Dear Bruce,
Your question at the end of this morning's post is perfectly fair.
"How is this party effective enough to establish a one-world government in
the face of organized opposition from the states that will have to be
incorporated by force, while at the same time it remains open enough to
opposition that it simply surrenders power in the face of internal
democratic opposition?"
In "A Short History of the Future" I take the easy way out--the
world in the aftermath of a cataclysmic North-South war is so shattered
that most of the survivors embrace the regime of the World Party without
needing much persuasion. Some states and remnants of states put up a
fight, but they are too weak to prevail. Thereafter the World Party,
learning from many past horrors, insists on ruling democratically and
gradually, over the decades, attracts mounting opposition. It loses its
resilience, but in the final crisis imposes martial law in a last-ditch
effort to save itself. So it does not "surrender" power gracefully, but
in effect the power has drained out of it, and the world order is then
radically restructured to permit the rise of autonomous communities of all
shapes and sizes and flavors. Also helping to smooth the transition is
the bioengineering of a new, more altruistic human type (this part will be
dismissed by all social science purists as a neo-fascist fantasy, but the
progress of genetics in recent years convinces me such a thing is
eminently possible).
In a world not shattered by a catastrophic war (or environmental
or economic collapse), the World Party would obviously have a much more
awesome task. I have no idea whether it could succeed. In my scenario it
is not even formed until the 2030s, and until the war breaks out (in 2044)
it makes little progress. The short-term prospects for Homo sapiens are
bleak, as Wallerstein keeps telling us. All I am trying to do is plant
the idea that an alternative to drift, disintegration, and despair is
imaginable.
Best wishes, Warren