PATHWAYS OF GOVERNMENT AND POWER
(News event “Milestones” through
In our time, two
previously straight pathways are taking dramatic turns -- the pathways of
Government and Power.
THE PATHWAY OF GOVERNMENT
The section of this
Pathway upon which we have walked these passed decades is marked
"Nation-State." This is a
system of government whereby the largest denomination of government is in the
form of nations. While it is true that
borders may shift as the result of local squabbles, or the names of some
nations may change with regimes, this basic geographic "unit of
measure" has been immutable for almost a millennia.
We are now witnessing
a fundamental change in the way geography is denominated. When this metamorphosis is complete, the face
of the world will be quite different.
The Pathway of
Government is transforming from the nation-state system to world
governance. World leaders increasingly
view national sovereignty as an obstacle to universal peace and
prosperity. This dream of peace coupled
with the planetary scope of so many problems is necessitating this
transformation. We will now examine how
change may be the final turn in the path which leads us to the final form of
world government described in the Bible.
WESTERN CIVILIZATION 101
Before we begin
discussing the fall of the nation-state system, let’s examine it’s rise.
The Roman Empire came
into being through conquest and integration of tribes, city-states, and peoples
and the centralization of power. That
power and control eventually became over extended. Between the fourth and fifth centuries A.D.,
the Empire collapsed under the onslaught of fierce Germanic tribes from the
north. This was the end of European
subsequently governed by countless local Germanic kings and feudal lords. These kings were relatively weak and their
power was limited to the borders of their own estates. Kings extended their influence by persuading
other feudal lords to pledged allegiance and military support to them. Many of these lords were militarily stronger
than the king himself, which created a very volatile atmosphere.
shifted from this diverse network of "feudal allegiance" to a strong
central monarchy after the Crusades (1095-1291). Many of the feudal lords had died in
combat. It was also at this time that
kings gained access to gunpowder and could breach the walls of an errant lords
realm. The emerging merchant class
supported the king because they were very anxious to see central control over a
geographically expanded realm so that their property and trade routes would be
By the 16-17th
centuries, these absolute monarchs became a mystical symbol of national
identity. Occasionally, the king became
the symbol of a people who had a common language, history, customs and body of
law. More often, he became the rallying
point of ethnically diverse peoples who were geographically related and who shared
a common vision of the future. Ethnic
differences were put aside as people gained pride in their new national
identity represented by the king.
This was the
evolution of the nation-state. It is
hard for those of us who have grown up during it hey-day to imagine any other
THE RECONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENTS
Ethnic, religious and
cultural allegiance is on the rise.
There is a significant misalignment between “we the people” and national
boarders. Politically drawn borders have
been more the rule than the exception: "Of the countries round the world,
rather few are neatly filled by single nations.
Japan, yes, and France too...But for the most part countries and nations
are a mismatch: millions of Hungarians outside Hungary, millions of Chinese
outside China (or Taiwan), a million Turks inside Bulgaria, millions of Irish
in the United Kingdom. Some countries,
such as India, Nigeria and Yugoslavia, contain a wonderfully diverse cocktail
of nations. And some nations -- the
Basques, the Kurds, the Palestinians and the Cree
Indians -- have no country at all.
"None of this would
matter but for nationalism. But
nationalism...is an enduring phenomenon, and one that looks more enduring than
the map of the world as it is drawn in the late twentieth century. Most of the countries on that map owe their
shape to the collapse of the Ottoman, Hapsburg, French and British
empires. Fueled by the fires of
self-determination, and made economically self-confident by the prospect of
regional co-operation, lots of those countries look set to break up
In a prescient
article in the 6/24/90 New York Times, it was stated that we are "...in an
era when nationalisms are fragmenting rather than enlarging geographical
domains. But a process, however tenuous
and exploratory, of rediscovering old cultural, historical, religious and
commercial bonds is under way..."1
In the intervening
years we have seen the emergence of supra-national governments and
alliances. The European nations, linked
by their common heritage, religion and culture come together to form the
European Union (EU). Gradually, the
nations of Europe have systematically surrendered responsibility and power to
the EU. During this same period, we have
seen the many Muslim nations, united by their religion, attempt to coalesce and
advance their common agenda.
