Foundation Principles for a Planetary Confederation
During the global COVID epidemic, it became painfully clear that in politics there is no world but only states, whereas for pathogens there are no states, there is only the world.
The spread of pathogens is not the only situation in which planetary problems are difficult to solve because humanity lacks a global authority that can override the parochial interests of nations. The most prominent pain point is, of course, climate change. There’s no one to tell nations that they must follow the climate accords. For lack of a planetary governing body, we face a grim future.
Humanity is rapidly becoming a planetary society. Driven by globalized travel, communications and trade, globalization is occurring in cultural, economic, scientific, technical, educational and political arenas of life. Globalization is emerging as part of a whole fabric, breaking down nationalism and tribalism and integrating humanity as never before. Globalization is an irrepressible trend. But without a proper political body to manage globalization, when needed, many global problems remain unmanageable and global potentials go unrealized.
The formation of a world governing body must be a part and parcel of humanity’s larger project of integration. We cannot engage in global commerce and finance, solve global environmental problems, maintain global peace, protect the diversity of our cultural expression, manage the global impacts of new technologies, etc. without a global political body empowered to regulate and coordinate those arenas of life that have global impacts.
A Life-Centered Constitution
A world political body, like all political bodies, requires a constitution to guide its functioning. This constitution would need to be based on a universally accepted set of principles.
These principles must be life-centered. Their purpose must be to provide for the welfare of living beings as a whole. For this, they must affirm values that arise from a new form of humanism — a neohumanism — that is inclusive of all life.
According to neohumanism, the value of living beings is not measured by how they serve the interests of the state, the corporations, or the churches, temples and mosques, but is measured by the dignity inherent in them by virtue of their very essence. Cardinal values should assure respect for all life and affirm an outlook in which the welfare of living beings is given a higher priority than personal desires.
To give practical expression to these cardinal values, four principles have been proposed in the PROUT social theory as a foundation for the global constitution. These principles would
protect the rights of nature
secure fundamental human rights of expression
ensure that all people possess economic security, and
prevent any cultural expression that violates fundamental human rights.
1] Complete security should be guaranteed to all plants and animals.
The most fundamental condition a world government needs to protect is the life of the planet. This principle gives nonhuman species a constitutional right to be secure from destruction by human activity. The Earth is home to all of the life that inhabits it, and all life has the inherent right to exist and express their existence according to their nature. This right must be respected, both because it is morally right and because harm done to one part of the biosphere is harm done to the whole — humans included.
Some plants and animals can be harmful to humans, and we need to protect ourselves from them. But this does not give us the right to destroy them as a species. We possess the intelligence to protect ourselves in ways that minimizes harm to dangerous animals or poisonous plants.
Humans use other living beings for food, medicines, fiber, and so forth. We also have a right to exist, and our existence may require making use of other living beings. But we must do so in a manner that does not destroy habitats or decimate the naturally occurring population of other species.
The extinction of species is a natural phenomenon; we cannot prevent the natural processes that cause extinction. The natural world does not belong to human beings, we cannot stem the mighty forces of nature. All that can be said is that human activity should not be the cause of extinctions.
2] Each country must guarantee purchasing power to all its citizens.
The guarantee of purchasing power would establish a constitutional right for all people to have sufficient resources to acquire their necessities and amenities. This principle would provide physical security and assure opportunity for the development of all people.
Those able to work would be assured of jobs at sufficient pay, and those unable to work would receive an assured basic income. This might include those with severe physical or mental impairments, the unsupported caretakers of children, and those aged or infirm.
By making purchasing power a constitutionally guaranteed right, citizens facing hunger, being homeless, or lacking medical care could take legal action against the state for failure to manage the economy in a manner that assures them adequate income.
Guaranteed purchasing power should be established as a fundamental principle by the global confederation. It would be made a legal right by the laws of the nations. There would then be the policies and programs developed by bioregions to implement practical approaches to operationalize this right. These bioregions will have to decide what can be provided to people according to their available resources. If a bioregional unit requires assistance because it is impoverished, then there will be a global system for providing this assistance. In this way, there would be coordinated economic planning to ensure implementation of the guarantee of purchasing power.
3] The world confederation constitution should guarantee four fundamental rights: the right to engage in spiritual practice, the right to express one’s cultural legacy, the right of access to education, and the right to expression in one’s indigenous language.
The concept of human rights in Western culture emphasizes civil liberties — freedoms from government interference in the expression of ideas and of personal life. The rights found in this principle ensure that all have freedom to develop themselves as well as to express themselves. These are the freedoms required for the healthy formation and expression of the human psyche. They provide for the development of healthy individuals, capable of building vital and dynamic societies. They are not simply to protect individuals from abuse by the state, but rights which ensure social vitality.
