I don't think so, for primarily two reasons:

1. Non-democratic states like Russia, but especially China, seem to be taking a dominant position over democratic states. The time of US hegemony is over, and China seems to be gearing up to take its place. As the US weakens, Russia's leverage over the EU will increase. In the long run this will first lead (and already has) to a series of crises as Russia reincorporates former Soviet states. After that, relations will probably normalize but Russia will be the dominant player in EU-Russia relations.

2. Democracy isn't just under threat from external sources. In fact, the bigger threat in both the US and the EU comes from within in the form of corruption. Social engineering, misinformation, propaganda, etc. have all turned the tables on the δῆμος. I no longer consider the US, the EU and many nations within the EU to actually be democratic. The will of the people is no longer the leading thread in decisionmaking. The leading thread has become the agenda of the elite, and the people are to be manipulated and coerced into accepting it.

Francis Fukuyama and his idea of "End of History" was proven wrong ...even by himself.

I think we should be happy about having even the existing global decision making process we enjoy now. It might be the best we can get. Especially if peace among the great powers endures.

In fact, there are many arguments why huge empires or monopolies in power are bad for many reasons. So would be a singular global decision making process...and the idea that it would solve our problems. And let's not forget that local decision making, independence of communities etc. is the backbone of democracies.

I think we should be happy about having even the existing global decision making process we enjoy now. — ssu

You mean might is right, which is the real principle behind the current political state of the world? I don´t think that is a good basis for decision making at all, especially when the autocratic states become more and more economically powerful. Peace among the powers endures currently basically because NATO still dominates but cannot invade atomic powers. Everybody else can be bullied around.

Independence of communities and local decision making would still be guaranteed in a global democratic federation, just like it is now in the US. But not in a global tyranny employing techology to hold down democracy, and that is the scenario that I am most afraid of.

I think we currently live in relative freedom in the western world, because our societies are still more powerful (economically and military) than the non-free societies, but I am afraid of the day a non-free society becomes the most powerful on earth

Don't know if the global society will have democracy or any similar kind of it. But for sure there will be one government and no borders at all. It's inevitable for humanity to go to this direction. It's the only Logical and at some point humanity will get to that. That borders, countries, races and all these idiotic stereotypes, make no sense at all.

They will realize that one random fact, that you had nothing to do with it(to which place your mom and dad fucked as to determine your ethnicity-way of life) isn't accepted to define your whole life! Simply as that. It might take thousands and years more but humanity will get there for sure, one day in my opinion.
Will that society be better? Well I strongly doubt. And how much freedom, people of these days, will have. But it is an inevitable progress.

People believing in conspiracies love to talk for illuminati and their "secret dark" plans for making one global government. And I always remember myself wondering "wow if illuminati exist indeed well they then have a damn logical plan!".

I don’t think democracy will dominate. Simple reason - democracy is WEAK and SLOW! Imagine if a football team had to have a VOTE by every player before each play(attack). Also: democracy allows the majority (lower intelligence) decide things that the smartest people have to accept (even if high IQ people can see its flaws). The only way I would accept democracy is if there were an IQ requirement to vote!

You mean might is right, which is the real principle behind the current political state of the world? — TheArchitectOfTheGods

No. I simply mean that there hasn't been a great war between the great powers for a long time. That is one thing to be grateful of.

If there is a conflict between the US and China (or Russia or both), then we will surely miss this time now.

Independence of communities and local decision making would still be guaranteed in a global democratic federation, just like it is now in the US. — TheArchitectOfTheGods

The United State of the World.

hmmm... Don't we have already the UN?

The UN is a covenant between nations, to establish global agreement on topics of global interest, but they are not binding, countries can leave individual agreements any time. It doesn't delegate any real power to the global level, and therefore doesn't resolve the prisoner's dilemma, that in a game of many stakeholders, an individual choice might not yield the best potential global outcome compared with another choice that requires a higher level of trust and goodwill.