GLOBAL GOVERNMENT: The U.N.! - - NOT
Although the United
Nations is thought of as a "globalist"
organization, in fact, it is not. The
hint is in it’s name. Rather that a
global government, it is a loose confederation of sovereign nations. At the outer limit of its success, it
controls the competing interests of its member states. The likelihood of the
U.N. playing a key role in global governance appears remote for these reasons:
of Secretary General will always be filled with a weak, compromise candidate
selected by member nations. This will be
particularly true if the selection process continues to select the most
mutually agreeable candidate from a targeted geographic area, rather than
scouring the globe for a person with the best global leadership potential.
of total agreement between the nations in the Security Council spells U.N.
developing supra-national organizations that compete with the U.N. and do not
have the same encumbrances. For example,
the CSCE (Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe) includes all of
Europe, the USA, Canada, and Russia. It
now has a bureaucracy called a "secretariat" and has been chartered
as a 'dispute settlement organization'.
This role appears to duplicate that of the U.N., but only includes the
nations from the first and second world.
Like the U.N., the first and second world "pay for it"; but
unlike the U.N., the first and second world "own" the CSCE.
As tensions grow
between the third world and the industrialized nations, dependence may shift to
the CSCE for dispute resolution between members. Third world nations which "step out of
line", not having a voice in the CSCE, could face an iron fist.
nations will be very happy to 'shut out' third world meddling and whining. The third world believes that the United
Nations Security Council is controlled by the West. They point to the bribery, threats, arm
twisting and lobbying in which the United States engaged in order to coerce the
Security Council membership to vote for the resolutions against Iraq. Long after the Gulf Crisis is forgotten, the
Security Council will still be viewed with suspicion by the third world.
The West which
bankrolls the U.N., resents third world domination of the General Assembly and
the U.N. bureaucracy. In the General
Assembly, the tiniest nation has the same voting weight as the largest
nation. In addition, it is often held
hostage by third world issues that are of little or competing interest to the
industrialized West. Just as U.N.
activity in the Gulf War will leave bitterness in the third world, the West
will have lingering suspicions about third world judgement and its commitment
to peace. For as the West was attempting
to bring down the regime of a dictator it likened to Hitler, third world
nations across the globe were declaring their support for him. That these nations were able to overlook
Saddam Hussein's atrocities bears testimony to the third world's intense hatred
for the West. Will the West be able to
trust the future judgements of these nations as they sit together at the U.N.?
The West has pressed
for structural reform and accountability at the U.N., but to little avail. Alan Keyes, former assistant secretary of
state for international organization affairs was recently interviewed by
Insight magazine. "Keyes says
strict enforcement of budget reform is the only cure for the United Nations'
bureaucratic blight and increasingly demanding voting blocs of less developed
countries, whose own budget contributions are minimal.
"There must be a balance between those
countries that foot the bill and those that have the majority of votes" to
ensure financial responsibility, he says.
Delegates of Third World countries have long campaigned for greater
representation in high-level posts, while developed countries protest that
those who contribute the majority of funding should have a greater voice in
deciding how their money is spent. The
growing strength of the developing bloc was demonstrated in late October when
Perez de Cuellar appointed his private office chief, Virandra
Dayal of India, to head the U.N. High Commission for
Refugees, an agency responsible for the support of the world's 15 million
refugees, with a 1990 budget of $378 million.
Perez de Cuellar crowned Dayal without
consulting delegates of the industrialized countries that provide the bulk of
the commission's funding."7
inefficiency, inequity, and unresolved conflicts between nations will hasten
the decline of the United Nations.
TOWARD TWO-TIERED GOVERNANCE
The Pathway of
Government is transforming from the nation-state system into a two-tiered world
government having two levels. At the
global level there will be a world federation of regional organizations. At the local level there will be countless
ethnic/religious states. The Economist
has reported that "...flag makers and cartographers can now look forward
to a new redrawing of boundaries across the globe. This time the new shapes will appear at two
levels: on high, in an acronymic stratosphere where people's lives are run not
by national governments but by regional groupings of ECs,
CSCEs, ACCs, NAFTAs and the like; and down below, in a basement world of
Eritreas, Tamil, Eelams and
The ethnic state's
purpose will be to provide for the operational needs and ethnic/religious
sensitivities of the local community:
"...not all issues rise naturally to such lofty heights. Left to themselves, some sink to local level,
where government and governed can keep easily in touch, the better to sort out
their difficulties over education, transport, housing, health and even
taxation. This is the case for
"subsidiary" --that is promoted by the European Commission in Brussels."10 In addition, ethnic states will ensure
the survival of local culture.
Have the biblical
prophets given us any indication that this trend toward the ethnic state would
characterize end-time government?
Perhaps they have.
First, let us consider
the Russo-Israeli War. Gog, the "organizer" of the invasion, is not described as the "King of the
North" -- a king of a unified realm.
