Frequently asked questions (FAQs) on the development of a “Global Democratic Republic” (GDR)

We already have a significant concentration of capital and power due to the global economy. To cope with that, we see two basic possibilities:

(1) Cut back global economy to national economies and/or cut back “global corporations” to regional players, or

(2) keep global trade as a booster for growth, prosperity, and cost efficiency and develop a global political framework strong enough to stay in balance and develop a healthy society.

With the concept of the “GDR”, we pledge for the second (2) path:
We believe we need a process of “political globalisation“.

Furthermore, the “GDR” legislation process – in our view – is based on as many direct democratic processes as possible. We are in great favour of as much direct democracy as possible (e.g., like in Switzerland), although we understand, this might be in conflict with fast decision making processes – “fast” does not necessarily mean “healthy” decision-making.

And, the “GDR” has a focus on global minimum social, environmental, and health standards (“lowest common denominator”). To cope with local circumstances, national legislation will remain at least in the first phase of a “GDR” (cf. “federalism“) in our view.

(2) Will a “Global Democratic Republic” (GDR) reduce or promote global trade or the “global economy”?

We are in great favour of global trade (cf. Adam Smith, 1791: “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations“). Already Adam Smith understood writing “The Theorie of Moral Sentiments” (1791) within the 18th century, we need strong and binding rules for a healthy and thus sustainable global society.

In our view, we need a global political system as strong as the global corporations. Currently, multinational corporations actually govern the national states. This process can not be reversed by going back to strengthen the national states.

The current, in our view very worrying, trend to nationalism cannot provide an answer to that question. Going back to regions, like Europe, America, Asia, Africa, would reduce the efficiency of global trade and increase tensions between these regions.

We strongly believe:
A global political system (cf. “political globalisation“) can promote global trade and markets in a sustainable way, as long as the “planetary boundaries” are included in the markets.

(3) What happens with the current national states within a “Global Democratic Republic” (GDR)?

They will remain as they are, at least in the first phase. We see the demand for “federalism“, although we are clearly in favour of a global democracy with “global citizenship“, and without national states and without national boarders.

Global democracy aims to reduce the “boarders” between national states, and aims to reduce the “boarders” within our brains and cultures.

We understand, this is a very long lasting culture change process.

(4) What are the main institutions of a “Global Democratic Republic” (GDR)?

There is first of all the “Global Parliament” and the “Global Government“.

The “Global Parliament” is elected within a global democratic voting.

In our view, we have – first time in the history of mankind – the necessary (telecommunicate) infrastructure for global and anonymous democratic votings. This voting is in our view in the first phase of the “GDR” organised and coordinated by the “GDR” and carried out within the national states.

The “Global Government” is constituted out of the “Global Parliament”.

(5) How can a “Global Democratic Republic” (GDR) be developed?

There are several scenarios discussed within science and politics. We are clearly in favour of developing the “GDR” out of the “United Nations” (UN).

This would mean that the UN develops (1) a legislation system with a “Global Constitution“, a “Global Parliament” and a “Global Government“.

Current national states give their legislation power within specified areas to the “GDR”.

There are various possibilities on how a “Global Parliament” is elected and how a “Global Government” can be constituted. The “Global Government” gets the power for global and binding legislation processes from all participating national states.

The great weakness of the current supranational political system is the low power to actually develop global binding rules and then successful execute these global rules.

Thus, we also see the demand for (2) a global execution (“Police”, etc.) system. This enables the “GDR” to actually execute international law coming from the “GDR” and the “Global Parliament” (e.g., to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions, develop health standards, fight against international crime).

The third column (3) is the independent justice system. Currently there is the “International Criminal Court (ICC)” and the “International Court of Justice” from the UN. This can be extended in our view.

The fourth column (4) is the independent global media. This can be promoted with the income from a “global tax system“.

(6) Will there be global political parties within a “Global Democratic Republic” (GDR)?

This would be the highest development level of the GDR. To achieve this, we see the need for preliminary steps.

We are in favor of elections within each individual current national state, based on the political parties present in each country, in the first phase.

Within the “GDR”, the “Global Parliament” is clearly a parliament of political parties (rather than national states).

