowledge, and the possibility of real change to the lives of billions is all but an impossible dream. It felt for many that they were in a game where they had no power, they were like referees with a small whistle.

Visions for a New System of Governance

To address this problem, understanding fully well their zone of control, participants first engaged in a discussion on systemic shifts. These included suggestions such as rearranging the UNSC veto system – for example, that the use of veto power should be based not just on the whims of one nation but what moves the discussion from the unsolvable to the marginal change of possibility (Gould and Rablen, 2016), that is, an incremental step forward given that the holders of power will certainly not dissolve their veto powers, their power over others. Galtung (1995) among others (Falk, 2013) have more adaptive (that address changes in world demographics and power) suggestions. Decades ago, Galtung suggested the transformation of the UN into four houses that better represent the reality of the planet.

1. A house of nation-states, with ever increasing representation.
2. A house of commerce to represent economic interests.
3. A house of non-governmental organizations to better represent nature, community groups, and social groups, such as, for example, those that attended the World Social Forum; and,
4. A house of citizens where citizen input could come in the form of global referenda on key issues (far easier to do now as the internet connects many).

Having four houses would ensure greater representation, inclusion, and more deliberate democracy.

The world philosopher P.R. Sarkar (2005) suggests that the UN needs to be transformed incrementally into a world government with two houses. The first house would have representatives based on national (or bioregional) population and the second would have representatives based on nation. Both houses would have to ratify decisions. Initially, the world government would be legislative but only in certain areas. This would eventually expand. But world governance must be based on more than a theory of collective security, it must be fundamentally cultural and humanitarian, rooted in a belief that local cultures combined can create a new global human culture whilst retaining their own individual aesthetics.

Charles Paprocki (1990), a student of Sarkar, as part of the International Network for a UN Second Assembly, has extended this argument further and writes that the UN General Assembly (UNGA) should become an upper legislative house and that the lower house should be a council of non-governmental organisations (or people’s organisations). Resolutions would be introduced in the lower house and, if approved, passed by the upper house. Paprocki believes that the world government can become strengthened once the legislative structure is in place, and the Executive and Judicial branches have been bestowed with increased power. Chandra Shekhara (2022) has taken this approach seriously and developed a world constitutional framework to turn this vision into a legal reality.

However, for both, the issue is not just structural i.e. the number of houses and the institutional relationships with each other but inner power. Sarkar suggests that without a community of global sadvipras, individuals who have power over their own minds, who can serve the poor, protect the vulnerable, work with intellectuals to create new visions, and use capital to invest and innovate. This requires for him not an end to evil, since within his yogic way of knowing, social reality is dialectical, but a change in global consciousness where allegiance is to inner spirituality and the planet, not to ethnic, national, or religious identifications (Inayatullah, 1999, 2002).

While Sarkar seeks systems that adapt to changes in human consciousness, Alvin Toffler (1970, 1990) and Jim Dator (2019) have suggested for decades in numerous writings that the issue is that our technology is evolving but political systems remain static. Representation made sense when distance was an issue (Dator, 2002; however, today, in a postmodern/quantum reality, direct democracy, real time referendums, elected officials randomly drawn (sortition), as well as the use of AI for decision making require a new type of global democracy. Indeed, AI must be either a branch or a key component of global governance. Following Sarkar, the coding must include multiple ways of knowing, spiritual, indigenous, feminist, and more. We need to ensure AI design moves from algorithms of oppression to algorithms of liberation. AI if designed within today’s power structures will not change the game but amplify today’s inequitable structures and the worldviews that support them.

There are thus two ways forward. The first is structural change so that governance can better represent the world of today. The second, as well, wishes to better represent the world of today but focuses on inner change.

Creating Stories for Change

Beyond the logic of these arguments for a more appropriate design for the world system, the discussions at the meeting highlight something else – the narrative shifts we use to create new systems. In order words, the stories we tell to create the future we want. Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) provides a valuable lens to understand this process (Inayatullah, 2004; Inayatullah and Milojevic, 2015; Inayatullah, Mercer, Milojevic, and Sweeney, 2022). CLA has four levels of analysis:

• What are the headlines or litanies we use to describe the issue?
• What are the system level causes and solutions?
• What is the most common worldview surrounding this issue?
• What are the underlying myths and metaphors?

