PEOPLEIZE
Chapter 2
Government By
The People: Decolonizing Governmental System
The Day
After
The Genocide In Gaza For Earth
By PEOPLEIZE
PEOPLEIZE
Copyright ©
All rights reserved.
Our books may be used in bulk for promotional, educational, or business use. Please contact your local bookseller or us directly at info@peopleize.world
www.peopleize.world
Originally published 26900024
Dedication
In solemn remembrance and heartfelt tribute, this book is dedicated to the over 17,000 Palestinian Children massacred by merciless onslaught of the Israeli military of the Palestinian people in the Genocide of Gaza during just the first 10 months. Their innocent lives, marked by unwarranted suffering and unimaginable loss, serve as a poignant reminder of the profound human cost of conflict.
May the collective cry’s of these young innocent Children echo through the pages of this book, resonating across the globe, and inspiring a universal call for a stop to all wars, violence and all people’s of earth to live in peace. In dedicating these words to the precious lives murdered, we aspire to ignite a transformative conversation about the imperative need to abandon violence as a means of resolving our differences.
May the memories of the Palestinian children be a catalyst for change, motivating people worldwide to seek paths to dialogue, diplomacy, and comprehensive peace with each other. In their honor, let us unite in our commitment to building a world where conflicts are resolved through courts of law, cooperation, and a shared vision of peaceful coexistence. May their legacy be a guiding light, urging us all to work tirelessly towards a future where every child can grow and thrive in a world free from the shadows of violence and war.
Contents
Chapter i: Decolonizing Government
Chapter ii: PEOPLEIZE Government by the People
Chapter iii: The Day After “Genocide in Gaza”
Chapter I
Decolonizing Government
In a world where governance profoundly influences the daily existence of billions, it’s crucial to examine the systems in place through a lens that considers the fundamental needs crucial for human survival. These essential needs encompass water, food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare, forming the cornerstone of well-being and vitality for individuals worldwide.
Water stands as a vital element for sustaining life, serving as a fundamental necessity for hydration, supporting bodily functions, and promoting overall health. Yet, access to clean and safe drinking water remains a challenge for many, highlighting a critical gap in governance efforts to ensure basic needs are met.
Similarly, nutritious food is indispensable for providing the energy and essential nutrients necessary for proper bodily function. Agriculture plays a pivotal role in this regard, yet disparities in food security persist, underscoring the failure of governance systems to ensure equitable access to sustenance for all citizens.
Shelter offers more than mere protection from the elements; it provides a sanctuary where individuals can seek refuge and find respite. However, housing insecurity and homelessness persist in many regions, revealing a systemic failure to address the basic need for secure and stable shelter.
Clothing, essential for safeguarding individuals against environmental factors and regulating body temperature, is often taken for granted. Yet, access to adequate clothing remains a challenge for marginalized populations, highlighting gaps in governance efforts to ensure basic necessities are met for all citizens.
Access to comprehensive healthcare services is paramount for maintaining and promoting overall health. Despite advances in medical science, disparities in healthcare access persist globally, reflecting systemic failures in governance to provide equitable healthcare services for all citizens.
In a world where governance shapes the lives of billions, it’s imperative to scrutinize the systems in place through a holistic lens that considers the fulfillment of these fundamental human needs. From autocracies to democracies, the spectrum of governance is vast, yet the ability of these systems to effectively address the basic needs of their citizens remains a critical measure of their success and legitimacy.
These estimates show the scale of the failure of the USA government over the last 200 years to provide the basic needs for its population.
Access to Clean Water: While the United States generally has a well-developed infrastructure for clean water delivery, there are still significant challenges. Estimates suggest that millions of Americans, particularly in rural or impoverished areas, lack access to safe and clean drinking water. The Flint water crisis in Michigan, for instance, affected approximately 100,000 residents. It is just one of many examples.
Food Security: Despite being one of the world’s largest food producers, food insecurity affects millions of Americans. It’s estimated that over 38 million people, including children, experience hunger or food insecurity in the United States. This includes individuals living in poverty, those in food deserts, and those who face barriers to accessing government assistance programs like SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) or WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children).
Housing Insecurity: Homelessness and housing insecurity are significant issues in the United States. Estimates indicate that on any given night, over half a million Americans experience homelessness. Additionally, many more individuals and families face housing insecurity, uncertain about their ability to afford rent or housing costs.
Healthcare Access: Despite efforts to expand healthcare coverage through initiatives like the Affordable Care Act (ACA), significant gaps in healthcare access persist. It’s estimated that over 30 million Americans remain uninsured, and many more face barriers to accessing quality healthcare due to factors such as high healthcare costs, limited availability of healthcare facilities, and disparities in healthcare outcomes based on race and socioeconomic status.
