Unity is one thing that keeps a country going. We always clamour for peace and want peaceful coexistence among citizens. The simple reason is because without peace, there cannot be a country.
Being peaceful alone does not guarantee the growth of a country. A country needs good political and economical plans to survive and develop. There is no gainsaying in the fact that some countries are more 'developed' than the other.
If peaceful coexistence is the premise and development is the conclusion, is it not reasonable to think that a global government can end the apparent inequality in the world?
Most countries in Africa are underdeveloped (in progressive sense). This is partially due to the fact that these countries were earlier colonized. The colonial masters took all they got here to their countries to develop them (read Frantz Fanon: How Europe Underdeveloped Africa for more). It is true from my work (here) on development that no country is truly developed or underdeveloped (in static or degenerative sense). Every country is in the process of development. No country is static.
However, some countries are developing at a higher speed while others are crawling. This is responsible for the usage of the phrase 'more advanced countries' because some are more advanced than the other in terms of development.
It is a fact that a country like America is more advanced than Nigeria and this is why many people want to go there for a better life (this suggests their conditions here is very bad). This also explains why most of my people perish on the Mediterranean Sea on inflatable boat (rubber boat). Many have also died crossing the sahara desert by car in search for greener pastures. Sadly, this is coupled with the fact that African currencies are very inferior to their currencies (dollar, euro, pound).
From the aforementioned, it is obvious some countries are more advanced than the others. The question now is: can coming together to form a single government solve these inequalities? That is, can these countries come together and have a single head for the sole aim of developing other countries and solving their economic problems?
Do not forget that a similar 'marriage' once happened in Nigeria in 1914. This is called the Amalgamation of 1914 where the then Governor-General Frederick Lugard merged the Northern and Southern Nigeria together to form a single colony of Nigeria. It has been argued that this was done to help Northern protectorate who had a budget deficit with the budget surpluses of the Southern protectorate.
From that standpoint, economical factor was the reason behind that marriage. Some have however argued that the amalgamation is responsible for the problem we are facing now in Nigeria because there were no consultations before these two protectorates were merged together.
The argument here is what if the coming together of countries is done in a peaceful way without any bloodshed, would the world be better or bad?
It is also important to note that we still have racial bias, language barrier and cultural differences. How would the coming together be of benefit to the people? Remember also that it is for economical growth rather than political stability.
Your take on the topic would be appreciated.