By going toward deeper levels of causation, novel understandings of the issue and novel solutions to problems can emerge. Moreover, by articulating these four levels, solutions tend to be integrative and longer lasting as they include different ways of knowing the world and thus account for the views of different stakeholders. Finally, CLA provides a tool for individuals to understand their own story – their narrative – about the future, and their role in the foresight/innovation process.

Part of the conflict in the futures of the world system is that different actors have different images of the future and worldviews (Dator, 1981). Two are foundational (Inayatullah, 2008). The first worldview is that the UN supports the global transition from Barbarism to Civilization. The UN in this worldview enables a planet where human needs are increasingly met, and direct and structural violence dramatically reduced. The second worldview is realistic. In this worldview, reality is about power, particularly the use of power by others to maximize their individual and national interests. The goal is to use the UN to maximize individual state power, either at the expense of other states or, when possible, in win-win scenarios with alliances or, in the rare instance, in a win-win-win scenario for the nation, alliances, and the planet (as seen in global collaboration on restoring the ozone layer – the Montreal Protocol).

What this approach misses is inner power, Sarkar’s notion of the sadvipras, ethical and having meta-cognition over his and her weaknesses. This, in Chinese history, following Sima Quan is the wise sage (Galtung and Inayatullah, 1997).

Core Metaphors

Underneath worldviews are some core metaphors that define the issue. I asked one director at the UN meeting what he thought that might be.

He suggested that the United Nations System is like a referee with a small whistle trying to control a football game. Someone else added that each player thinks they are Lionel Messi. This narrative well represented the views of many in the room. However, the second part of CLA, after deconstruction, is reconstruction. I asked what about other more appropriate metaphors that link to his desired vision of the future. He suggested the coach. Instead of trying to ensure that all players play by the rules (e.g., on war, landmine legislation, development), the UN coaches nations and others how to live on this planet. Experts then would have a greater purpose instead of being at the beck and call of political leaders – in Sarkar’s language, their “Shudras”, mindless workers They could make a difference. This narrative shift, while profound, has led me to ask other groups how they see the reconstruction. Among the answers have been:

1. Buy the football team (i.e., become the owner). The UN thus needs more dictatorial powers, more of a world owner than a coach. This could be a cabal of billionaires or other formulations where wealth is first. The worldview here is the Protestant Ethic, the rich are so because of hard work, intelligence, and thus have been graced by Spirit. We need to let them rule. They will ensure the most prosperous system.
2. Get a bigger whistle. This suggests structural changes, such as ending the veto power in the UN Security Council. The UN Secretary General itself would have the whistle. This would require the Secretary General to have punitive measures. In other words, a yellow and red card system where a player is expelled from the game and, if bad behavior continues, from the team (of nations). The worldview here is that the future can be more effectively engineered, we can craft a better future through incremental changes. Effective design can ameliorate the worst tendencies of humans.
3. Become Mandela. It is not just the structure but the role of a leader. leaders who have global moral authority are needed. These are leaders who can protect, create new ideas, use wealth for transformation, and mindfully engage in the day-to-day inner and outer work needed for transformation. Whether Plato’s philosopher-kings, Sarkar’s sadvipras, or Sima Quan’s Taoist sage kings, power needs to be centralized to the wise. Wisdom, individual or in a collective, is more effective than systemic changes.
4. Create a new sport. In this model, the UN cannot be reformed and a new game, a new world must be created. For the latter, what are the possibilities? In earlier work the late Immanuel Wallerstein (1984) suggested that historically, the following games or systems are possible. A world church or Caliphate (authority coming from one worldview); a world state (as in the communist model, a dictatorship of workers or the bourgeois or philosopher kings); the current capitalist system (with 180 plus nation states and a loose global governance system though the UN family). But is a new sport possible? Can there be the possibility of a global governance system that accepts different ideologies, worldviews, epistemes, and life metaphors (i.e., a system that resolves the tensions between the local/global; the individual/collective; market/state; materialistic/idealistic, to begin with)? The worldview here is that humans may be good or evil, but we can design systems for the greatest benefit of all. Systems need to be intelligently and proactively designed and then redesigned as the world changes and crises are confronted (climate change, global wealth inequity, demographic shifts). The current crisis suggests that a new global governance system must be designed. We are not in 1945.

