One government should rule the whole world instead of local governments. This assay will argue that the drawbacks outweigh the advantages. The essay will first demonstrate the difficulty to monitor all institutions in the whole world and the increased likelihood of committing crimes as the biggest disadvantages, followed by an analysis of the primary advantage, namely the consistency of the whole world population, is not valid.
The main reason why having a one government in the whole world is difficult to achieve is the inability of one institution to regulate the whole world. Every country has its own culture, laws, traditions and politics that are not similar to any other area. For instance, to enable processing complex tasks, many ministries should be established in each country, each ministry is specialized in specific area such as the ministry of health, the ministry of education and the ministry of law. Moreover, being regulated by a far-distance government would increase the likelihood of committing crimes. In other words, this government will not be able to punish every criminal in the whole world, which makes this easy for them to escape punishment. For example, it is known that the number of killing crimes has been increased significantly in the remote areas because they are far away from the police centre.
Those opposed to this say that it will lead to a stronger society as they follow the same rules. However, this might be difficult to achieve due to the variability of the people around the world. Each group has its own religion, culture and laws. This is the reason why that each country has its own government. For example, Although Arabs have the same origin; there are around twenty two countries and each one is different from the other.
In conclusion, the whole world union could be advantageous for the whole world. However, it is hard for one government to control the world and the percentage of committing crimes would be increased which make this is hard to achieve.