Rather, he is called a "prince" of three very specific
northern tribes: Rosh, Meshech and Tubal. Two of the
other co-conspirators, Gomer and Beth Togarmah, have been identified by some scholars as being
other Russian tribes. Therefore, it is
possible that the reason Ezekiel mentions specific tribal names, is because
they are no longer part of a "Union", but are sovereign ethnic
Last, let us consider
the dominion of the 'prince who is to come'.
Revelation 13:7 does not tell
us that he will rule over all "nations" as we commonly think of
them. Rather, it indicates that he will
have authority over "every TRIBE and TONGUE and NATION". Also, in Revelation 14:6, an angel is found
preaching not just to all
"nations" but to "every NATION and TRIBE and TONGUE and
PEOPLE". It is important for us to
briefly look at the meaning of the original Greek words.
TRIBE: (PHULE) 'an
off-shoot' i.e. race or clan; kindred, tribe12
TONGUE: (GLOSSA) the
tongue; by implication a language, specifically one naturally acquired.13
NATION: (ETHNOS) a
race, as of the same habit; i.e. a tribe, specifically a foreign, non-Jewish
one; Gentile, heathen, nation, people.14
PEOPLE: (LAOS) a
As you can see, the
original language here connotes ethnicity and cultural identity rather than the
common notion of a geographical nation-state.
As we have discussed,
the top tier of government will be a global federation of regional
organizations. Indeed, regional
organizations are rapidly taking shape, the most notable being the European
The important issue
here is that mankind has begun to recognize the benefits of supra-national
government. The Economist has reported
that, "Countries are getting together now as never before for good reasons
... As economies become more interlinked, so their people prosper. Single markets bring doubled
returns." Also, "... many of today's
non-economic problems can best be tackled internationally. Unilateral action by, say, Sweden to contain
emission of nasty gases ... will be of little value; concerted action is
required. Drugs, defense, terrorism all
demand intervention beyond the boundaries of any one country. More co-operation is essential"16
Robert Dahl in his
book, Democracy and its Critics states:
"The boundaries of
a country, even a country as large as the United States, are now much smaller
than the boundaries of the decisions that significantly affect the fundamental
interests of its citizens. A country's
economic life, physical environment, national security, and survival are
highly, and probably increasingly, dependent on actors and actions that are
outside the country's boundaries and not directly subject to its government.
...Just as the rise of the national state reduced the capacity of local
residents to exercise control over matters of vital importance to them by means
of their local governments, so the proliferation of transnational activities
and decisions reduces the capacity of the citizens of a country to exercise
control over matters vitally important to them by means of their national
government. To that extent, the governments
of countries are becoming local governments. ...in my judgment for the
foreseeable future transnational forces will continue to erode national
Many of today's
thinkers are looking to the European Union (EU) to be the model for future
world government. In one respect, the EU
is being cloned to create other regional organizations such as NAFTA and
others. In a second respect, the EC is
becoming the test bed or perhaps the very birth place of world government
currently underway is in the area of supranational monetary systems. On January 1, 1999, the EU implemented the
European Monetary Unit (EMU) as their common currency. Before its introduction, an editorial in The Economist
explained the need for this new monetary system - - to control and minimize the
violent swings in exchange rates called "overshooting".
architects have to design a regime that minimises the
harm done by overshooting. The most
promising embryo is the European monetary system [EMS]. For a group of countries with few formal
trade barriers between them, the EMS is essential. If their exchange rates were to move
erratically, the Community's internal trading regime would not survive. It would be overwhelmed by pressure on
individual governments to protect their industries against sudden and
currency-driven losses of competitiveness.
The EMS has another vital merit.
At its heart is an independent central bank that loathes inflation. ...
And it allows Europe's more slovenly countries to lock into Teutonic rectitude
on inflation, which in time produces Teutonic rewards in the form of lower
interest rates. ...The EMS's next task
is to develop a single European currency. ... Ahead of a single currency,
Europe will be building its single market.
The free movement of goods and services, people and capital is the
complement to a common currency: that, after all is what happens within
national economies. ...Once Europe has a single currency in a single economic
space, its system can be copied AND EXTENDED.
Well, the single
European market is in place, as is the single currency. Europe’s boarders are ever expanding to
include new members. Goods, services,
people and capital are flowing.
