Any nation that does not like the arrangement is free to leave. The UN is not a sovereign body and may not force nations to stay in, nor force them to join. The five permanent members of the Security Council formed the UN and invited others to join. Nations joined knowing that those 5 nations held certain prerogatives.
Any attempt at delineating power fairly will run into some trouble, which is why a real world government is not in the near future. How would power be distributed considering?:
-China has roughly 1/5 of the world's population
-the US contributes about 1/3 of the UN operating budget
-Pakistan, Nigeria and several European nations disproportionatly man UN peacekeeping forces
Should, Burkina Faso, for example, have the same say in world affairs as the above mentioned countries?
I could see some voluntary changes in the Security Council, but only self-interested ones. The advanced nations of the world benefit most from trade, which is dependent upon stability. In the interests of European unity and world harmony, I could see the British and French consolodating their seat into a EU seat, and giving the other seat to another country. This would come at an enormous price though.
Those 5 members for the most part reflect actual political power (at least at the end of WWII. Beyond that, as Njorl indicated, it can get VERY complicated.
I wouldn't want Syria or Uganda having the same power as the big five. Syria has a fundamentalist government supporting terrorism, at least in sentiment. Uganda has seen great ethnic wars (if I remember correctly). You cannot expect to have stable people making just and informed decisions coming from these countries.
how about a system of assessment (based on current economic performance, human rights record etc.) by an IDEPENDANT body on which
the influence of a nation on the U.N will be revised after a given period of time? will reply in greater detail later. need time to think.
the composition and the scope of the body will be decided by mutual agreement (debates, discussion etc.). qualified persons will be given the responsibilty in such a way that all the nations are adequately represented(as far as possible). a given group of nations can raise objections if they feel the commitee has taken a biased decision they can object. efficient organisations exist that assess the economic, social and humanitarian performance of nations. their expertise can be used here. of course such changes need a favourable public opinion .but surely an international body like U.N. should not be allowed to remain completely under the disproportionate influence of a handful of nations if it is to remain credible to the world at large.
the important thing is for the big powers(i.e their people) to realise that they will infact benefit by giving up their veto powers because it is only then that other nations will recognise that they are committed towards making U.N a truly representitive international forum where all nations are held accountable for her actions. otherwise U.N will continue to be viewed as irrelevant or biased by the majority of people.one may note that the ultimate cause of the fall of the greek city states (equivalent to modern nations) was their failure to form a representative and equitable federal body where concerns of each can be addressed. clearly athens did not benefit from her bid at hogging power in the league created by her. thereby hangs the tale.
Any country that encourages multiculturalism is, in a sense, a model United Nations.