Global civics is an idea that posits that civics in a
global sense as a social contract between the world citizens in the age of
interdependence and interaction. According to proponents of global civics, we
all have rights and responsibilities to each other by virtue of being human
beings. What happens in china can influence happens all the way in Ghana. Hence
as citizens of the world, we have responsibility to mind our actions or
inactions lest they cause more harm than good.
In a globalized world where economic and social
interactions between people, companies and groups are increasing due to
advances in telecommunication, transport networks and modernity, global civics
makes certainly makes sense. The “imagined community” known as the state is
increasingly powerless to deal with phenomena taking place outside its borders,
but affecting its citizens.
A good example is the volatile oil market in the world
currently. The slightest increase in the price of a barrel of oil will mean the
commuter from OngataRongai will have to pay more to go to work in Nairobi’s
central business district. How much power does the government of Kenya have to
protect the commuter?
But if global civics implies having rights and
responsibilities as human beings, it is silent on who should step in when my
rights are infringed by someone clearing forests in the amazon, or when I
neglect my responsibilities as a world citizen to protect my environment or put
my government in check.
We live in a world of
anarchy as Kenneth waltz put it. This means we do not have a central
government to ensure order and stability in the international system. In my
view, global civics cannot work in a world of anarchy, where might is right.
And that is the reason why the proponents of global civics
are content to promote only the most diluted version of rights and
responsibilities on all of us, especially the most powerful who, due to the
lack of world government, do what they want with impunity. A powerful state
such as America can go to war with virtually anyone it wants, kill anyone with
unmanned drones wherever or whenever, and have its companies destroy the
environment from Swaziland to the Gulf of Mexico, without any repercussions
whatsoever.
As a minute part of humanity in Kenya, it doesn’t matter if
I forfeit my rights and responsibilities, if someone in government halfway
around the world can, due to greed, bring about a world recession that might
affect millions like me in terms of future employment prospects!
The minimalist approach that is advocated in the booklet
“dialogues on global civics” is not going to solve the immense challenges we
face in the world today. It is the industrialized countries doing all the
environmental damage, it is they with all the nuclear weapons, it is them destroying
the global finance system, and it is they with the most to lose if a real
protocol on greenhouse emissions is enacted!!
Most of us, in the developing world, and especially in sub
Saharan Africa, we just want to live!! Let those with the most rights and
responsibilities, by virtue of their immense wealth, power and military
resources, practice global civics!
This takes me back to my point on anarchy. We do not have a
world government to ensure global civics is kept. Ideas of a volunteer United
Nations army are laughable at best. Let the global south rise, following the
example set by the BRICS, and then we can talk on global civics. As equals!
There can be no global civics in the current system, and
there shouldn’t be. Let Africa, Asia, and Latin America rise to the level of
other countries. Then we can discuss on what our responsibilities and rights
are, as “world citizens”who view each other with respect and the relationship
is one based on more equality than now.
