Anarchists would acknowledge that various forms of governance might "work," but by definition oppose all of them.
Some exceptions: some anarchists would say they propose forms of governance which they'd call self-governance, direct-democracy, or other things. Most of these would not say that this would be a "system created by anarchists" as you phrase it. Rather, it would be created by all of its participants, many of whom are not anarchists even though they might organize in a horizontal way. See, for example, the organizing arrangements of the Occupy* movement.
Other anarchists would outright refuse the idea of governance. Likewise they would refuse the idea of a "new society" created by anarchists or even operating universally on anarchist principles. They might propose, instead of one big solution for all of society, a variety of experiments and solutions put into practice on a relatively small scale. Or they might propose that the anarchist is the inherent enemy of society no matter how that society organizes itself.
That's a very 101 answer mainly aimed at correcting the assumptions in the phrasing of the question. In any case, the "new world order" theory itself runs counter to my way of thinking because it generally portrays governance as an entirely top-down relationship in which the "elites" are all-powerful and the rest of us are basically mind-controlled sheep. I have a little bit more faith in free will than that. Also I think the project of new-governance is less about a cabal of elites running the world and more about the systems of social control actually tending to become autonomous from the rulers who originally developed them. A diffuse and for-itself social control that is not under anyone's control.