Clothing and Basic Necessities: While access to clothing may not be as widespread an issue as access to food, water, shelter, and healthcare, there are still vulnerable populations struggling to obtain adequate clothing and basic necessities. It’s difficult to estimate the exact number of individuals affected, but it includes homeless populations, refugees, and those living in poverty, which collectively amount to millions of people across the United States.
Looking at the UN we see that these estimates shows the significant failure by United Nations to provide for the Earth people the basic needs:
Access to Clean Water: Globally, an estimated 2.2 billion people lack access to safely managed drinking water services, and around 4.2 billion people experience severe water scarcity at least one month a year. The United Nations, through its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goal 6: Clean Water and Sanitation, aims to ensure universal access to safe and affordable drinking water for all by 2030.
Food Security: Approximately 690 million people worldwide suffer from hunger, with the majority living in developing regions. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) works to eliminate hunger and malnutrition through initiatives such as the Zero Hunger Challenge, which seeks to ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all.
Housing Insecurity: The UN estimates that over 1.6 billion people worldwide lack adequate housing, with slum populations expected to exceed 1 billion by 2030 if current trends continue. The UN’s New Urban Agenda and Sustainable Development Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities aim to ensure access to adequate, safe, and affordable housing for all, particularly the urban poor.
Healthcare Access: The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that at least half of the world’s population still lacks access to essential health services, and millions suffer financial hardship due to out-of-pocket healthcare expenses. The UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 3: Good Health and Well-being seeks to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages, including universal health coverage.
Clothing and Basic Necessities: While access to clothing and basic necessities is not explicitly addressed by a specific UN goal, it is often intertwined with broader issues of poverty and inequality. The UN’s work in promoting sustainable development, poverty alleviation, and social protection aims to address the underlying factors that contribute to lack of access to clothing and basic necessities for vulnerable populations.
Looking at the list of 195 global counties on Earth we see their governments are presented by the old colonial system of having just one head and not representing all the people equally:
Afghanistan: Presidential Republic (President)
Albania: Parliamentary Republic (President)
Algeria: Presidential Republic (President)
Andorra: Parliamentary Democracy (Co-Princes)
Angola: Presidential Republic (President)
Antigua and Barbuda: Constitutional Monarchy (Monarch) and Parliamentary Democracy (Prime Minister)
Argentina: Presidential Republic (President)
Armenia: Semi-Presidential Republic (Prime Minister and President)
Australia: Federal Parliamentary Democracy (Monarch and Prime Minister)
Austria: Federal Parliamentary Republic (Federal President)
Azerbaijan: Presidential Republic (President)
Bahamas: Constitutional Monarchy (Monarch) and Parliamentary Democracy (Prime Minister)
Bahrain: Constitutional Monarchy (King) and Parliamentary Democracy (Prime Minister)
Bangladesh: Parliamentary Republic (President)
Barbados: Constitutional Monarchy (Monarch) and Parliamentary Democracy (Prime Minister)
Belarus: Presidential Republic (President)
Belgium: Federal Parliamentary Democracy (Monarch and Prime Minister)
Belize: Constitutional Monarchy (Monarch) and Parliamentary Democracy (Prime Minister)
Benin: Presidential Republic (President)
Bhutan: Constitutional Monarchy (King)
Bolivia: Presidential Republic (President)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Federal Parliamentary Republic (Presidency)
Botswana: Parliamentary Republic (President)
Brazil: Federal Presidential Republic (President)
Brunei: Absolute Monarchy (Sultan)
Bulgaria: Parliamentary Republic (Prime Minister)
Burkina Faso: Presidential Republic (President)
Burundi: Presidential Republic (President)
Cabo Verde: Semi-Presidential Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Cambodia: Constitutional Monarchy (King) and Parliamentary Democracy (Prime Minister)
Cameroon: Presidential Republic (President)
Canada: Federal Parliamentary Democracy (Monarch and Prime Minister)
Central African Republic: Presidential Republic (President)
Chad: Presidential Republic (President)
Chile: Presidential Republic (President)
China: One-Party Socialist Republic (President)
Colombia: Presidential Republic (President)
Comoros: Federal Presidential Republic (President)
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Semi-Presidential Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Republic of the Congo: Presidential Republic (President)
Costa Rica: Presidential Republic (President)
Croatia: Parliamentary Republic (President)
Cuba: One-Party Socialist Republic (President)
Cyprus: Presidential Republic (President)
Czech Republic: Parliamentary Republic (President)
Denmark: Constitutional Monarchy (Monarch) and Parliamentary Democracy (Prime Minister)
Djibouti: Presidential Republic (President)
Dominica: Parliamentary Democracy (President and Prime Minister)
Dominican Republic: Presidential Republic (President)
East Timor (Timor-Leste): Semi-Presidential Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Ecuador: Presidential Republic (President)
Egypt: Presidential Republic (President)
El Salvador: Presidential Republic (President)
Equatorial Guinea: Presidential Republic (President)
Eritrea: One-Party State (President)
Estonia: Parliamentary Republic (President)
Eswatini: Absolute Monarchy (King)
Ethiopia: Federal Parliamentary Republic (President)
Fiji: Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Finland: Parliamentary Republic (President)
France: Semi-Presidential Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Gabon: Presidential Republic (President)
