In the modern world, people have to deal with a host of issues, including government.

In the modern world, people have to deal with a host of issues, including government. There is a widely held belief that it is better to have a centralized government for the whole world than a national government for every each nation. While this trend brings about some benefits, I think the drawbacks eclipse them. On the one hand, the main positive aspect of one global government is related to unity. In other words, if all countries throughout the world have one authority, people can achieve an agreement on the same laws, languages, culture, and religion. As a result, numerous conflicts among various countries can be tacked. To illustrate, Israelis have had a deep conflict with Palestinians due to differences in government and religion, so this matter can be easily resolved if two countries share one government. However, this strength may be hard to implement because some countries cannot succumb to the opponent to get one general authority. On the other hand, I believe that the above advantage is at the expense of a more significant harmful effect. . This is because one government worldwide without strong leadership can be passive and hesitant to initiate economic growth. In contrast, while cooperation and competition among each national government are two necessary elements for developing business and trade. For example, Singapore separated from Malaysia to become an independent country in 1965. Thanks to the excellent central government, Singapore's economy has outraced and overtaken Malaysia to be one of four Asian tigers. In conclusion, although the world has only one government that may create unity, this usually fails to implement and bring about unhealthy economic competition and growth. Therefore, I firmly believe that the limited benefits of the trend can hardly compensate for the adverse effects.