The world appears poised
for next step - - a world currency, serving a world economy in which trade and
investment will be far more international than they are today. To clinch its attractiveness, the world
currency will have to retain its purchasing power more successfully than any of
the national or regional currencies it replaces. For that, IT MUST BE MANAGED BY AN
INDEPENDENT CENTRAL BANK which is charged with keeping the currency stable
against the price of a basket of commodities. ...Fanciful? It gets less so every day. Each bout of overshooting brings more pain:
each intervention by central banks provides less relief; each episode raises
sharper questions. That pattern will not
go on for ever. A WORLD CURRENCY
COMETH." 18 [emphasis mine]
From our previous
discussion of the Prince, we have established that his kingdom will eventually
"devour the whole earth." It
is also probable that the Prince will begin his dictatorial career as a leader
in the European Union. As the power of
Europe continues to grow, other nations and regional organizations will be
voluntarily annexed. The Prince's
influence and authority will eventually become global.
The resulting Global
Federation will incorporate the many, local governments of differing varieties:
some base upon kinship (TRIBES), some based upon language (TONGUE), some based
upon common culture (NATION); some strong as iron and some weak as clay (Daniel
2:40-43). Truly, this world federation
"will be different from all the other kingdoms and it will devour the
whole earth..."(Daniel 7:23)
World government is
man's "only hope" for solving the complex problems of the 21st
century. The Prince will make his
attempt, but will ultimately fail.
Successful world government will only come when Messiah is crowned.
THE PATHWAY OF POWER
In the West, we have
been walking on a section of the Pathway of Power labeled
"Democracy". Democracy is a
system of order where the ultimate power rests in the hands of the people. In recent years the pathway had broadened as
more and more nations adopt democratic forms of government. Truly, democracy is in vogue, or at least the
espousing of it. In his book, Democracy
and Its Critics, Robert Dahl says, "Never in recorded history have
state leaders appealed so widely to democratic ideas to legitimate their rule,
even if only to justify an authoritarian government as necessary to a future
transition to a true or purified democracy."19
Beyond the democracy
movement, the path ahead may be labeled “Monarchy”. When we think of Monarchy, we think of regal
figureheads who reign but do not rule.
In our discussion here, let’s think about monarchy in its literal sense:
"mono-archy", rule by one individual.
As people the world
over increasingly become the victims of terror and desperation, they are going
to be searching for an omnipotent, paternal figure. Frustration with scandalous bureaucrats, the
intractability of the world's problems and a childish desire for a simple
solution will open the door for “mono-archy”. The need to believe in a man who says, “Trust
me and I’ll handle all your problems” is irresistible.
This yearning for a
monarch was expressed by Yuri Shchekochikhin as
democratic reforms were being introduced, "Russians simply are not ready
for democracy, the new Parliament member complained. His constituents besieged him for help in
getting jobs, or apartments, or telephones.
"People here still want a good czar to fix everything," he
said."21 This sentiment
is not limited to Russia. ""If
democracy does not work in Latin America, then the way is open for
fundamentalist messianic leadership... an ultra-nationalist right-wing
alternative to Democracy has been a system called Guardianship23.
Robert Dahl defines guardianship as "...a regime in which the state
is governed by meritorious rulers who consist of a minority of adults, quite
likely a very small minority, and who are not subject to the democratic
process."24 This form of
government is based upon the assumption that people cannot understand or defend
their own interests. Rather, their
interests are best safeguarded by a small body of wise guardians. Those guardians are best qualified to rule
based upon their moral understanding, their ability to achieve desirable ends,
and their knowledge of the best and most efficient way to achieve those
ends. Guardians are specialists in the
art and science of ruling and leading.25
are "morally responsible", there is no guarantee of their
virtue. And unfortunately, there are no
means to remove a bad guardian.26
History is rife with examples of bad guardianship. Robert Dahl provides us with the following
counsel: "An imperfect democracy
is a misfortune for its people, but and imperfect authoritarian regime is an
abomination. If prudence counsels a
"max-minim" strategy--that is, choose the alternative that is the
best of the worst outcomes--then the experience of the twentieth century argues
powerfully against the idea of guardianship."27
If the world is not
moving toward a utopian democracy, is it moving toward a guardianship on a
global scale as prophesied in the Bible?
Mr. Dahl has made the following ominous observation: "With respect to decisions on crucial
international affairs, then, the danger is that the ...[evolution of the
supranational-state] will lead not to an extension of the democratic idea
beyond the nation-state but to the victory in that domain of de facto
POSITION AVAILABLE: “MONO-ARCH” OF EUROPE
Soon a European Ruler
will emerge. Will
the “mono-arch” of Europe be purely a political position, or could it draw
talent from the royal families of Europe?
