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

It is argued that having the sole administration to govern all countries should be more beneficial than possessing distinct management for each nation.

Although

establishing a global government provides a better and unrestricted movement among states, I believe that diverse polities should be maintained to protect cultural identity;

therefore

, the benefits of owning an independent government for every commonwealth surpass its drawbacks. If the sole administration manages all countries, open borders would be allowed among whole nations.

In other words

, travelling to a different state would be more convenient with no requirement for VISA and customs.

For example

, Bhutan, India, and Nepal share open borders with each other;

consequently

, their citizens visit these territories independently without additional tariffs.

However

, I consider that having open boundaries should not be considered a great advantage because immigrants should still pass through smooth control for security. The drawback of supporting the presence of alone polity is damaging

a

Correct article usage

the

show examples

cultural identity of a commonwealth.

This

is to say that every country is administered in a distinct particular way, but generalizing these methods for all states would be contradictory.

For instance

, Thais and Saudis accept being managed by their kings,

in contrast

; the majority of other commonwealths are governed by presidents.

Hence

, I believe that every nation should have discrete administration, responsible for its different traditions and rules. In conclusion, establishing a single polity can alleviate the conditions and terms to travel to other communities;

nonetheless

, the downsides of losing cultural identity far outweigh the upsides.