Gambia: Presidential Republic (President)
Georgia: Semi-Presidential Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Germany: Federal Parliamentary Republic (Federal President and Chancellor)
Ghana: Presidential Republic (President)
Greece: Parliamentary Republic (President)
Grenada: Constitutional Monarchy (Monarch) and Parliamentary Democracy (Prime Minister)
Guatemala: Presidential Republic (President)
Guinea: Presidential Republic (President)
Guinea-Bissau: Semi-Presidential Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Guyana: Presidential Republic (President)
Haiti: Semi-Presidential Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Honduras: Presidential Republic (President)
Hungary: Parliamentary Republic (Prime Minister)
Iceland: Parliamentary Republic (President)
India: Federal Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Indonesia: Presidential Republic (President)
Iran: Islamic Republic (Supreme Leader and President)
Iraq: Federal Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Ireland: Parliamentary Republic (President and Taoiseach)
Israel: Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Italy: Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Jamaica: Constitutional Monarchy (Monarch) and Parliamentary Democracy (Prime Minister)
Japan: Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy (Emperor and Prime Minister)
Jordan: Constitutional Monarchy (King) and Parliamentary Democracy (Prime Minister)
Kazakhstan: Presidential Republic (President)
Kenya: Presidential Republic (President)
Kiribati: Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
North Korea: One-Party Socialist Republic (Supreme Leader)
South Korea: Presidential Republic (President)
Kosovo: Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Kuwait: Constitutional Monarchy (Emir) and Parliamentary Democracy (Prime Minister)
Kyrgyzstan: Presidential Republic (President)
Laos: One-Party Socialist Republic (President)
Latvia: Parliamentary Republic (President)
Lebanon: Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Lesotho: Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy (King and Prime Minister)
Liberia: Presidential Republic (President)
Libya: Transitional Government (Chairman of the Presidential Council)
Liechtenstein: Constitutional Monarchy (Prince) and Parliamentary Democracy (Prime Minister)
Lithuania: Parliamentary Republic (President)
Luxembourg: Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy (Monarch and Prime Minister)
Madagascar: Semi-Presidential Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Malawi: Presidential Republic (President)
Malaysia: Constitutional Monarchy (King) and Parliamentary Democracy (Prime Minister)
Maldives: Presidential Republic (President)
Mali: Semi-Presidential Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Malta: Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Marshall Islands: Parliamentary Republic (President and President)
Mauritania: Presidential Republic (President)
Mauritius: Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Mexico: Federal Presidential Republic (President)
Micronesia: Presidential Republic (President and President)
Moldova: Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Monaco: Constitutional Monarchy (Prince) and Parliamentary Democracy (Minister of State)
Mongolia: Semi-Presidential Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Montenegro: Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Morocco: Constitutional Monarchy (King) and Parliamentary Democracy (Prime Minister)
Mozambique: Presidential Republic (President)
Myanmar (Burma): Presidential Republic (President)
Namibia: Presidential Republic (President)
Nauru: Parliamentary Republic (President and President)
Nepal: Federal Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Netherlands: Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy (Monarch and Prime Minister)
New Zealand: Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy (Monarch and Prime Minister)
Nicaragua: Presidential Republic (President)
Niger: Presidential Republic (President)
Nigeria: Federal Presidential Republic (President)
North Macedonia: Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Norway: Constitutional Monarchy (Monarch) and Parliamentary Democracy (Prime Minister)
Oman: Absolute Monarchy (Sultan)
Pakistan: Federal Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Palau: Presidential Republic (President and President)
Panama: Presidential Republic (President)
Papua New Guinea: Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy (Monarch and Prime Minister)
Paraguay: Presidential Republic (President)
Peru: Presidential Republic (President)
Philippines: Presidential Republic (President)
Poland: Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Portugal: Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Qatar: Absolute Monarchy (Emir)
Romania: Semi-Presidential Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Russia: Presidential Republic (President)
Rwanda: Presidential Republic (President)
Saint Kitts and Nevis: Constitutional Monarchy (Monarch) and Parliamentary Democracy (Prime Minister)
Saint Lucia: Constitutional Monarchy (Monarch) and Parliamentary Democracy (Prime Minister)
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: Constitutional Monarchy (Monarch) and Parliamentary Democracy (Prime Minister)
Samoa: Parliamentary Republic (Head of State and Prime Minister)
San Marino: Parliamentary Republic (Captains Regent)
Sao Tome and Principe: Semi-Presidential Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Saudi Arabia: Absolute Monarchy (King)
Senegal: Semi-Presidential Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Serbia: Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Seychelles: Presidential Republic (President)
Sierra Leone: Presidential Republic (President)
Singapore: Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Slovakia: Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Slovenia: Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Solomon Islands: Parliamentary Republic (Monarch and Prime Minister)
Somalia: Federal Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
South Africa: Parliamentary Republic (President and President)
South Sudan: Presidential Republic (President)
