The sharpest contradiction of our age lies in the fact that the problems on which the destiny of peoples depends, such as those of security, control of the economy or protection of the environment, have assumed international dimensions, where democratic institutions do not exist, while democracy still stops at state borders. In consequence, democratic institutions, having lost control of strategic decisions, confine themselves to govern secondary aspects of political life. Thus the peoples are excluded from control of the questions which determine their future. In substance, we must face problems of global dimensions, on which our destiny depends, while the world is still divided into independent sovereign states. The consequence of this situation is that the government of the world belongs to the big powers. And in fact, the centres of global decision (the UN Security Council, the International Monetary Fund, the G-7 and so on) express the supremacy of the big powers. The most revolutionary objective of our

age is the democratisation of the UN, which would allow the government of the world to be removed from the control of the big powers and put in the hands of all the peoples of the earth. Of course, it is a long term objective, that can be achieved gradually step by step.

On the other hand, experience shows that, if we confine ourselves to addressing those who occupy national power with the proposition of a World Federal Government or a World Constituent Assembly few ears are willing to listen to us. Political action does not simply consist of setting out goals, but also of identifying the contradictions which undermine the stability of the established powers, to exploit them in seeking dialogue and allies and to spark off a political struggle aiming to draw a dividing line between those who are for and those who are against a certain project. What was impossible during the Cold war is beginning to become possible today, now that the influence of the UN is expanding: to have politicians listen to us when we declare the need for the democratisation of the UN, which represents a step towards a World Federal Government.

Moreover, in the areas of global security, environmental protection, development, human rights, there is a tendency to strengthen the powers of the UN. It is the governments that manifest an evident inclination to strengthen the UN, impelled by the need to solve those global problems. But, at the same time, they tend to deny the means which would allow a real strengthening of the UN and oppose the founding of institutions on solid democratic consent, which is the primordial condition for endowing the UN with effective power.

Therefore, promoting the democratisation of the UN can be conceived as a mighty tool for strengthening world institutions. It is worth recalling that the dilemma, that arose during the process of European integration, of strengthening first or democratising first the European Community has been solved in favour of the second horn.

The Process of Democratisation in the World.

The democratisation of the UN no longer appears a distant ultimate goal after the recent extraordinary advance of democracy in Latin America, Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet Union. For the first time in history, over half of the countries in the world today (approximately 60%) have adopted a democratic government. Since the fall of fascists and communist regimes it seems that democracy has no more alternatives.

But the vacuum of power left by the fall of the blocs has opened the way to the revival of nationalism, that has triggered off a series of processes of disintegration of international organisations and multinational states and is threatening the new-born democracies.

Democracy, precisely because it is broken up into many national states, too small to assure the development of their productive forces and torn apart by international conflicts, has not the strength to impede the authoritarian degeneration of its institutions

Only international democracy can submit those tendencies to an effective control. As a matter of fact, democracy and independence can be reconciled only within the framework of federal institutions,

that must be created both at the regional and world level.

Domestic and International Democracy.

Is it true that all the states must have a democratic regime before we become able to start an action for the creation of a UNPA?

The fact that the process of democratisation of political regimes of the states all over the world has not come to an end does not represent an obstacle to start the process of democratisation of the UN. If, in the logic of causal sequence, the democratisation of the different states has to precede the democratisation of the UN, in history these processes overlap.

The Six Western European Countries that have founded the European Community have not been waiting for the democratisation of the institutions of all the states in Europe before starting the democratisation of the European Community. The completion of European unification has become possible nowadays, because a small group of states started the process forty-five years ago.

Likewise, the fact that the Canadian and European Parliaments have wished the creation of the UNPA shows that nowadays there is a space for a campaign for the UNPA. The creation of the UNPA would help to undermine the legitimacy of dictatorships and would promote the spread of democracy.

The UNPA, the First Step of a Long Journey.

The reform of the UN is a long term process, comparable to the formation of the modern state: a structure that was built by degrees and by successive stages.

The most serious difficulty involved in the democratic transformation of the UN is that of identifying, in the logic of its institutions as they stand today, the mechanism for transition towards the final objective. The easiest route, that we have identified to create an embryonic World Parliament, is that suggested by article 22 of the UN Charter, which allows the creation of "a subsidiary body" of the General Assembly which is "considered necessary for the accomplishment of its function", without adopting the amendment procedure, which requires the unanimity of permanent members of the Security Council and a two-thirds majority of member-states.

One can foresee a development of this Assembly in three stages according to the example of the European Parliament. First, it will be composed of members of National Parliaments and will only have consultative powers, but successively it should be elected by universal suffrage, which will allow it to fight for constituent and legislative powers. The crowning of this process, which marks the stages of the democratic transformation of the UN, lies in the creation of a World Parliament.

Federalist Parliamentary Inter - Groups.

In order to promote more effectively the action for the UNPA, we can envisage the creation of an organic relation between WFM and National Parliaments through Federalist Parliamentary Inter-groups, composed of MPs belonging to different parliamentary groups.

Federalist Inter-groups exist already within the European Parliament and some National Parliaments. World Federalist Parliamentary Inter-groups were created in the Fifties in order to promote federalist action. Their task was (and is) promoting federalist strategy and endorsing federalist objectives through resolutions, hearings and so forth. Their inter-party structure is suited to pursue a global change as federalist one, that requests the support of a large alignment of political forces.

They should be created in every National Parliament, because they could be a useful and even an indispensable tool in the battle for the creation of the UNPA (but also for other federalist objectives).

In Europe, where they have been so far exclusively involved in the battle for the European Federation, Federalist Inter-groups can assume the additional task of promoting the UNPA project.

National Parliaments and the European Parliament as Preferential Interlocutors.

The support to the UNPA by the Canadian and the European Parliaments shows that in the ruling class there are circles that are sensitive to the demand for international democracy. Such signs of willingness can be brought to light with a specific action in every country where there is a National Organisation of the WFM.

We have been slow to perceive this opportunity that is most likely to exist in all the democratic countries. Obviously. National Parliaments and the European Parliament should be our preferential interlocutors. The fact is that the UNPA represents an extension of the powers of the parliamentarians at the world level. We can exercise a systematic pressure on them, starting from the Foreign Affairs Committees. At the same time, National Governments and particularly the Ministries of Foreign Affairs should be involved.

We are proceeding tentatively. However, it is clear that the commitment of the Canadian Parliament (that now has become weaker) is not enough to provide the impetus to summon a world conference for drawing up the statute of the UNPA. This plan has to be strengthened by other converging initiatives.

For my own part, I am convinced that the European Parliament can play an important role in the promotion of the UNPA. It represents the first accomplishment of international democracy. Therefore, it is supposed to be more inclined than other political bodies to extend this experiment at the world level. The sooner it will acquire full legislative powers, first in the field of the economic policy and then in the field of foreign and security policy, the sooner the impact of its initiatives in world policy will grow.

In conclusion, I think that we should strive to organise a conference at the European Parliament on "European Union. Global challenges and the Reform of the UN".

Lucio Levi - WFM Executive

(World Federalist Movement - Union of European Federalists)