• Can the UN effectively curb climate change? -> no, it pays off for some countries not to participate
• Can the UN effectively prevent war -> no, only the relative power between nations, in combination with MAD, decides about war/no war. We live in a state of global anarchy, the UN covenant is simply a mitigation exercise.
• Can the UN stop species extinction and plastic and toxic pollution of the land and seas, ie. negative external effects of economic activity -> no, it pays off for some corrupt governments to not participate
• Can the UN effectively enforce even the lowest of global labour standards (no child labour, no more than 12 hour days, basic safety in work environments)? -> no, it pays off for some corrupt governments to undermine such standards
  
  I am looking at global governance mainly from an economic and game theory perspective, and the simple conclusion I am coming to is that there needs to be a global set of enforceable rules because
  a) else we forego the best economic outcome for the greatest number of people as well as the global environment
  b) in terms of conflict, no government meaning anarchy is just the law of the stronger, might is right, and we don't want to be ending up on the weaker side of that equation.
  
  We treat the right to self-governance of nations as a holy cow, and it is limiting our outlook on global democracy. Everybody can observe on the African continent, what fruits the right to self-governance has borne there so far. By what law does a tyrannical government derive a right to govern its people? Sheer violence, combined with fostering fear of external threat. Democracy is the only political form of government (=agreement on managing power), in which all men have equal rights to enjoy their Life and Liberty and pursue their own Happiness. I hope I am not alone in contending that this pursuit and enjoyment does not depend on IQ. We should cherish and nurture democracy, more than anything else, and therefore stand up against the global anarchy that has been ruling human history and is still ruling our globe at this time.

I am looking at global governance mainly from an economic and game theory perspective — TheArchitectOfTheGods

And that is a far too limited approach, because it totally ignores the important aspects that bind societies together and that make people feel part of them. Social cohesion, things that makes us feel as a group, a common language, national identity, culture and so on. The popularity of the sovereign nation states isn't just a coincidence, something that just by pure luck has happened. The bigger the state is, likely the more problems there are. Or then it has to be, by necessity, a loose federation.

We treat the right to self-governance of nations as a holy cow, and it is limiting our outlook on global democracy. — TheArchitectOfTheGods

Global democracy? What is global democracy? That the Chinese and the Indians decide what you will pay them? What is so wrong with independence? Have independent states cooperate. Some will make right decisions, some wrong ones.

I appreciate the points you raise. I would answer that identity is not exclusive to one geographical or even linguistic level. Would you say you are not a resident of planet earth? At the same time, you are a resident of your country, your state, your region, your city, your neighborhood. You identify with all of these, all these are identities, stacked on top of each other.

You know what you are not. You are not from the other neighbourhood, the other city, the other state, the other country. But we are all from earth.

In the interest of both peace and economic prosperity, I advertise a global level of identification with our planet earth, our unique home in the universe. No neighbors to compare ourselves to. This takes nothing away from regional and local levels of identification, languages and culture. That is why the olympics are such a powerful symbol of the togetherness of humans on this planet.

In the interest of both peace and economic prosperity, I advertise a global level of identification with our planet earth, our unique home in the universe. — TheArchitectOfTheGods

We are all humans living on this planet, yet it's not only that.

My wife is Mexican and I friends and in-laws in Mexico. I like them and trust them. They are nice, honest hardworking people. Yet I do not trust Mexican officials like I do Finnish officials. A Finnish policeman or government official won't ask you a bribe. A Mexican will. That trust, social cohesion found here is totally lacking there. In that state organized crime has grown as a cancer to all levels of government. Here it isn't. People might not like the politicians, but they aren't considered thieves. There and in many countries they are. When I try to explain how Mexico is like to Finns I say it would be similar in Finland, if the legal system wouldn't work and criminals could do anything they want with absolute immunity. The small amount of criminals here surely would bring chaos, deep insecurity, distrust and violence when the police would stop to do what it's doing. People can be similar, the societies and the government etc. can be totally different.

Hence perhaps Finns wouldn't be so excited about having Mexican officials or others instead of their present officials. Yet that global federation would be like that and especially feel like that.

Hence better solution is international cooperation among independent countries. That is the pathway to improve things.

Transnational Corporatocracy ... We're almost there (and ironically only catastrophic climate change might either "save the village by destroying the village" or drive superstates like the US, PRC & EU to inter-nationalize the transnationals).

At the moment American politicians are looking rather inadequate compared to Chinese technocrats, so I would say the future of democracy is not assured.
Democracy might work if you had an informed and involved electorate but fear and resentment seem to be the major motivations in current democracies and democratic norms are being undermined in several countries as we speak, including the U.S.