Spain: Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy (Monarch and Prime Minister)
Sri Lanka: Semi-Presidential Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Sudan: Transitional Government (Sovereignty Council and Prime Minister)
Suriname: Presidential Republic (President)
Sweden: Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy (Monarch and Prime Minister)
Switzerland: Federal Parliamentary Republic (Federal Council)
Syria: Presidential Republic (President)
Taiwan: Semi-Presidential Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Tajikistan: Presidential Republic (President)
Tanzania: Presidential Republic (President)
Thailand: Constitutional Monarchy (King) and Parliamentary Democracy (Prime Minister)
Togo: Presidential Republic (President)
Tonga: Constitutional Monarchy (King) and Parliamentary Democracy (Prime Minister)
Trinidad and Tobago: Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Tunisia: Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Turkey: Presidential Republic (President)
Turkmenistan: Presidential Republic (President)
Tuvalu: Parliamentary Democracy (Monarch and Prime Minister)
Uganda: Presidential Republic (President)
Ukraine: Semi-Presidential Republic (President and Prime Minister)
United Arab Emirates: Federal Absolute Monarchy (President and Prime Minister)
United Kingdom: Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy (Monarch and Prime Minister)
United States: Federal Presidential Republic (President)
Uruguay: Presidential Republic (President)
Uzbekistan: Presidential Republic (President)
Vanuatu: Parliamentary Republic (President and Prime Minister)
Vatican City: Ecclesiastical Elective Monarchy (Pope)
Venezuela: Presidential Republic (President)
Vietnam: One-Party Socialist Republic (President)
Yemen: Provisional Government (President and Prime Minister)
Zambia: Presidential Republic (President)
Zimbabwe: Presidential Republic (President)
That is a total of 195 individuals that control the lives of the 7.9 billion people on earth. And as seen with the Genocide in Gaza, they can do what every they want without regard for the population of the world thinks even while allowing Genocide by Israel with their military and finical support.
A common thread emerges: the concentration of power in the hands of a select few. Regardless of the form of government, be it a monarchy, dictatorship, republic, or democracy, there’s always an individual wielding ultimate authority. This figure, whether titled president, monarch, or prime minister, holds the reins of control over the populace.
Take the example of the Genocide on Gaza by Israel.
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) passed a resolution calling for a humanitarian ceasefire in war-torn Gaza with overwhelming support, receiving 153 votes in favor.
The 153 countries that voted in favor were: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cote D’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea (South Korea), Russia, Rwanda, Republic of the Congo, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago.
23 countries abstained from voting, including Argentina, Bulgaria, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Netherlands, Palau, Panama, Romania, Slovakia, South Sudan, Togo, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Uruguay.
10 countries voted against the resolution, including Austria, Czech Republic, Guatemala, Israel, Liberia, Micronesia, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, and the United States.
In addition to the voting dynamics at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), it’s crucial to consider the context surrounding the resolution on a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza.
At the time of the vote, the Israeli military had already implemented a full blockade of Gaza, including cutting off all water, food, and essential supplies from entering the walled city of Gaza.
Furthermore, within the first 100 days of their war on Gaza, Israel military had confirmed the massacres resulting from daily bombardments by the Israeli military, killing over 10,000 children. With total death toll of over 25,000 Palestinian’s.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) had already taken up the case, examining allegations of genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza. And had issued an privative measures to ensure the stop of the Genocide while the case is heard.
Over the past 75 years, the ICJ had issued numerous decisions against Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, which have have been disregarded by Israel and protected by the United States consistently vetoing any actions aimed at holding Israel accountable for these violations, highlighting a fundamental colonial mentality within the UN and the global power structures.
One clear example of this is the Genocide of Gaza by Israel on the indigenous Palestinian population:
As of February 16, 2024, Israel has continued its attacks across the Gaza Strip, including near hospitals and in the south of the besieged enclave, where ground operations are intensifying.
Here are the latest casualty figures as of after first few months in Gaza:
Gaza
Killed: at least 28,775 people, including more than:
12,300 children
8,400 women
Injured: more than 68,552, including at least:
8,663 children
6,327 women
Missing: more than 7,000
The latest figures from the Palestinian Ministry of Health in the occupied West Bank are as follows:
Occupied West Bank
Killed: at least 395 people, including more than:
105 children
Injured: more than 4,450
In Israel, officials revised the death toll down from 1,405 to 1,139.
Devastation across Gaza
According to the latest data from the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Palestinian government as of February 13, Israeli attacks have damaged:
More than half of Gaza’s homes – 360,000 residential units have been destroyed or damaged
392 educational facilities
11 out of 35 hospitals are partially functioning
123 ambulances
267 places of worship
Nowhere safe to go
The Israeli army published an online map of the Gaza Strip on December 1, dividing the enclave into more than 600 numbered blocks. It asked Gaza’s civilians to identify the block corresponding with their area of residence and evacuate when ordered.
