It is a truly complicated period on a geopolitical level: an epochal transition towards the future world that almost imposes the dynamics of social networks even on political entities.
What is happening in Syria (and in other neighboring nations) has all the appearance of be a passage from a world of “nation states” to a world of “stateless nations”. It is not the only indication of a change: other unknown factors that determine citizenship or belonging to a territory are changing. In Estonia, for example, the first project has already been launched E-Residency, a program that attributes to whoever requests it the “electronic residence”. It can be requested online and allows access to a series of online services: it is possible to open a bank account, or start a new commercial company even without physically residing in Estonia.
Likewise the emergence of virtual currencies (like Bitcoin) begins to undermine the monopoly of the states on the issuance of money, and new forms of technology for the transfer of sums in these new cryptocurrencies will increasingly challenge the traditional fields of competence of governments. Stateless nations, stateless peoples, more and more.
It is a very clear consequence of the advent of the internet, which has already greatly expanded the boundaries of our "friendships" and our activities. We can easily make friends with people on the other side of the world who share our interests, and buy or sell almost anything thing all over the world. On platforms like F o Fiverr we can offer low-cost business services, and receive payment directly, without going to a bank or post office.
It is clear that institutions such as "Modern" States, born in fact in 1600, must prepare after almost 500 years to give up the word "modern" and with it give way to inevitable adaptations that are not foreseen limited.
The “Nation State” will not last forever. It is the result of a specific historical phase, it was conceived for a certain type of society, and for a certain type of economy that are unlikely to last long: even the Roman and Egyptian Empires were founded to challenge the centuries and to last forever, but inevitably have been replaced under the blows of economic and social changes. And Feudalism? And the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, which by rejecting English domination constituted the birth of what we today call the "democratic West"? What, HOW MUCH, has become of all this?
Does history, I ask, stop here or will it continue into the 21st century with another leap forward, another Magna Carta, another Declaration of Independence, something new and different?
Many believe that the best way to adapt to a globalized world is to globalize the concept of the state, or as some in the USA claim, "globalize democracy". This could be a serious mistake. The problems brought by Feudalism, and then by England's attempted control of the American colonies, were not administrative, military, or logistical. It was a MORAL problem. What he has de facto defined as a state until now there has been a "monopoly" on people's activities and their participation within a specific geographical area. Simply trying to build a bigger enclosure, as big as the entire world if the world globalizes, is applying an almost 500 year old strategy without understanding the pattern and changes taking place.
The Internet takes us to a completely different goal: un non-territorial world, interconnected and polycentric, with voluntary participation. These are no longer physical places supported by taxes paid by those who reside there, but systems that can be entered and exited at any time, regardless of one's physical location. A system in which stateless nations compete with each other, offering possible "citizens" the best justice, equality and democracy they have. Instead of different “parties” and factions fighting each other for lead a central state, a world of people with different points of view who can enter into a community of intent, or leave it, according to their own purposes. A future in which people are called to participate directly in the construction of their own world, and quickly verify the goodness or ineffectiveness of their ideas.
The right to call yourself out: not in my name
It sounds a bit radical, but such a change will require the introduction of new tools, and perhaps that new “Magna Carta” expected of the 21st century will simply be the recognized right to "exit" a State in full freedom. We exercise this right in a small way every time we choose to unsubscribe from a service, an information bulletin, an association. It could be crucial to extend this possibility. If the "right to leave" doesn't seem crucial to you, think about the American Constitution. On the risks it entails. Or on the Italian one, and how it has been misrepresented and mortified.
In the first case, the Constitution created a government with limited powers, circumscribed and summarized in the first 10 amendments otherwise known as the "Bill of Rights". Over the course of about 200 years this Constitution has produced the largest and most sprawling government system in human history, with the military more armed and in debt of the order of 19 000 000 000 000 000 000 dollars. Nineteen trillion dollars.
I don't think it went as planned.
In Italy? The much more recent Constitution aimed to guarantee free political representation, the right to work and other fundamental principles, but all or almost all of its statements have been compromised by people who do not see beyond their noses and by power groups .
The frustration of the peoples of the world appears even more marked when realize that entire systems of debt, which over time tends to cut off basic rights to health, education and work, are governed by economies based on the production of weapons and financial speculation. How many wars have been waged in the name of the citizens of the world? How many with their consent, how many without? The right to opt out of these systems is a concrete possibility to protect future generations from real tyrannies which, behind a "democratic" facade, end up enslaving their people, closing them in a territorial or economic "fence". One of the new human rights to be enshrined must and must be that of being part or not being part, by choice, of a political system in which one recognizes oneself or one does not recognize oneself. This freedom will be able to create a "free competition" of stateless nations, which compete with each other in offering more democracy to the citizens they want to reach.
It will be very difficult, but not impossible
The advent of these changes, the signs of which we are already observing today, will produce inevitable and strong resistance (the battles that private transport groups are fighting today to avoid the growth of companies like Uber). Let's go back for a moment to the "Syrian facts": the 'war on terrorism' that began in the 90s with the first Gulf War, this search for a "common enemy" is the typical method used by societies that feel their dissolution is close: it is the attempt to unite people in the name of a "greater goal", or a "greater good". Many people could counteract the fear of change by becoming even more attached to “traditional” nations, for emotional, cultural or practical reasons. The point is not to prevent them to do it. The point is to allow them, by law, to leave these systems whenever they want, to contribute to different communities and parallel, non-territorial jurisdictions.
This is the biggest challenge facing the new generation of Millennials to completely change the face of this world and hopefully build a better one.
