The United Nations (UN) was established shortly after the Second World War in 1945 by the major victorious powers in that war, namely: USA, USSR (now Russia), UK, France and China. They became the sole members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and later the only permanent members and veto-wielding powers in the Council!

It was obviously expected that these five major powers would mould themselves into a monolith of sorts that would run the UN with single-mindedness and firmness, to prevent another major war on planet earth. But the arrangement was not to endure largely because the spectre of concentration of power in this “monarchical” construct, this fivesome, was rather too frightening to ignore, to say nothing about the mutual distrust amongst the big-five.

Thus, in 1965, the UNSC was enlarged to include ten non-permanent members, to be elected periodically by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Hence the “monarchical construct” became aristocratic in virtually the same manner many nations transited from monarchies to aristocracies in their governance evolution. But nations did not stop their quest for advancement at the portals of aristocratic splendour.

Many have since become democracies! New developments and attitudes dictate that the UN should also take this democratic route. Indeed, each big power now seems to prefer playing the leadership role within a coalescing group of nations under the UN banner. This smacks of incipient democracy!

As already hinted, the UN is said to have been principally created to help prevent another major conflict in the world. But to do that it must have the capacity to restrain even the major powers, because it is the involvement of major powers in a face-off that makes major global conflict possible. Yet the big-five appropriated almost all conflict resolution powers of the UN and left the organisation virtually powerless! How then can the UN save them from themselves, let alone free mankind from constant bickering and warmongering?
Presently, two critical and pivotal wars – the Ukraine war and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – are ongoing, while the China-Taiwan imbroglio is simmering.

What has the UN been able to do to stem the tide in these troubled theatres? Virtually nothing to write home about! In Gaza, the UN is mainly playing the role of a glorified Red Cross Society; in Ukraine, the UN is an onlooker like most of us; and in Taiwan, mum is the word from the UN. When then will the UN begin to work to salvage our lot or act to save the world from a Third World War?

The problem is that the 1965 UN reform did not go far enough by merely adding the so-called ten non-permanent second-rate members to the Security Council. Hence the UNSC has continued to function as a kingly court where the failed monolithic conclave of the big-five exhibits contravening and often disruptive tendencies as a result of widening cleavages amongst them.

This produces frequent grandstanding, veto-ambushes and stalemates that prevent the resolution of many problems that afflict mankind. Indeed, this is the reason why the UN can hardly take a firm stand or position on any important matter; because one member of the big-five or another would always flash his veto-card to annul key resolutions of the Council.

The result is that the Security Council is increasingly becoming ineffective, irrelevant and, I dare say, an obstacle to progress. In contrast, a democratic UN, where all member-nations can vote on any issue, and which would emphasize the principle of majority rule, would characteristically eliminate this frequent grandstanding and give the world a breath-of-fresh-air.

The United Nations is failing! It is failing because of structural problems, the veto and the fact that it is not all-inclusive. The present structure of the organization marginalises the UNGA. And this stifles UN’s activity worldwide. If nothing is done to transform the UN, it will go down like the League of Nations, with thunderous consequences that will bring utter grief and regrets. For the UN to be effective, the big powers must act like members, not owners, of the UN. This will of course entail the democratization of the UN!

Second, the General Assembly should not remain an inferior legislature of the colonial type. It should become the engine-room where important decisions or policies are made, while a reformed UNSC could become its in-house committee on Security. This will give every nation a voice in the decision-making processes of the UN. What concerns all should be tackled by all (Ohazulume), which is a cardinal tenet of Igbo village democracy that promotes cohesion, peace and unity, unlike the monopolisation of power that signposts ultimate acrimony and disaster.

The real problem militating against democratic practice at the UN is the exaggerated attention given to the ‘possession of nuclear weapons’, which then promotes further development and acquisition of such weapons by nations. The other problem is the odd feeling that since democracy entails one-man-one-vote within nations, it would necessarily imply one-nation-one-vote at the international arena.

But large nation-states with bi-cameral legislatures prove that nations cannot have equal votes at the UN because nations, like subnational groups, are not equal in every respect. (Bi-cameral legislatures respectively allocate representative seats on the basis of Population for the House of Representatives and the ‘Equality of States’ principle for the Senate.)
The UN would be put on the threshold of maturity and success if an equitable format for power-sharing amongst its member-nations is adopted.
 
National power is a three-dimensional concept resting on the tripod of Population, the “Equality of States Principle” and Economic Power. Accordingly, we can use these three axioms to devise equitable representation of nations in the General Assembly, as detailed in two of my books; (1) Strategy for Political Stability (1988) and (2) The Centrist Manifesto (2022).

This should enable us to resolve our differences through the vote, rather than through fighting.

Uche Nwankwo can be reached via: uchennwankwo@gmail.com or +234(0)8118195950.