Will He be a Royal?
reported the following:
"And yet, and yet ... the storm clouds
are gathering. …The possibility of establishing a Head of State to represent
the European Community is now on the political horizon. As one Brussels Eurocrat
said: "There is considerable
interest here in a Head of State for the European Community. It symbolises
everything the EC stands for. While such
a move is not on the immediate agenda, its very proposition does call into
question the [British] Queen's position as the Head of State of fifteen other
countries beside Britain and her role as Head of the Commonwealth. "Can one person continue to sustain so
many diverse roles?" asks legal historian Michael Nash, author of A
Single Europe. It is a perfectly
practical proposition to have a ceremonial Head of State for the
Community. The office would be occupied
on a rotating basis, rather like the European presidency. This already works effectively in
Malaysia. While there is nothing in the
Treaty of Rome to accommodate such a position, the pace of change in Europe now
is such that I would not be surprised if what is being seriously discussed today
becomes reality by the end of the decade."36
If a Royal Head of
State for the European Union were created, it could be the key to unifying the
cultural diversity of the continent. For
in these royal families, who have intermarried through the centuries, flows the
blood of all European nations. They are
the touchstone of peoples separated by geography and time. Prince Charles of Great Britain has
observed: "There is a mystical
element in royalty that one finds running like a thread through the history of
the world -- all monarchies possess it, as we can see looking thousands of
years into the past. Let us then retain
this quality while, at the same time, perhaps associating it with a more
modern, more contemporary image."37
If the European Union
is the test bed for world government, then a Monarch of Europe could be the
test bed for a global throne.
Will He be a Politico?
Prince may come out of the political world.
As of this writing, the EU is holding inter-governmental conferences
which are wrestling with the problem of providing the Union with a single
voice. They want the President of the
United States to know who will answer the phone when he ‘speed dials’
Europe. They are considering strengthening
the EU Council Presidency, or strengthening the EU Commission Presidency, or
perhaps more importantly, combining the two positions. But more on that later in Chapter 4.
In any case, you may
recall, that the children of Israel would not wait for God to provide them with
a king of His choosing. They demanded a
king so they could be like other nations, and they ended up with psycho-king
Saul. Soon, the world who will not wait
for God to provide King Messiah, will soon settle for the ‘prince who is to
come’. He is at the door.
The next steps on the
Pathways of Government and Power will include the expansion of the centralized
European government (EU), ultimately achieving global reach. This global machine will increased in power
and in the cockpit will be a newly empowered, autocratic, “mono-arch”.
A huge intersection
is ahead as the Pathways of Government, Power, and Europe converge and there we
will find the Signpost: The Prince and His Kingdom.
Just as the reign of
psycho-king Saul was followed by the reign of God’s choice, King David, so the
reign of the “prince who is to come” will be followed by the reign of God’s
Anointed, Jesus and there we shall see the
Signpost: The Millennial Kingdom
Asia Rediscovers its Identity", New York Times, 6/24/90
to the Nation-State", The Economist, 6/23/90
United Nations Finds Budget Reform Elusive", Insight, 1/21/91
to the Nation-state", The Economist, 6/23/90
Party in Italy's North Wants to Get Rome and the South Off its Back", New
York Times, 6/24/90
10 "Goodbye to the
Nation-State", The Economist, 6/23/90
11 "Rising Party
in Italy's North Wants to Get Rome and the South Off its Back", New York
12 Strong, James LL.D,
S.T.D., The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of
the Bible: Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, Thomas Nelson Publishers,
Nashville, 1990, p.77
13 Ibid, p 20
14 Ibid, p.25
15 Ibid, p 44
16 "Goodbye to the
Nation-State", The Economist, 6/23/90
17 Robert. A. Dahl, Democracy
and Its Critics, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1989 p319
18 "Uncalm currencies", The Economist, 2/16/91
19 Op Cit Dahl p.313
20 "Reality Sets
In: No one ever said freedom would be easy", World Press Review, 2/91
21 "Special Report:Seeking a New World, 2. Can Universal Democracy
Work?, Los Angeles Times, 12/11/90
23 Op Cit Dahl Chapter
24 Ibid p57
25 Ibid p52
26 Ibid p76
27 Ibid p78
28 Ibid p320
29 "Can Kings
Replace the Commissars?", Royalty, January 1991
36 "Raising the
Royal Horizons", Royalty, January 1991
37 "I'm someone
who listens to my heart, not my head: Prince Charles on French TV",