Preface to Global Democracy and Human Self-Transcendence

Preface to Global Democracy and Human Self-Transcendence

Upendra Baxi
Emeritus Professor of Law
University of Warwick and Delhi
24 October 2017

This a powerfully summoning book that brings in the good news that we
may still overcome. It brings forth a new politics of hope, pitted against
the poetics of despair. Here is a new vision of the world where distress
of the Anthropocene is writ large and global impoverishment of politics is
legible to all. Professor Glen T. Martin summons us to think that
‘choosing life’ is still doable in the face of extinction posed by the
advancing Anthropocene. And one way to meet the challenge is
facilitated by the coordination, if not outright demise, of national
sovereignties and move expeditiously towards green global governance.
Among the universal contradictions of late capitalism, David Harvey
narrates the present hyperglobalzing/post-liberalization era as fostering
the condition universal and ‘multiple’ alienation. 1 This work addresses a
similar problem but is more roseate, in diverse bold ways in silhouetting
the possibility of a new global contract. Professor Martin shows that this
possibility is both a metaphysical moment as well as practical agenda for
a new world order: for Professor Martin, a new global vision is ‘is
absolutely central to the possibility of human survival and flourishing on
our beautiful planet Earth during the 21st century’. 2

1 David Harvey, Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism, 198(2013).
2 In this, he comes close to John Rawls who changed his views from justice as a
metaphysical good to a political virtue. See John Rawls, ‘Justice as Fairness:
Political not Metaphysical’ Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14:3, 223-251 (1985);

2

Emphasizing that ‘old patterns of thinking are no longer sufficient’, Martin
believes that that we need to rethink in ‘creative and innovative ways
because today we face threats to human existence and a viable human
future from many directions’.
How do we think anew and afresh rather than recycle old, fatigued, and
unresponsive ways of thinking? Martin insists that we move away from
what he calls ‘egoistic’ (the ‘orientation of childhood and immature
adults’), ‘ethnocentric’ (thinking ‘largely limited to one’s own culture,
religion, or nation’) to ‘worldcentric’ thinking which helps develop
‘compassion, care, and universal rational principles applying to all
humanity’. The emphasis respects the coequal nature of sentimental
reason and emotional intelligence and universal principles of moral
reason. This feature gives an adequate significance to the terms ’holistic’
and ’integral’, so favourite of Martin.
The ‘integral’ is the fourth entailment which prescribes ‘developing
integrated cosmic awareness and understanding and harmonizing
masculine and feminine elements within the whole of one’s being’.
Arriving at a Worldcentric stage is ‘not an endpoint, but a profound
beginning of a perpetual journeying into ever-greater wonder,
awareness, harmony, and love’ where life ‘becomes a wondrous journey
into an ever-widening future, and the ‘utopian vision becomes ever more
clear’. The ‘worldcentric’ character of the new ways of thinking is the
only possible collective human response to the challenges posed by the
Anthropocene and geophysical crises besides global warming and
climate change.

Melissa S. Williams, ‘Justice toward Groups: Political Not Juridical’ Political Theory,
23:1 67-91, (1995).

3
The term ‘integral’ has several meanings. The sense in which Shri
Aurobindo and the Mother used it in expounding integral yoga is different
from the views of the philosopher Ken Wilber coined the term “Integral”
in a specific sense, meaning a very comprehensive standpoint on reality
that combines inner and outer perspectives on the individual and the
collective. For Wilber, whom Martin follows, all of reality is constantly
mobilizing an “It” dimension (the outer-individual), an “I” perspective (the
inner-individual), an “Its” perspective (the outer-collective) and a “We”
perspective (the inner-collective). Christian Arnsperger has applied it in
what he names ‘Full-Spectrum-Economics’, 3 which means in complete
plain words that ‘that ecological and social problems are like the two
sides of the same sheet of paper, with inequality linking them
indissolubly’. 4
In the vision of a new global future (and contract) love plays a prominent
part. That love is neither romantic not Platonic, much less what
Rousseau may have meant by what he termed ‘official love’. Rather,
writes Martin, love ‘can and should be a dimension of our knowing,
caring, and being, for through it human consciousness can manifest the
creative joy in simply being: knowing as ecstatic consciousness’. He
quotes Tagore: ‘Inspired by the breath of the universe, the heart, like a
reed sings’. Love is but another name for what Martin has elsewhere
termed ‘integrative mysticism’ – the dimensions that articulate ‘wonder,
… knowledge and understanding, join[ing] together what is separated,
and … the simple joy in living, a joy that is often at the same time an

3 Full Spectrum Economics Toward an Inclusive and Emancipatory Social Science’
(London, Routledge, 2010).
4 Christian Arnsperger and Dominique Berg, Ecologie intégrale: Pour une société
permacirculaire (translation: Integral Ecology: Toward a Perma-Circular Society), 12
(2016).