However, leaflets ordering evacuations are inconsistent with online warnings, which has confused residents.
Furthermore, several Gaza residents have no reliable way to access the map with little access to electricity or the internet since the blockade of the 365sq-km (141sq-mile) strip has resulted in a collapse of telecommunications infrastructure.
Every hour in Gaza:
15 people are killed – six are children
35 people are injured
42 bombs are dropped*
12 buildings are destroyed
*Based on the first six days of the war, according to the Israeli army
Journalists killed
As of February 16, at least 99 journalists, mostly Palestinians, have been killed since the Israel-Gaza war that began in October. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), 92 Palestinian, three Lebanese and four Israeli journalists have been killed.
Sixteen years of Israeli blockade
The Gaza Strip has a population of about 2.3 million people living in one of the most densely populated areas in the world and is located between Israel and Egypt on the Mediterranean coast.
Since 2007, Israel has maintained strict control over Gaza’s airspace and territorial waters and restricted the movement of goods and people in and out of Gaza.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has threatened to turn Gaza into a “deserted island” and warned its residents to “leave now”.
Despite the collective decision-making power of the UN General Assembly, the implementation of its resolutions often faces obstacles within the UN Security Council, primarily due to the veto authority held by certain permanent members, including the USA. This veto protection allows these nations to block any resolution they deem contrary to their national interests. As a result, even when a majority of UN member states support a measure, it may not be effectively implemented if it does not align with the preferences of the veto-wielding countries. Thus, the UN Security Council’s ability to enforce decisions made by the General Assembly is significantly constrained, highlighting the challenges inherent in achieving consensus and effective global governance.
In this case the UN Security Council still cannot implement the vote of the UN General Assembly due to the veto protection of the USA.
This situation underscores the imbalance of power, with powerful military forces exerting control over less powerful nations and peoples. It serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing struggles faced by peaceful countries and communities that are now compelled to invest in their military capabilities to protect their governments against oppression and injustice, emphasizing the urgent need for equitable and just international governance. The current model of divide and conquer by force reflects a 2000-year-old colonial mentality that seeks to subjugate the people of the Earth under the dominance of the strongest military. This antiquated model must be stopped and changed.
This current trajectory could lead to a world where the wealthy reside in space above the Earth, while the 7.9 billion people on Earth toil to support their lifestyle in the skies above.
The analogy of the 400-meter race serves as a poignant metaphor for the inherent unfairness of the circumstances individuals find themselves born into. This visual depiction vividly portrays how factors like familial inheritance, birthplace, and socio-economic status dictate one’s starting point in the race of life. At the core of PEOPLEIZE lies a fundamental belief: no human should lay claim to Earth or possess the authority to determine another’s initial position in life’s journey as a collective society.
When a person’s outset is determined solely by the time, place, and lineage of their birth, the injustices perpetuated by the prevailing monetary system become starkly evident. Crafted by colonial powers indifferent to the local indigenous populations, this system ensures that a significant portion of the global community begins their lives at a disadvantage, with little hope of overcoming this systemic oppression.
Of the 195 countries existing today, 121 were established without consideration for the native inhabitants, their creation overseen by colonial powers that continue to manipulate monetary systems to maintain control. This manipulation ensures that future generations remain shackled by circumstances beyond their control, their potential stunted from birth without recourse. The list of nations born from European exploration, colonization, and settlement is extensive, each one leaving a legacy of exploitation and disregard for indigenous peoples.
These new nations, forged through land colonization, initially subjected indigenous populations to slavery before leveraging colonial treaties to exploit natural resources for European gain. Despite achieving independence, these countries continue to grapple with economic inequality and systematic marginalization of indigenous rights, perpetuating a cycle of oppression that endures to this day.
The 121 countries created without regard for indigenous populations include: United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Uruguay, Paraguay, Ecuador, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Egypt, Algeria, Angola, Mozambique, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, South Sudan, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde, Mauritania, Western Sahara, Chad, Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, Togo, Benin, Central African Republic, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Seychelles, Mauritius, Comoros, Madagascar, Maldives, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Brunei, East Timor, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Palau, Micronesia, Nauru, Cook Islands, Niue, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Bahamas, Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Suriname, Belize, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Costa Rica, Panama, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Paraguay.
The United Nations (UN) structure creates additional challenges that impact its effectiveness in addressing global issues. One major issue is the imbalance of power and representation within its decision-making bodies, particularly the UN Security Council. The Security Council’s five permanent members (the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom) hold veto power, which can hinder decisive action on critical issues due to geopolitical interests and disagreements among these major powers.
Additionally, the distribution of seats in the General Assembly, where each member state has one vote regardless of size or population, can lead to disparities in influence and decision-making. This can result in the marginalization of smaller or less economically powerful countries, limiting their ability to shape international policies and agendas.
