If Mayors Ruled the World
Reviewing Benjamin Barber’s “If Mayors Ruled the World”
In “If Mayors Ruled the World,” Benjamin Barber argues that the present-day nation-state has become obsolete in overcoming the increasingly complex and problematic hurdles that the world is currently facing (Derbyshire, 2013; Florida, 2012). Furthermore, that because citizens are more enthusiastic about participating in local government and because the municipal process is more spontaneous and less politically divisive, it is truly the mayors of local government who should be calling the shots when it comes to national and international issues such as terrorism, drugs, and poverty. Barber (2013) entertains the notion that nation-states have become too large for their own good—producing a government that is not only out of touch with the people that it represents, but a government that discourages citizens from participating in the political process. This work makes an extremely compelling argument for a bottom-up style of governing, citing numerous scholars and political actors along the way; however, Barber’s (2013) vision of a global coalition of mayors is quite utopic in nature, despite his claim to practicality and feasibility.
As he builds his case, Barber (2013) cites some of the world’s most powerful mayors for reference. This includes Michael Bloomberg of New York, Boris Johnson of London, and Lee Kuan Yew and Tony Tan of Singapore. He notes that while these men are in control of some of the most densely populated and influential cities of the world, they manage to maintain public trust, cooperation, and are extremely effective in reaching the goals they set out to accomplish (Walters, 2013). According to Barber (2013), this is because mayors are inclined to collaboration and bipartisanship-- setting aside ethnic, religious, and racial differences to directly improve the lives of the people they govern. Mayors, unlike federal or state officials, are forced to face the real life problems of their constituents head on; hence, increasing the power of mayors and creating a “cosmopolis,” or a body of mayors to manage national and international issues, would largely eliminate national sovereignty and gridlock within and between countries.
Evaluating Barber’s Argument
While his dream of cosmopolis seems utopic in nature, Barber (2013) works hard to ensure his readers that it is more than just a pipe dream. He presents a rather concrete, but informal path to which this cosmopolis may be formed, starting with city officials convincing higher ups to look the other way as local leaders arrange an informal coalition (Roberts, 2013). From there, the coalition would gradually take on more and more responsibilities and power. To Barber (2013), the unique atmosphere of cooperation and inclusion that is currently present between the mayor and his or her constituents would be translated between the mayors of the cosmopolis. In considering human behavior and self-preservation, however, this assumption might be a bit naïve.
As Friesen (2014) points out, cities and local governments are far from uniform—varying in size, influence and wealth. What exactly would stop mayors from larger and wealthier cities like Beijing or Moscow from using their global influence to politically dominate over smaller cities such as Little Rock or Fresno? On a global scale, it is unlikely that Barber’s (2013) cosmopolis would remain fair and impartial towards all mayors who participate. Additionally, alliances would likely form between cities that seek out to solve the same problems, resulting in factions. Further, when dealing with certain issues such as pollution and climate change, where the rectification of these issues may result in the loss of jobs and productivity in largely industrial cities, there is nothing preventing more powerful mayors of these cities from strong-arming the weak. This could ultimately prevent the less influential mayors in the cosmopolis from moving forward on the issues that impact the daily lives of their constituents.
In addition to assuming that the cosmopolis would remain a level playing field and that factions wouldn’t form within the coalition, Barber (2013) forgets just how self-serving, disinterested, and even corrupt mayors can be. Take Kwame Kilpatrick and Yury Luzhkov, the mayors of Detroit and Moscow, for example (Anderson, 2015; Chance, 2010). After Kilpatrick took office in 2002, he not only used his political influence to extort and embezzle money from the city, but he also received over $500,000 in bribes from local businessmen. In Moscow, Luzhkov was ousted as mayor for allowing a long chain of corruption to exist in exchange for political favors. Mayors like Kwame Kilpatrick and Yury Luzhkov, of course, are a dime a dozen; however, the underlying point is that many mayors, like state and federal politicians, are out for self-interest or that seek to protect the elite and widen the gap between rich and poor (Friesen, 2014). When a global cosmopolis is formed in which self-serving city officials are allowed to participate, it is unlikely that Barber’s (2013) utopic cosmopolis would function as efficiently as he lets on.
Generally speaking, Barber (2013) presents a clear and persuasive argument for why cities should have more power than they presently have. After all, city and local officials are closest to the chronic and persistent issues that affect their constituents on a daily basis. As he points out, cities are at the forefront of climate change, economic inequality, terrorism, and other global concerns. But even so, it isn’t logical or practical to suggest that a rather massive body of mayors would be able to address these issues in an effective manner. Barber (2013) assumes that when thousands of mayors from around the world gather together, that they would behave differently than the congresses, unions, and parliaments of the world currently behave. But considering that they are likely to harbor their own interests and concerns, these mayors would likely act out of the interest of their cities or themselves, and not what would benefit the world as a whole.
The Real World Implications for Barber’s Work
Though how successful and efficient Barber’s (2013) cosmopolis would be is yet to be determined, there is no other scholar or politician to date that has presented such a detailed guide to solving the world’s most pressing problems. If policy makers, specifically local officials, took Barber’s (2013) ideas into consideration and began to form an informal coalition, people from all over the world would likely begin to see the top-down formation of the world order deteriorate and a new horizontal global government would emerge (Roberts, 2013). The borders that once defined nation-states would be broken down and a system of glocalism and interdependence would interlock millions of cities across the globe. The question is whether higher up state and federal officials should let this happen and whether the secondary consequences of doing so would be bearable.
In light of Barber’s (2013) findings, present policy makers should tread lightly. On one hand, allowing cities to corroborate amongst themselves can be useful in addressing the global economic, environmental, and political issues that nation-states cannot (Ehrenhalt, 2014). Even so, going as far as letting thousands of mayors from around the world to form a loose coalition with no overarching regulating body is a bit extreme. Cities, though alike in many ways, have varying interests that aren’t necessarily compatible. For example, an industrious city such as Beijing isn’t going to address terrorism with as much concern than say Beirut or Jerusalem. Furthermore, policy makers should consider that it is unlikely that pragmatic and levelheaded mentality that many mayors hold would transfer as the cosmopolis is formed, giving an opportunity for special interest groups to creep in.
In evaluating Barber’s (2013) work, “If Mayors Ruled the World” is an innovative how-to guide to eliminate the economic and political gridlock that is currently plaguing the world. The author makes a solid argument as to how cities are already leading the charge in relieving this gridlock and why they should be given additional powers to continue doing so. With that being said, Barber’s (2013) dream for a fully functioning cosmopolis of mayors is unrealistic and impractical. Because mayors and city officials are the branch of government closest to the people, the political and economic fall-out from the inefficiency of the cosmopolis could prove catastrophic. As such, state and federal policy makers should be eager to grant additional powers and responsibilities to city officials while reserving control over any coalition that may be formed between mayors.