4
intuitive awareness’. Love is ‘fundamental to the process of continual
self-transcendence that characterizes human life and reflects our infinite
dignity’.
Love may take many forms. It ‘can take the form of desiring what
appears good and beautiful, or … of a relationship of respect and
concern among persons within a community (and a special bond with
some that can be called friendship)’, or further … the form of
compassion (literally to “suffer with”) for other persons or living
creatures’. Seeking to co-suffer with the hapless other betokens
‘something of this form of love’. But to ‘experience compassion for
another is not to have desire for them, and not even necessarily
friendship for them, it is to feel with them’, to share critical solidarity ‘to
the point where we feel with them: their pain, their anguish, their fear,
even their joy and happiness’. No better linkage between human rights
and love can be articulated.
The book in your hands demonstrates how an ‘effective global social
contract’ would not ‘only transform…anachronistic institutions that today
are the central threat to human survival on Earth’ but would advance
‘significantly a mature worldcentrism of universal reason, love, and
compassion impact’. This will happen because science shall be
‘liberated to promote human welfare and sustainability’, culture similarly
‘liberated to promote peace, tolerance, and mutual understanding’, and
human subjectivity liberated to ‘grow to a mature worldcentrism of
universal reason, love, and compassion’.
The book focuses the new vision through the prism of Constitution for
the Federation of Earth, which is a global movement endorsed ethically
many states and peoples. As they are made more aware of the plight of
the Planet Earth, more critical solidarity will grow for a new global social

5
contract. But it is here conceived broadly as ‘a regulative ideal and a
vision of one possible coherent planetary order that can guide and
organize our thinking toward a decent human future’. 5 The Earth Charter,
outlining in detail the institutional framework of a new global social
contract enunciates a new conception for green global governance and
often amounts to a blueprint of global government. What stands
projected is the demand that ‘we form a federation that ends war,
protects universal human rights, creates reasonable economic equity,
regulates world commerce for the common good, protects the planetary
environment, and addresses all problems beyond the scope of nation-
states’. A world federation that addresses these global concerns would
be, ‘in the words of Swami Agnivesh, a paradigm shifts from a power-
dominated system to a love-orientated system’.
This book is not so much concerned with particularities of the provisions
of the Earth Charter but rather with the ‘cusp of … a paradigm-shift from
fragmentation (of capitalism and the system of sovereign nation-states)
to holism (world socialism, global democracy, and the human
community)’. To be sure, there are ‘many dialectical tensions’ which
surround ‘human dignity, human love, human freedom, human rights,
human community, etc., and our anachronistic historical institutions of
global capitalism and sovereign nation-states’. But this can only be
changed when we begin to ‘envision this transformation and actualize it
with great urgency…’.The argument entails ‘the dialectical reciprocity of
institutional structures and human consciousness’. Put another way,
transformations of individual consciousness will ensue, once rapid
changes in institutions and networks occur.
5 The literature on the subject is immense but see, for example, Dorothy Emmet,
Role of The Unrealisable: A Study in Regulative Ideals (London, Palgrave McMillan,
1994).

6
I am tempted to steal the entire thunder of the book but that is both
inappropriate for a forward and insufficiently ‘worldcentric’; so dazzling is
the vision that an act of appropriation is unseemly. I hope that the reader
of this work will want to grasp the overall significance of the vision here
propounded. The present, certainly, is a time of dystopias, but we need
a resurgence of the utopic element of thought and feeling to invent a
whole new paraphernalia to make sense of destruction, degeneration,
and the devastation that awaits us as the Anthropocene advances and
mere anthropogenic harm makes any human effort at restoration totally
unattainable.
Utopias are first best read as offering critiques of the present institutional
human condition, and as a quest for new regulative ideas and principles,
and for the near future holism and integrity of individual and collective
thought and action. Above all, we need (as the poet Samuel Taylor
Coleridge once said) a ‘willing suspension of disbelief’, not the old habits
of thought that celebrate the immutability of things. 6

misra
A Commentary on Glen Martin’s One World Renaissance
By the Honorable A. P. Misra, former Justice of the Supreme Court of India

One World Renaissance is truly not a discovery or new revelation of truth. As others have, Glen recognizes that the world has been, is, and will always remain ONE. But this book sweeps the cloud of dust of selfish, motivated men in authority who divide people and nations, creating factionalism in every form of activity. Glen has been audacious to state even that global terrorism is the outcome of all this behavior, and is the reason behind which the world looks to be divided against the unassailable truth that the world is one.

Glen is an astute thinker; his clairvoyance pictures the causes of fraction, moral degradation, environmental pollution and amassing of nuclear arsenals with positive suggestions on how to bring peace and unity on earth. He has been working towards this goal for many years with diligence, sincerity and dedication: working for a world parliament and promoting the Constitution for the Federation of the Earth through the World Constitution and Parliament Association, of which he is the soul. This book discloses his positive grounding for this vision.

Today science and technology are taking us to the sky and beyond. In contrast, lack of morality and ethics are drowning us in the abysmal morass. Glen has beautifully analyzed the reasons as to why human beings continue in disharmony, violence and chaos, endangering the very existence of our species. In support he has referred to the views of various philosophers, scholars and men of wisdom. Theologian Gordon D Kaufman very strongly said;

     With our enormous technological power we may be bringing human history to a close.                

