The world should have only one government rather than a national government for each country.Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?

It is undeniable that the quality of the

government

determines the development of the country. Whereas some people advocate the idea of an international

government

, I argue that it is more beneficial for countries to have their own

government

. Advocates of an international

authority

concur that it will result in a boost in productivity and efficiency.

For example

, China and the US. Having a central

government

allows China to swiftly carry out its vaccination campaigns, without any impediments. While in the case of the United States, state affairs are left in the hand of its own

government

, many state governors opposed vaccination and jeopardised the nation’s vaccination efforts.

Therefore

, looking at it at an international level, if there is an international

authority

that could mandate every country to get its people vaccinated, the pandemic would be over by now.

However

, I argue that the idea of an international

authority

is luring but not feasible as it is unlikely to cater to the needs of everyone. Because there are hundreds of countries around the world, each of them has its own unique culture and diverse needs, it is almost impossible to address everyone’s needs. Ultimately, the needs of the minorities will be neglected.

However

, when each country has their own

government

, local governments can concentrate on improving the wellbeing of the locals, which is much more specific and feasible than accommodating the needs of the global population. In conclusion,

although

the concept of an intentional

authority

is enticing and it does provide merits like a hike in productivity in dealing with a crisis, I argue that

such

a

government

system would cause many people’s well-being to be neglected and people would be better off with their local

government

.