The Prime Directive & World Government

by Bruce Lyon (January 2000)

 

One of the key components of the integral vision is something called the 'prime directive'. This represents the guiding principle and ultimately ' the bottom line' in the sense of 'what really matters'.

The prime directive is often identified as the 'good of the whole'. The traditional problem with the 'good of the whole' however is that there is real difficulty in agreeing about what we mean by 'good' and 'whole', not to mention 'of' and 'the'. This is where the integral vision is most useful.

Much political debate and ideology can be understood by looking closely at the integration of the quadrants (refer to Integral Vision article, and repeated here):

 

In New Zealand politics the division is most clearly between left and right. Labour represents the values of the collective while National represents the values of the individual. There are also the north/south divisions in the parties between those who favour the 'inner' quadrant (therefore emphasising the need to change consciousness through education) and those who favour the 'outer' quadrant (therefore emphasising the need to change behaviour through law and order).

In American politics, Ken Wilber sees the division more between inner and outer with the liberals taking the view that humans (as consciousness) are basically 'good' and need to be given equal opportunity to develop and the conservatives see human behaviour (form)as basically 'bad', needing to be disciplined under law for the common good. One irony here is that liberals often end up passing the most laws!

A healthy integration of all four quadrants is obviously required for good government. That requires of course, that individuals and political parties see this integration as being of greater value than their quadrant or hemispheric view. In NZ we have the opportunity to see whether this integration can occurr under the MMP system.

Another integration problem occurs with different levels. For example,

1. when my identity is primarily centred in the body, my physical survival and development (and collectively, the survival of my family or tribe) are seen as the most important thing (the prime directive). I may rationalise my behaviour ie change my beliefs to support my actions.
2. When identity is primarily centred in the emotions, my feelings and those of my emotional 'family' are the most important thing. My behaviour is motivated by my feelings and I will often sacrifice my physical well-being for those I am emotionally attached to. I seek emotional peace and I am often torn between my beliefs and my actions.
3. When identity is primarily centred in the mind then my prime directive is the accummulation of knowledge and the promulgation and defense of my beliefs. I will often sacrifice both my physical and emotional wellbeing for the sake of my ideas and may even supress or deny my physical and emotional states in order to maintain my beliefs about myself.
4. When my identity is somewhat freed from my own ego concerns and my ideologies, the prime directive begins to be about the good of the whole.

At this stage the integral vision is beginning to become a possibility. The 'whole' is an all-level ( which should include those above as well as below ), all quadrant affair and the 'good' is determined by consultation with all the parts of that whole.

The prime directive is crucial is considering the area of leadership and politics. History, and in particular the last century has shown a development around the globe from governance by hereditary right or military might to governance by democratically elected representatives. This has released us from the overt tyranny of the few but because hierarchical (holarchical) development is a fact of conciousness rather than a systemic construct, the dominance often just takes other forms e.g. economic). We may be all equal in essence but the unfoldment of that essence occurs in both horizontally and vertically diverse ways.

One downside of the democratic process is that it can tend to dilute into popular wisdom. If the majority of a society are egocentric then they are going to vote for the 'chicken in every pot' type of politician or a movie star or someone whose ideology is close to theirs. As a result we often get egocentric politicians who have learned to please different sections of the public (it often takes a major crisis to bring the Ghandi's and Mandela's to the fore). Governance has largely fallen into disrepute as a result. At a time when we need it most.

Imagine, going back to Einstein for a minute, if scientific thoeries were put to the popular vote. E =mc squared for example. Lobby groups could form. Business interests might want the nature of space/time to be less fluid. Black holes could be outlawed because they scare people and they are probably racist. And let's not be so absolute here about the speed of light, ok?

We accept these theories, not because we understand them but because we trust that there are a community of peers who will verify them by doing the math. Most of us, that is - Stephen Hawking, in the Time article mentioned that he gets three or four letters a week explaining why the theory of relativity is wrong.

In politics, however, maths are not required to discern truth. Everyone can have an opinion and anyway aren't all opinions relative? If we accept the ideas of Integral Vision, however, we see that there are developmental processes underway, and that all opinions are not created equal. We may wish to ensure that all opinions are heard, yet we will not agree that all opinions should have equal value in fostering "the good of the whole".

Perhaps there are such things as formulas for good leadership. What has happened to the art and science of governance? Our trust in politicians, particularly in the western democracies is low. We don't trust them with their expense accounts let alone the books of the country, to say nothing of creating and holding our collective vision.

A positive result has been a reclaiming of personal power and a grass roots revival as people take back their naïve projections from the political system. At the same time that 'quantity of power' is being spread however, there has never been a greater need for the concentration of 'quality of power'.

 

Multinational trade, the internet, the ecological crisis and globalisation in general have made the issue of international law and an efficient body to implement it, critical.

One of the key things that prevents a healthy move towards world governance is the great and understandable fear in nations and individuals alike of the consequences of the willing surrender of some of their powers of self rule to a higher authority. The result of this fear, however is that we may end up with a far-from-benign world governance, by default.

Hierarchy, remember is a fact, not a construct. There are certainly smarter people out there with greater skills and capabilities allowing them to amass resources and influence. The critical question is "What is the prime directive that motivates them?"

Only a prime directive that has it's roots in an integral vision is going to promote health for the whole system. And this requires that we find, elect, and give a mandate to those who are capable of holding such a vision and who have demonstrated their ability to carry it out in an international context. They must be able to generally cooperate with each other and be willing to consult and collaborate with people at all levels and in all quadrants.

The result might be a genuine brotherhood of nations, motivated by common cause, rather than a collective of nations motivated principally by self interest, expediency, and rudimentary security or survival needs.

The problems with the UN are well known. The need for reform and the difficulties involved probably make it's current form a transitional rather than a final system. Hand in hand with the development of a suitable form, the development of consciousness is also happening with a number of groups working on a global charter or bill of rights and responsibilities.

The consulting process is going to take time. My guess is that we are probably still a decade away from world government. We probably need all of that time to educate and upskill ourselves on issues of power and restore some trust in the governance process.

After all, somehow we are going to have to take collective responsibility for electing a group of representatives whose work will be no less than the creative cooperation with the evolutionary process operating through the form and consciousness of the entire planet.

 

For more on integral world government try this link http://www.integralworldgovernment.org