     Before it is too late we must learn to develop politics of peace and interdependence rather          

     one of self-protection and national Sovereignty.

Glen also drew support from Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity, showing that none of the fundamental aspects of the Cosmos (space, time, matter, motion and energy) could be understood separately. Each is part of an integrated whole. He also referred to recent Quantum theory, which negates the notion of fundamentally separate objects, including human consciousness. With elegance, he has widened the concept of ethics, from the commonly understood behavior of one towards others and society to also being an integral part of the cosmos, exhibiting all conceivable things to be only part of the whole.

Man is part of nature; how could he be separate from it? Nature’s basic tendency is to Unite; only our mind divides. This is what ancient Indian Vedic Advaita philosophy speaks of: every thing in the universe, including all living creatures are only part of an inseparable whole. Both you and I are one. We may only differ in name. The first principle of the ethics is to realize that other is you and you are the other. Whitehead affirms.

     Every actual entity is present in every other actual entity.

Glen interestingly similarly records that the first principle of ethics is to realize that the other is you and you are the other. Swami Vivekananda described Universe as Sea and every thing within it are waves of that Sea. How can one separate waves from the Sea?

Nature displays Unity in Diversity. Day and night birth and death, black and white. Man’s body consists of multiple diverse functioning organs but each functions in unison showing Unity. Today, the global political scenario is in contrast to the above. In the name of patriotism and national gain, and irrespective of injuries to others, people are dividing the earth, creating conflicts and wars; big powers with massive nuclear arsenals dominating the smaller nations and finally with Veto power, dismantling the very fabric of democracy. Each is in contradiction to peace.

After World War I, the League of Nations was formed and failed. After World War II, great hope and aspiration came in the U.N.O., which is also crumbling such expectation. It has failed to redress the onslaught on smaller nations by big powers. Continuous mounting of nuclear threats by big nations forces smaller nations to align with one or other for their protection, further dividing people and the nations. Can peace come with this? Under U.N. Charter, the Security Council has to decide which country is aggressor. But could ever such decision be taken against countries with Veto power? The author draws support from number of great thinkers. Benjamin Barber says,

     Unless we globalize democracy, the rule of public enforceable law for

     every one on earth, it is unlikely that we will survive much longer on

     this planet.

From 16th century till this date, this book traces the opinions and views of philosophers: thinkers expressing explicitly that world problem could only be solved by World Federation of nations, with enforceable world laws with one Parliament. As Glen records, Mahatma Gandhi in 1942 got the following resolution passed by the Indian National Congress.

     The Committee is of the opinion that the future peace, security and ordered progress of the World demand a World              federation of free nations and on no other basis can the problem of the modern world would be solved . . . for the                prevention of aggression and exploitation by one nation over another . . . and for pooling of the world resources for the        common good of all.

What this book speaks is no more in the realm of philosophers’ imaginative concepts. It has started taking shape gradually world over. Similar concepts for a World Parliament, with enforceable international laws, has been resolved year after year since 2000 AD by World’s Chief Justices’ Conference at the City Montessori School of Lucknow, India. This school was winner of 2002 UNESCO award for peace education and also by the Heavenly Culture World Peace, Restoration of Light (HWPL), an organization registered with Foreign Ministry of Republic of Korea. A seed grows only on fertile land; it would not grow in desert. Today, for achieving this positive objective proper groundings are being prepared, fighting against strong negative forces. The day is not too long when world will see peace and joy, when a golden age will dawn on earth.

When 27 countries of Europe could have a common parliament, with 16 countries having common currency (Euro), why not other continents following for the World Parliament with a common currency? In support of this, see what past, great men have said.

Noble Laureate Jan Tin Bergen said;

     Mankind’s problem can no longer be solved by national government;

     what is needed is a World Government. This can best be achieved by strengthening the UNO.

H.E. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam former President of India on a visit to Tanzania said;

      There is an urgent need . . . . to work for the democratization in the functioning of the United Nation and that there               should be no Veto Power.

Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru said while strongly preaching for World Parliament,

     Either the world will Unite or Perish.

Dr. S. Radha Krishnan former President of India said;

     There will be one Central authority to which the instruments of coercion will be surrendered . .      . . . and a fraction of          the sovereignty of Independent nation States will have to give up for the      security of the whole World.

World leaders have been trying for peace since after World War I, but every effort is failing. It is a high time to change our thought, revolutionize changes in the present system to bring peace on earth.

I congratulate Glen T. Martin for his learned, practical and divine thought for world unity and peace. It is absorbing reading, with hope and aspiration, concerning how our fragmented and cracking world disorder could be harmonized into an integrated world order. This book is for philosophers, for students of peace education, for research scholars and for person’s in authority, and finally for those seeking hope for peace and happiness on earth.”

   -Jus. A.P. Misra