It would certainly be desirable to actually have global parties, with these parties nominating candidates for the global election and thus for the “Global Parliament”. We see this as a long-term perspective.

(7) How long would be a legislation period within a “Global Democratic Republic” (GDR)?

We are in favour of a long legislation period (e.g., 10 years) to fight populistic political trends and give time for sustainable political developments.

We see a mix and a need for direct democratic processes (e.g., global referendums) on a regular basis to address emerging political decision-making.

(8) What is our basic understanding of “democracy”?

A system of collective self-governance in which political authority is derived from the consent of the governed, expressed through accountable, participatory, and rights-protective institutions.

For us, democracy is synonymous with “healthy governance” – a system rooted in strict procedural rules that ensure the sovereignty of the people and translate their will into collective decisions. This framework relies on three core concepts:

(1) The Sovereign:
All the people as the authority.

(2) Procedural rules:
A strong legal framework for decision-making.

(3) Outcomes:
“Healthy governance” as the strong foundation for the development of a healthy and thus sustainable society.

Our understand of “democracy” includes:

• “Representative Democracy“:
  A system in which citizens elect representatives to make political decisions on their behalf, within a framework of constitutional rights, rule of law, and regular accountability mechanisms.

• “Deliberative Democracy“:
  A democratic model that prioritises reasoned public discourse and inclusive deliberation as the basis for legitimate political decisions, not merely vote counting.

• “Epistemic Democracy“:
  A theory holding that democratic processes have value not only because they express preferences, but because collective deliberation tends to generate better, more accurate policy outcomes than centralised expert rule.

(9) What de we mean with “direct democracy”?

A form of governance in which citizens participate directly in political decisions (“one person, one vote”), mainly through a “citizens´ assembly“, a “referendum“, or other processes of direct communication between the people and the decision-makers, rather than delegating decisions entirely to elected representatives.

For us “direct democracy” is clearly the preferred model and we understand the democratic decision making within “Switzerland” as the benchmark for global democracy.

(10) What do we mean with “democratic legitimacy”?

A governance structure, whereby those governed accept its authority as justified — typically grounded in procedural “citizens´assemblies”, “referenda”, and/or “elections” based on the current legislation.

A “democratic legitimacy” has multiple sources — input legitimacy (participation), throughput legitimacy (transparency of process), and output legitimacy (quality of outcomes).

In our view, the UN currently has weak input legitimacy and moderate output legitimacy.

A GDR aims to strengthen all three.

(11) What do we mean with “democratic vacuum”?

The gap between the geographic and functional scope of political decision-making authority (primarily national) and the geographic and functional scope of the challenges that authority address within the context of a “global economy” (primarily global).

For us, this is the intellectual core of our geo-political diagnosis.

(12) What is our basic understanding of a “republic” and why is it most important for us?

We are proposing a new global governance architecture with a democratically legitimised global governance system, evolved from existing UN institutions, comprising a global parliament, global government, global court, and global independent media — funded by a global tax system and grounded in a global constitution based on the “World Health Organization Constitution“, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)“, and the “United Nations Charter”.

“Republic” is doing significant work within the concept of “GDR”. It implies the rule of law, separation of powers (“checks and balances”), and protection of minority rights — not just majority rule.

The GDR is built on strong institutionalised organisations that can develop and govern a framework to set binding minimum global standards in specific domains (health, human rights, income, environment, tax, et al.) while leaving other governance to national and regional levels.

(13) What is the difference between “multilateral”, “supranational”, and “global”?

(1) Multilateral is about collaboration among countries, but no authority is surrendered.

• Examples:
  • “United Nations” (UN):
    A multilateral organisation where countries collaborate on issues like peace, security, and human rights.
    
  • “World Trade Organization” (WTO):
    Facilitates multilateral trade agreements among member countries.
    
  • “Paris Agreement” from UNFCCC:
    A multilateral climate accord where countries set their own “Nationally Determined Contributions” (NDCs).
    
  • “G20”:
    A forum for 20 major economies to discuss global economic issues.

(2) Supranational involves delegating authority to a higher body that can override national laws. It refers to a level of governance above national governments, where binding decisions are made by an independent authority that member states have delegated power to.