Scenarios

While CLA deconstructs, scenarios provide us with alternatives, different ways to understand what could emerge.

Scenarios are especially relevant now given foundational cracks in the world system that challenge the trust of the entire world system and between nations. Agreements reached since WW11 are now challenged. To create these scenarios, we examine three significant fault lines.

These are:

1 American threats to invade Canada and Greenland, and the recent abduction of the Venezulan President by the United States; tariff terrorism, the Russian invasion of Ukraine; Israel’s genocide against Palestinians, and the unwillingness by Western nation to abide by the rules of international law (the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice) have taken away the mantle of the West as the leaders of global civilization, as the epitome or progress.

2 The end of the American security promises to Europe and Asia- we keep you safe, you purchase our weapons, we vote along the same or similar lines in the UN – significantly challenge the current international relations security regime.

3 Challenges to truth, particularly to science, in fact questions the entire edifice of the rise of the West. The science and technology revolution have been based on agreements that while humans can disagree on philosophical issues, there are empirical laws that cannot be violated.

Using Inayatullah’s and Milojevic’s change progression scenario approach (Milojevic, 2005; Inayatullah, 2020; Ministry of Higher Education, 2018), four futures emerge for the medium and the long term.

Each Nation for Himself

In the first future titled, “Each Nation for Himself”, the global system fragments. Every nation and core civilizations return to the past, imagining a world before globalization. Patriarchy, hierarchy, and dominator systems are primary. Trust between nations and indeed civilizations become ever more difficult. The likelihood of armed conflicts within nations and between nations intensifies. Coalitions that develop are short term based, focused on making quick deals with the long-term future forfeited. De-globalization occurs generally and specifically, de-Americanization (dollarization, products with American parts, and American media as dominant). The UN system remains the same but loses legitimacy and funding- it is like an iconic European inner-city sculpture – a man on a horse with birds using the statue for relief.

Many Regions for Themselves

In the second future, “Many Regions for Themselves”, the costs of returning to the past are too high. To counteract fragmentation and to ensure economic and eventually military power, regions and zones rise. We can easily imagine a stronger European Union with a European army; an East Asia Union, A real ASEAN, a much stronger African Union (buttressed with the Youth Rise and New tech); a Latin American Confederation and even possibly a South Asian confederation. Energy moves to decentralize but integrate renewable grids. Safety and wealth accumulate through regionalization. The decline of the USA leads not to a fragmented system but a robust regional system. Regions over time collaborate creating a new United Nations System. Regions now have veto power. The system is fairer, even if it privileges wealthier regions.

Gaian Emergence

In the third future, “Gaian Emergence”, an adaptive scenario by 2070, the great fracturing and economic collapses (plus the challenge of climate change) that led to regionalization eventually give way to planetary governance (Thompson, 1987). Climate change, Artificial Intelligence, the deadly possibility of another world war, the steep inequity from the rise of billionaires lead to dramatic changes. These include the rise of platform cooperatives – more efficient, greater flow and movement of wealth, and greater demand – which leads to rising wealth throughout the world. The UN system changes to four houses – a house of cooperatives; a house of citizens (one person, one vote); a house of nature (the rights of nature); a house of regions; and AI as the mediator of the houses. The fault lines of the past lead to a new planetary flexible structure. Trust is restored at all levels. There is a flow of ideas, capital, and people. The UN is redesigned, and wise leaders emerge. Instead of a man on a horse, we have the sculpture of the Famous Five, a group of women having tea together at the Canadian Parliament.

Image by Inayatullah

Planetary Intelligence

In the fourth future, a radical long-term future, consciousness change (not just how we see but how we experience reality) leads to the beginning of authentic “Planetary Intelligence”. AI plus anticipatory governance plus rational policymaking plus the challenge of climate change plus the shift toward gender equity plus the rise of awareness of our collective consciousness leads to a very different planet unimaginable from the politics of scarcity and ego today. Governance is planetary but also internal, the democracy of the inner selves. A truly symbiotic planet – humans, nature, and technology co-evolve. Just as the revolutions of the 15^th to the 20^th century made the 21^st, the developments in this century create the next. This is a world of inner and outer abundance. The increased time afforded from the AI revolution and the end of the capitalist system create a breakthrough in inner exploration – a world of culture and exploration. In this world, trust becomes the core currency.