The right to engage in spiritual practice ensures that all can connect to that which they hold sacred. From our relationship to the sacred comes inner peace and knowledge of self. This is also the source of the deep values which cement social unity and protect the biosphere.
The right to express one’s cultural legacy enables us to feel a belonging and to express ourselves collectively with those that share a culture and history. This is needed to develop a healthy social identity rooted in a shared culture.
The right to education ensures the development of mind and the cultivation of the skills and knowledge needed for our livelihood and personal expression. Proper education should train the mind to think rationally and to follow magnanimous values. It should enlighten the mind through the expansive cultivation of intellect, rather than shackling it with dogma.
Language is the primary medium of self-expression. The right to speak one’s native language ensures we can express our inner thoughts and feelings. The practice of linguistic suppression is a crime against humanity, as a people’s language is linked to their culture and the vitality of their collective psychology. To suppress their native language is to suck life from their culture, to rob them of psychic vigor.
4. If the practice of any of these rights conflicts with cardinal human values, then the practice should be immediately curtailed.
Cardinal values must take precedence over the rights enumerated above. Important as they are, we cannot let exercise of these rights violate higher values. Consider the expression of the cultural legacy of genital mutilation of girls. Should this practice, which goes against cardinal human values, be allowed? No. So, certain restraints must be placed on the expression of rights.
What should be the standard for determining when the rights of the Third Principle should be curtailed? It is that cardinal values must always take precedence; if the practice of a right goes against cardinal values, that right is voided.
This limitation on the exercise of rights assures that the fundamental respect for life will always remain supreme. If a people’s cultural legacy gives expression to bigotry, racism, casteism, or religious intolerance, then their cultural values must be modified. Or, if a religious belief holds that humans have dominion over the earth, to plunder as they please, then they must be prevented from acting on this belief.
Decentralization and World Government
In 1973, E. F. Schumacher’s book, Small is Beautiful, put out a clarion call to reverse course on economic globalization. Helena Norberg-Hodge, Michael Schuman, Wendall Berry and others have added substance to Schumacher’s call, so that decentralization is now a core tenet of those looking beyond capitalism.
But economic decentralization will not succeed without a global political body, and visa versa. These are not contradictory; they are complementary.
Both together hold great promise to benefit humanity and the earth. But their promise can only be realized if the planetary society is guided by the above four principles. Were this to be achieved, core human and ecological values would be integrated into humanity’s governing institutions, and earth’s living beings would thrive in ways now undreamed of.
Thank you. I feel this article presents a vision that is not only necessary but inevitable if humanity is to move beyond the fragmented, crisis-driven approach that defines our current reality. The idea of a world political body rooted in neohumanist principles speaks to a deeper truth—our interconnectedness as living beings on this planet. Yet, the absence of a unifying structure that prioritizes life over profit, cooperation over competition, leaves us vulnerable to forces whose only allegiance is to power.
I especially resonate with the call for a life-centered constitution. Imagine a world where governance is not dictated by short-term political gains or corporate interests, but by the inherent dignity of all life. Where environmental protection, economic security, and cultural expression are not privileges but fundamental rights. Where communities can thrive with local autonomy while remaining part of a larger framework of planetary stewardship.
Of course, the challenge is not just in envisioning this reality, but in making it real. How do we transition from a world where power is concentrated in the hands of a few to one where decisions are made for the collective good? How do we prevent those with the most resources from shaping global governance to serve their own ends? These are questions I continue to ask myself.
If we are to build a world where core human and ecological values shape our institutions, I believe it must start with us—through advocacy, through education, through grassroots movements that refuse to accept the status quo. Change begins when people dare to believe that a better world is possible and take the steps, however small, to bring it into being.
This is something I am quickly coming to realize. The more I engage in these conversations and reflect on the world we are creating, the clearer it becomes that the responsibility is ours. If we do not take action, who will? If we do not insist on a future shaped by justice, sustainability, and cooperation, then it will be shaped by the unchecked interests of those who benefit from division and destruction. The path forward requires courage, vision, and a willingness to build something new—starting now.
Again thank you for creating this space.
Of course the question always arises, how do we get from here to there? While reading this I thought of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so I reviewed it too see if it is a jumping off point of values consensus. (https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights). What stands out is that it does not address the natural world - it is "humanist" whereas the principles raised here are inclusive of all life and the planet itself, therefore "neo-humanist." Rights of nature is becoming accepted and codified in many places around the world, so maybe we have made some evolutionary progress since 1948.
The second thing, as the post points out, is that we have yet to evolve global political bodies of accountability and enforcement of progress to our ideals. Meanwhile, global capital is trying to bulldoze over civil society as we speak. It is easier for most to wrap our resistance strategy around localism and bio-regionalism, regeneration and repair. These efforts have a growing global network with potential for visionary consensus. But the race is on and we need to imagine the connecting bridges.