Moreover, the UN’s bureaucracy and complex decision-making processes can often lead to inefficiencies and delays in responding to urgent global challenges. This bureaucratic inertia can hinder the organization’s ability to adapt quickly to emerging crises or changing circumstances.
Furthermore, there are concerns about the transparency and accountability of UN agencies and programs, as well as allegations of corruption and mismanagement in some instances. These issues can undermine public trust in the organization and its ability to effectively deliver on its mandates.
Another significant criticism of the UN is its historical lack of inclusivity and representation, particularly in its founding structure. When the UN was established in 1945 in the aftermath of World War II, no African country was invited to participate in the discussions and negotiations that shaped its setup, despite the significant contributions and sacrifices made by millions of Africans who fought for the Allied powers during the war. This exclusion reflects a broader pattern of colonial-era power dynamics and Eurocentric perspectives that continue to influence global governance structures.
While the United Nations plays a vital role in promoting peace, security, and development worldwide, it faces inherent structural challenges that can impede its effectiveness. Addressing these issues requires a commitment to reforming and democratizing the organization to ensure greater inclusivity, transparency, and accountability in decision-making processes.
Let’s add some examples to illustrate the problems with the UN structure:
Imbalance of Power in the Security Council: The veto power held by the five permanent members of the Security Council has led to instances where critical actions, such as resolutions to address humanitarian crises or conflicts, have been blocked due to disagreements among these major powers. For example, Russia and China have used their veto power to block resolutions on Syria, resulting in prolonged suffering and a lack of meaningful international intervention.
Disparities in General Assembly Representation: While the General Assembly theoretically provides each member state with equal representation, the influence of larger and more economically powerful countries can overshadow that of smaller nations. For instance, decisions on budget allocations and key resolutions may be dominated by the interests of a few powerful states, marginalizing the voices of smaller countries.
Bureaucratic Inefficiencies: The UN’s bureaucratic structure can lead to inefficiencies and delays in decision-making, particularly in responding to urgent crises. For example, during the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, bureaucratic hurdles and delays in mobilizing resources hindered the UN’s initial response efforts, exacerbating the spread of the disease and its impact on affected populations.
Transparency and Accountability Concerns: There have been instances of corruption and mismanagement within UN agencies and programs, raising concerns about transparency and accountability. For example, allegations of fraud and embezzlement within the Oil-for-Food program in Iraq in the early 2000s tarnished the reputation of the UN and highlighted weaknesses in oversight and accountability mechanisms.
Historical Lack of Inclusivity: The exclusion of African countries from the discussions and negotiations that shaped the UN’s founding structure is a stark example of its historical lack of inclusivity. Despite the significant contributions of African soldiers and civilians to the Allied victory in World War II, their voices were not heard in the establishment of the post-war international order, reflecting enduring patterns of colonial-era power dynamics and Eurocentric perspectives.
These examples illustrate the structural challenges facing the United Nations and underscore the need for ongoing reform efforts to address issues of power imbalances, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and historical injustices.
In democracies, the principle of majority rule is often regarded as a cornerstone of governance, yet it can conceal underlying injustices when wielded unchecked. The notion of the “tyranny of the majority” emerges when the interests and preferences of the majority overpower and marginalize those of the minority, resulting in systemic oppression and discrimination. This imbalance challenges democracy’s professed commitment to equality and inclusivity, revealing the fragility of individual rights and freedoms in the face of majority dominance.
One poignant example of the tyranny of the majority can be observed in the history of civil rights struggles. In the United States, for instance, the era of Jim Crow laws epitomized the exploitation of democratic processes to enforce racial segregation and disenfranchise African Americans. Despite being a minority population, African Americans faced institutionalized discrimination sanctioned by the majority through legislation and societal norms. The suppression of minority voting rights and the imposition of racially discriminatory policies illustrate how democratic structures can perpetuate injustice when wielded to serve the interests of the dominant group.
Similarly, LGBTQ+ rights have been a battleground where the tyranny of the majority has manifested in democratic societies. In many countries, the majority has historically wielded its influence to deny basic rights and protections to LGBTQ+ individuals, often citing popular sentiment or religious beliefs to justify discriminatory laws and policies. For example, laws criminalizing same-sex relationships or denying marriage equality have persisted in democratic nations, reflecting the enduring influence of majority prejudice and bias.
Furthermore, the plight of indigenous peoples serves as a stark reminder of how democratic systems can fail to protect minority rights. Across the globe, indigenous communities have faced dispossession of their lands, cultural erasure, and marginalization at the hands of majority-dominated governments. Despite international recognition of indigenous rights, democratic governments have often prioritized economic interests or development projects over the rights and sovereignty of indigenous peoples, perpetuating cycles of injustice and inequality.