• Examples:
  • “European Union” (EU):
    The currently most advanced supranational organisation. The European Commission, European Parliament, and European Court of Justice can make laws that override national laws in areas like trade, competition, and environmental standards.
    
  • “European Central Bank” (ECB):
    Sets monetary policy for Eurozone countries, overriding national central banks.
    
  • “African Union” (AU):
    In some areas, the AU can make decisions that are binding for member states.

(3) Global describes topics or systems that span the entire world. The “GDR” is the global “supranational organisation” and is supposed to develop the minimum standards for the entire world. Weather national states remain within “GDR” remains open. A federalist political decision-making system seems – in all cases – to be of good value for a healthy and thus sustainable society within a “GDR”.

(14) What do we mean with “political globalisation” and what is the difference to “economic globalisation”?

With “political globalisation” we mean the process by which political authority, governance capacity, and democratic legitimacy expand to match the global scope of economic activity, environmental challenge, and social interdependence.

The counterpart to “economic globalisation”, which means mostly the integration of national economies into a single global market through the liberalisation of trade, capital flows, and production, leading to deepening interdependence and, as we argue, the concentration of corporate power beyond the reach of national democratic control.

(15) What is a “global constitution”?

A foundational legal document establishing the rights, institutions, and governance principles of the “Global Democratic Republic” (GDR) — analogous to a national constitution, but universal in scope.

We propose a “global constitution” grounded in the “World Health Organization Constitution“, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)“, and the “United Nations Charter”

Please mind, currently no “global constitution” exists.

(16) What do we mean by “global tax system”?

A mechanism for levying and collecting revenues at global level — such as a “financial transaction tax” (Tobin-tax) or “corporation tax” — to fund global public goods including independent global media, global institutional capacity, and development.

Analogous in principle to how federal taxation funds federal institutions in nation-states.

(17) How is “federalism” aligned with GDR?

“Federalism” is a model of governance in which multiple layers of authority — local, national, regional, global — each hold constitutionally defined powers, with higher levels addressing only those issues that lower levels cannot effectively manage (subsidiarity principle).

The GDR is implicitly federalist in structure.

(18) What are “mimetic forces”?

We us the term “mimetic forces” based on René Girard’s concept of mimetic desire: the tendency of human beings to desire what others desire, rather than what they independently value, leading to competitive rivalry, envy, and social conflict.

We extend this to describe the social and market forces that drive consumption, inequality, environmental destruction, and hostile conflicts (e.g., wars).

History shows that the “competitive forces” further push the “mimetic forces” and thus intensify rather than cure them.

(19) What is described with “common goods”?

Resources, systems, or conditions that benefit all of humanity and cannot be adequately governed by individual nations or market mechanisms alone — including e.g., the global atmosphere, biodiversity, ocean systems, knowledge commons.

In our view, the governance of “common goods” – also know as “global commons” – requires binding collective action based on global democratic decision-making.

(20) How are “planetary boundaries” related to “common goods”?

“Planetary Boundaries” are based on a scientific framework, first introduced by Johan Rockström et al. (2009). The framework describes nine Earth-system processes:
(1) “climate change”,
(2) “change in biosphere integrity”,
(3) “land system change”,
(4) “freshwater change”,
(5) “modification of biogeochemical flows in the nitrogen (N) cycle and phosphorus (P) cycle”,
(6) “ocean acidification”,
(7) “atmospheric aerosol loading”,
(8) “stratospheric ozone depletion”, and
(9) “introduction of novel entities in the environment” (chemical pollution).

Transgressing specific thresholds or “physical limits” with these Earth-system processes can cause abrupt, non-linear environmental disruption.

In 2026, 6 of the 9 boundaries have now been breached.

All of these “Planetary Boundaries” can also be understood as “common goods” or “global commons”.

(21) What describes the term “climate tipping point”?

With “climate tipping point“, we mean the “1.5°C global average temperature increase” threshold in Earth’s climate system. Beyond this point, self-reinforcing cycles are triggered, leading to accelerated global warming (most likely exponentially) and irreversible disruption of the current climate system of our mother planet Earth.

Breaching the “climate tipping point” means, global warming is out of human control.