When Aristotle coined the term "democracy" over two thousand years ago, he defined it as majority (or "mob") rule to be avoided. He advocated government by an aristocracy of philosopher/kings. In reality, the Greek city-states were oligarchies controlled by a small elite of wealthy merchants.

While the ideal of human equality has been espoused by various world religions over the past two millennia, the idea that all people should and could be involved in influencing the political decisions that determine the allocation of societies' resources and values began to take hold in the 18th Century. Since then, countless individuals, groups, and movements have worked to pursue the ideal of cooperative government "by the people" to replace the centralized hierarchies of the nation-state.

Democracies could give countries - with their diverse citizens – a method for cooperatively addressing many of their national problems. Could a similar sort of global democracy give the planet - with its diverse cultures - a method for cooperatively addressing many of our world's problems?

The United Nations, recognizing the realities of global power, gave its Security Council the final say in most decisions but, at the same time, formed the General Assembly to give each country, no matter how small, a chance to share its desires and concerns on issues of world importance, to have its voice heard, and to have a voting input to the collective resolutions of the General Assembly. Even though these resolutions are not binding on the Security Council, and thus on eventual action, they do carry moral authority. They help shape the debate, focus attention, and place moral limits on acceptable behavior. Global-wide censure is a powerful tool.

However, the General Assembly represents countries, not people. Perhaps a “World Assembly” could be formulated to represent individuals in a manner similar to the General Assembly’s representation of countries? As with the General Assembly, such a World Assembly would discuss and vote on issues of global concern. When World Assembly resolutions clearly represented a majority, they would carry moral authority. Even lacking global consensus, such resolutions would help convey the true diversity of world opinion. World Assembly resolutions would not, of course, be binding on any governmental or international body. The World Assembly would, however, give a voice to the people of the planet, give everyone a chance—should they desire—to express their views, to discuss issues, and to vote on non-binding but potentially morally persuasive resolutions.

But how can six billion people discuss global issues and vote on resolutions? The answer: Internet technology that allows planet-wide representation. Those without access to the Internet can give their vote, their “proxy,” to those they trust who do have such access. Issues can be raised, discussed, and voted on over the Internet. And, thanks to the Internet, World Assembly Representatives attending an annual in-person convention could campaign to represent others unable to attend. These Internet campaigns would not be just regional campaigns based on national or cultural issues, but global campaigns based on global issues, bringing together like-minded people from around the planet regardless of their nationality or culture.

Even with the Internet and representative democracy, reaching out to and organizing six billion people—most of whom do not have access to the Internet—is a seemingly impossible task. Yet if we don’t start somewhere, begin taking action now, we’ll never achieve this global democratic vision. The Student World Assembly, a readily achievable step, will get us well down the road to a full World Assembly that represents all of humanity.