Here are a few examples on the plight of indigenous peoples across different countries:
Australia: In Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have endured centuries of dispossession, discrimination, and cultural suppression. The forced removal of Indigenous children from their families under government assimilation policies, known as the Stolen Generations, is a dark chapter in Australian history. Despite legal recognition of Indigenous land rights and the establishment of native title legislation, Indigenous communities continue to face challenges in reclaiming and protecting their traditional lands from development projects and resource extraction.
New Zealand: The Treaty of Waitangi, signed between the British Crown and Māori chiefs in 1840, promised to protect Māori rights to land and resources. However, subsequent land confiscations, breaches of the treaty, and cultural assimilation policies have marginalized Māori communities and eroded their sovereignty. Despite efforts to address historical grievances through treaty settlements and the establishment of Māori representation in parliament, disparities in health, education, and socioeconomic outcomes persist.
USA: Indigenous peoples in the United States, including Native American tribes and Alaska Natives, have faced similar challenges to their land, sovereignty, and cultural identity. The legacy of forced removal, broken treaties, and government assimilation policies, such as the Indian Removal Act and the Indian Boarding School system, has resulted in intergenerational trauma and loss of traditional lands. Despite legal recognition of tribal sovereignty and self-determination rights, Indigenous communities continue to grapple with issues such as poverty, inadequate healthcare, and environmental degradation on tribal lands.
Canada: Indigenous peoples in Canada, including First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities, have endured a legacy of colonialism, dispossession, and systemic discrimination. The Indian Act, enacted in 1876, imposed paternalistic policies aimed at assimilating Indigenous peoples into Euro-Canadian society and restricting their rights to land, culture, and self-governance. Despite efforts to reconcile with Indigenous peoples through initiatives such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and land claim settlements, disparities in education, healthcare, and social services persist.
China: In China, ethnic minority groups, including Tibetans, Uighurs, and Mongolians, have faced state-sponsored assimilation policies and cultural suppression. The Chinese government’s control over autonomous regions such as Tibet and Xinjiang has led to allegations of human rights abuses, including forced labor, mass surveillance, and religious persecution. Despite constitutional guarantees of autonomy and cultural rights for ethnic minorities, the Chinese Communist Party’s prioritization of political stability and economic development has marginalized indigenous communities and eroded their cultural identity.
England: In England, the historical colonization of indigenous peoples in territories such as Australia, New Zealand, and North America exemplifies the tyranny of the majority’s oppression. British colonial policies, including land seizures, forced resettlement, and cultural assimilation, resulted in the dispossession and marginalization of indigenous communities worldwide. Despite decolonization efforts and acknowledgment of historical injustices, the legacy of British imperialism continues to impact indigenous peoples’ lives and rights.
Ireland: The history of British colonization and the Anglo-Irish conflict in Ireland highlight the plight of indigenous peoples facing oppression from a dominant majority. Centuries of British rule, including land confiscations, religious discrimination, and cultural suppression, led to the marginalization and disenfranchisement of the Irish population. Despite Ireland’s independence, sectarian tensions and discrimination against Irish Travellers and other marginalized groups persist, highlighting ongoing challenges in achieving equality and justice for indigenous peoples.
India: India’s diverse indigenous communities, often referred to as Scheduled Tribes or Adivasis, have faced marginalization and displacement due to development projects, resource extraction, and land conflicts. Government policies aimed at economic growth and modernization have often disregarded indigenous land rights and cultural traditions, leading to conflicts over land ownership and environmental degradation. Despite legal protections and affirmative action measures, indigenous communities continue to face challenges in asserting their rights and preserving their cultural heritage.
Europe: Indigenous peoples in Europe, including the Sami in Scandinavia and the Basques in Spain, have struggled to maintain their cultural identity and land rights in the face of majority dominance. Historical assimilation policies, such as forced relocation and cultural suppression, have threatened the survival of indigenous languages, traditions, and ways of life. Despite international recognition of indigenous rights and efforts to promote cultural diversity, challenges persist in achieving full recognition and respect for indigenous peoples’ rights within European societies.
Even in contemporary democratic societies, the tyranny of the majority continues to manifest in various forms, from restrictive immigration policies that target minority groups to discriminatory practices in housing, employment, and education. These examples underscore the urgent need for mechanisms to safeguard minority rights and ensure that democratic processes are truly inclusive and equitable for all members of society. Without such safeguards, democracy risks becoming a tool for oppression rather than a vehicle for justice and progress.
True governance should transcend the whims of the majority and embrace the collective will of all citizens. The essence of democracy lies not in the rule of the majority, but in the protection of minority rights and the representation of diverse interests. Moreover, the intrusion of business interests into the political sphere further distorts this ideal, turning governance into a transactional affair driven by profit motives rather than public welfare.
True governance should indeed transcend the fleeting preferences of the majority and instead uphold the rights and interests of all citizens, including minority groups.
