Wilmette Institute

Course: Building a New System of Global Governance (2024)
Faculty Mentor: Sovaida Ma’ani Ewing

Editor’s Note: Anis Pakrou posted thoughts on materials from the course Building a New System of Global Governance that prompted a discussion with other students and faculty. The idea that spiritual principles must be part of the foundation for lasting social change is a key element of WI’s approach to teaching students in both its extension courses and certificate program. The process through which we identify, define, and include spiritual principles must equally be examined thoughtfully, something WI is learning about as it refines and adjusts its pedagogical approach in the social transformation certificate program. The forum thread below explores the ‘principles-first’ approach to change.

Is a principles-first approach the only way forward?

As we progressed through the course, I found myself wholeheartedly believing with certitude and recognizing that all the components of the New World Order would greatly benefit the world. These principles, and the institutions that would arise from them, could help solve world hunger, equitably distribute resources to enable countries to move from scarcity to abundance, elevate the expression of justice, and truly unite the world. Yet, each week, I return to the same question: How can I bring these ideas into the wider community?

The following quotation explores how these institutions could be established from a principles-first perspective:

“True civilization will unfurl its banner in the midmost heart of the world whenever a certain number of its distinguished and high-minded sovereigns—the shining exemplars of devotion and determination—shall, for the good and happiness of all mankind, arise, with firm resolve and clear vision, to establish the Cause of Universal Peace. They must make the Cause of Peace the object of general consultation, and seek by every means in their power to establish a Union of the nations of the world. They must conclude a binding treaty and establish a covenant, the provisions of which shall be sound, inviolable and definite. They must proclaim it to all the world and obtain for it the sanction of all the human race. This supreme and noble undertaking—the real source of the peace and well-being of all the world—should be regarded as sacred by all that dwell on earth. All the forces of humanity must be mobilized to ensure the stability and permanence of this Most Great Covenant. In this all-embracing Pact the limits and frontiers of each and every nation should be clearly fixed, the principles underlying the relations of governments towards one another definitely laid down, and all international agreements and obligations ascertained. In like manner, the size of the armaments of every government should be strictly limited, for if the preparations for war and the military forces of any nation should be allowed to increase, they will arouse the suspicion of others. The fundamental principle underlying this solemn Pact should be so fixed that if any government later violate any one of its provisions, all the governments on earth should arise to reduce it to utter submission, nay the human race as a whole should resolve, with every power at its disposal, to destroy that government. Should this greatest of all remedies be applied to the sick body of the world, it will assuredly recover from its ills and will remain eternally safe and secure.”

(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, quoted in a letter of the Universal House of Justice dated April 19, 2001)

Despite the hopefulness of this vision, I find myself wondering: Unless humanity reaches a point where decisions are made with a principles-first approach, wouldn’t all efforts to establish a world government risk following the same path as the United Nations? Or, perhaps even worse, could it devolve into an authoritarian regime?

This brings me to my central question: How do we lay the foundation to have conversations about the Lesser Peace and the New System of Global Governance, which will need to be established to cater to the needs of society? Should we instead focus our conversations on principles?

Fellow student Michele Wooten commented:

Hello Anis,

I agree that without foundational spiritual principles to guide it, a World Federation would not be effective. I think the spiritual principles should be part of the discussion of the framework of a World Federation. Thank you for raising that point!

Linette Kuy, another student, responded:

Dear Anis,

Great questions.

Thanks for highlighting this most important quote of ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá.

I feel if we follow the guidance to be most concerned with the exigencies of today, then it seems we must start with the problems we see right in front of us and work on those tirelessly, maybe with MORE focus on the principles, learning from past experiences with the UN when principles were NOT foremost and expedient and interest-based solutions emerged that either worsened or didn’t really resolve problems. The severity of our problems seems to demand urgent action, a rallying cry that should impel us toward better collective approaches.

Maybe we need to flesh out in our own hearts and minds what is this Cause of Universal Peace: How must we behave toward one another in society to establish this peace? What must our priorities be to promote this peace? Do we need to study peace-making over other subjects? The concept of prioritizing unity over personal belief and opinion is foreign to Americans despite our federation; we seem to egoistically promote self-interest more than ever, so we need a refresher on ethical and compassionate thinking and motivations. Our us-them thinking habits need to be broken down so that we can begin to really see and know each “other,” and only then will we begin to care about “them” as “us,” which is the first step toward love of humanity and a solid foundation for peace.

Faculty mentor Sovaida Ma’ani Ewing added to the conversation:

Here are some more detailed thoughts on the importance of starting from the vantage point of principle:

When I read the statement of ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá that you quoted from the Universal House of Justice, I remember thinking that this approach was a truly revolutionary one. Several years later, I decided to explore the ramifications of identifying a set of first principles, getting nations to agree upon them, and apply them methodically to solving any challenge. My explorations were exciting and I shared the results in “Collective Security Within Reach.” I tried to demonstrate that adopting such an approach would uncover solutions to seemingly intractable global challenges like border conflicts, nuclear proliferation, human rights atrocities, and war. Moreover, the solutions to these problems would be congruent with each other, with the principles acting as the glue ensuring such coherence. This would stand in stark contrast to the prevailing approach of acting with expediency, which is fundamentally reactive and based on narrowly crafted and short-term self-interest.

I then started to notice an uptick in this very conversation initiated by the Universal House of Justice in 1985: the need to identify a set of foundational principles before attempting to solve problems. The former head of the International Crisis Group, Gareth Evans, gave a speech in which he lamented the absence of this approach. More interestingly, he said that, after years in national public service in Australia and in the international arena, he had concluded that the only hope we had of truly solving challenges at any level of governance was to begin by identifying principles. A few years later, a new phrase was coined: “Shared Global Ethics.” It was discussed amongst leaders of international institutions, including the then-head of the World Trade Organization, Pascal Lamy, and Ian Goldin, a professor at Oxford University and head of the Oxford/Martin school.

By then, my interest in this topic had led me to do a deep-dive analysis of the reasons why the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), with its revolutionary idea of pooling resources in the hands of a “supranational institution,” had worked so well. I concluded that one of the fundamental reasons was the fact that the ECSC was built on a firm foundation of principles, including oneness and equity, and a deep understanding that, in a world as interdependent as ours, the advantage of the part can only be guaranteed by the advantage of the whole. These principles were mindfully woven into the very infrastructure and processes of the institution. I lay this out in great detail in my book Bridge to Global Governance.

I have continued to explore this fascinating and foundational topic in my “Reimagining Our World” podcasts–numbers 27, 35, and 4. One of the points I explore in these podcasts is the seminal role played by principles in the creation of the League of Nations, which rested on Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points, and also in the creation of the United Nations, which rests on the principles articulated in the Atlantic Charter formulated by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in the middle of World War II.

The long and short of it is that I completely concur that, to build institutions that succeed and thrive in today’s world, we must start with the premise of equity and oneness and whatever other principles are relevant in the arena of action in which we’re engaged. We must find ways of baking these principles into the very structure and processes of the institutions to ensure that they will flourish.

You may also wish to read Anis’ post “Reflections on power and the metamorphosis of media” (also published in the February 2025 Newsletter) and his essay “Personal Reflections about Art,” which was published in a Fall 2023 newsletter.