Is Change Possible?

Can we do this at this pivotal moment in history? Can we transition to a transformed United Nations system?

The late theoretical physicist Nikolai Kardashev (1964) differs from macro-historians like Sarkar, Galtung, and Wallerstein in that he takes a cosmic view of time and history. When faced with the question of why we have no verifiable contact with alien civilizations, his answer was that they too come to the point where they had to resolve the contradictions between systems of governance and energy needs. Most planets fail and thus, either from nuclear war or climate change, become extinct. We are at a similar crossroads. If humanity does not resolve the contradictions between global governance and energy, we will not make the transition from a Type 0 (high energy needs but fragmented governance) to a Type 1 planet (global governance and renewable energies aligned). The issue of the referee with a small whistle is not merely about a football match but about survival or extinction. The door to planetary thrival remains open even as the match spectators threaten to invade the pitch.

References

Dator, J. (1981). Beyond the Nation State? Images of the Future of the International Political System. World Future Society Bulletin (November/December), 5-13.

Dator, J. (2002). Advancing futures: Futures studies in higher education. Praeger.

Dator, J. (2019). Jim Dator: A Noticer in Time: Selected Works, 1967-2018. Springer.

Falk, R. (2013). (Re) Imagining Human Global Governance. Routledge.

Galtung, J. (1995). Global Governance for and by Global Democracy. Macalester International. 1(8). https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/macintl/vol1/iss1/8

Gould, M., & Rablen, M. (2017). Reform of the United Nations Security Council: Equity and Efficiency. Public Choice, 173, 145-168.

Inayatullah, S. (1999). Situating Sarkar. Gurukul.

Inayatullah, S. (2004). The Causal Layered Analysis Reader. Tamkang University

Inayatullah, S. (2002). Understanding Sarkar. Brill.

Inayatullah, S. (Ed.) (2008). Global Transformations and World Futures; knowledge, economy and society. UNESCO Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. EOLSS Publications.

Inayatullah, S. (2017). Prout in Power: Policy Solutions that Reframe our Futures. Proutist Block of India.

Inayatullah, S. & Milojevic, I. (2015). CLA 2.0. Tamkang University.

Inayatullah, S., Mercer. R., Milojevic, I., & Sweeney, J. (2022). CLA 3.0. Thirty Years of Transformative Research. Tamkang University.

Inayatullah, S., Jacob, A., & Rizk, R. (2020). Alibaba and the golden key: Scenarios of manufacturing futures in Egypt. Journal of Futures Studies, 25(2), 1–12.

Kardashev, N. (1964). “Transmission of Information by Extraterrestrial Civilizations.” Soviet Astronomy 7 (8), 217–21.

Milojević, I. (2024). The Hesitant Feminist’s Guide to the Future. Tamkang University Press.

Milojević, I. (2005). Educational Futures: Dominant and Contesting Visions. Routledge.

Ministry of Higher Education. (2018). Framing Malaysian Higher Education 4.0: Future-proof Talents. Government of Malaysia. Framing Malaysian Higher Education 4.0 Future-Proof Talent

Paprocki, C. (1990). Prout: Notes on Democracy and World Government, Proutist Universal

Sarkar, P.R. (1992). Proutist Economics: Discourses on Economic Liberation. AMPS.

Sarkar, P.R. (2005). An Outline of Prout. Ananda Marga Publications.

Shekhara, C. (2022). A Proposal for A World Constitution. P.R. Sarkar Institute.

Thompson, W. I. (Ed.). (1987). Gaia: A way of knowing—Political implications of the new biology. Lindisfarne Press.

Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. Random House.

Toffler, A. (1990). Powershift: Knowledge, wealth, and violence at the edge of the 21st century. Bantam Books.

Wallerstein, I. (1984). The Politics of the World Economy: The States, the Movements, and the Civilisations. Cambridge University Press.