In Australia, for instance, embracing true governance would entail honoring the land rights and cultural heritage of Indigenous peoples, ensuring their voices are heard and respected in decision-making processes related to land use and resource management. This could involve establishing mechanisms for meaningful consultation and collaboration between Indigenous communities and government agencies, as well as implementing policies that prioritize Indigenous self-determination and sustainable development.
Similarly, in New Zealand, true governance would involve upholding the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and actively addressing historical injustices and disparities faced by Māori communities. This could include implementing equitable policies in areas such as education, healthcare, and economic development, as well as providing adequate resources and support for Māori-led initiatives aimed at revitalizing language and culture. Additionally, fostering genuine partnerships between the government and Māori authorities could help ensure that decisions affecting Māori interests are made collaboratively and with mutual respect.
In the United States, true governance would require a commitment to dismantling systemic racism and addressing the legacies of colonialism and oppression faced by Indigenous peoples and other marginalized communities. This could involve implementing reforms to promote racial equity in areas such as criminal justice, housing, and healthcare, as well as supporting initiatives to empower Indigenous nations and promote cultural revitalization. Furthermore, reducing the influence of corporate interests in politics and promoting transparency and accountability in government decision-making processes would be essential to ensuring that governance serves the public interest rather than corporate profit.
In Canada, true governance would involve honoring the spirit and intent of treaties and reconciliation agreements with Indigenous peoples, as well as implementing concrete measures to address ongoing injustices and inequalities. This could include providing adequate funding and resources for Indigenous-led initiatives in areas such as education, healthcare, and economic development, as well as supporting efforts to restore Indigenous land rights and promote self-governance. Additionally, fostering a culture of respect for Indigenous knowledge and perspectives within government institutions and society at large would be crucial to building trust and fostering meaningful dialogue and collaboration.
In China, true governance would entail respecting the rights and autonomy of ethnic minority groups, including Tibetans, Uighurs, and Mongolians, and addressing systemic discrimination and human rights abuses. This could involve repealing repressive policies such as mass surveillance and forced assimilation, as well as promoting dialogue and negotiation to address grievances and resolve conflicts peacefully. Additionally, promoting cultural diversity and inclusivity within Chinese society and institutions would be essential to fostering social harmony and stability.
In England, Ireland, India, and Europe, true governance would involve acknowledging and addressing historical injustices and inequalities faced by indigenous peoples and marginalized communities, as well as promoting inclusive policies and practices that respect diversity and protect human rights. This could include implementing affirmative action measures to promote equal opportunities and representation for minority groups, as well as investing in programs and initiatives aimed at addressing poverty, discrimination, and social exclusion. Furthermore, fostering a culture of accountability and transparency in government institutions and promoting civic engagement and participation would be essential to ensuring that governance serves the interests of all citizens and promotes the common good.
In the upcoming chapters, we delve into practical strategies for achieving a governance model that truly reflects the collective will of all citizens, both within individual countries and on a global scale. Central to this vision is the concept of “Peopleize,” which advocates for the active participation of each person in decision-making processes, fostering inclusivity, equity, and accountability. By prioritizing the voices and needs of everyday people over the influence of special interests, such as corporate lobbyists, we can shift the focus of governance towards policies that prioritize the well-being of all individuals and promote a more sustainable, equal, and safe community for every person.
At the National Level:
Citizen Assemblies: Implementing citizen assemblies or deliberative democracy mechanisms allows for diverse voices to be heard in policymaking. Randomly selected citizens represent the population and deliberate on issues, ensuring a more inclusive and representative decision-making process.
Decentralized Governance: Devolving power to local communities empowers individuals to participate directly in decisions that affect their lives. By decentralizing governance structures, we enable grassroots initiatives and localized solutions that are responsive to the unique needs and contexts of different regions.
Transparency and Accountability: Strengthening transparency measures and accountability mechanisms within government institutions enhances public trust and fosters greater citizen engagement. Open access to information, robust oversight mechanisms, and measures to prevent corruption are essential for ensuring that government actions align with the interests of the people.
At the Global Level:
International Cooperation: Emphasizing collaboration and cooperation among nations is crucial for addressing global challenges such as climate change, poverty, and public health crises. Multilateral agreements and frameworks facilitate joint action and solidarity across borders, amplifying the collective impact of individual countries.
Global Citizens’ Assembly: Establishing a global citizens’ assembly or forum provides a platform for people from around the world to participate in shaping international policies and agendas. By ensuring diverse representation and inclusivity, such a forum can promote global solidarity and address shared challenges through collective action.
Democratic Reform of International Institutions: Reforming international institutions, such as the United Nations and World Bank, to be more democratic and accountable to the people they serve is essential. This includes enhancing the representation of marginalized groups, increasing transparency in decision-making processes, and reducing the influence of powerful nations and corporate interests.
By embracing the principles of PEOPLEIZE and prioritizing the participation of every person, we can create governance structures that truly serve the common good. Removing the undue influence of business interests and prioritizing collaboration over partisan politics paves the way for a more just, equitable, and sustainable world for present and future generations.
