To be global under current political state of the world supposes the feeling of being like a bretzel in the middle of the sea. The domination of an anti–global movement leaves this disempowered idea. Indeed, a new leadership based on a far-right agenda is dominating the world badly: anti-global, anti-migrant, anti-integration, xenophobia and racism.

The worst diagnosis doesn´t come from the profile of these extreme nationalist leaders like Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen or Nigel Farage, but their inconsistent message and lack of solid political alternatives or specific proposals with vision. Therefore they rise in popularity by a populist style, gaining votes based on racism     (Le Pen: “Immigration is an organized replacement of our population. This threatens our very survival”), lack of knowledge (Trump: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S manufacturing non competitive), “mistakes” (Farage: broken promises about £350M a week for NHS immediately after the campaign), or simply lies.

Where relies the secret to reform a system under a global institutional crisis and call for transparent political mechanisms? Basically: leadership and citizenship engagement.

There is no necessary a conflict if there are leaders committed to a political agenda that could be achievable and not biased by prejudice, fear or hate. The real problem comes when there is no responsibility over unachievable promises made during campaigns, having as a result a total lack of guarantees for voters and the consequent absence of an accountability process. Including the constant violation of international agreements against racism, xenophobia or incitement to hatred, paradoxically signed by their own countries.

There are no recipes of how to be global but certainly there should be a rational attitude that accepts that is our current framework and institutional structure that needs to be reshaped. Pretend fix their failures by an “anti-global dictatorship” from a far-right political agenda is not the solution but the “easy” populist message of being “against of”, however without giving reliable solutions adapted to a global status quo.

Denied this obvious fact is what is generating this uncontrol of political promises in the short term (e.g.: build a wall US-Mexico, not acceptance of migrants, break with many agreements with the EU and the rest of the world, etc) that is turning the debate into populist and opportunistic. The clear shape of chaos: pseudo-leaders with a message of “revolutionary” changes disguised by populist unworkable promises.

To be global is an attitude: the attitude of acceptance of what we have and the search for solutions within current global framework, walking a path towards safety and prosperity in the long term. This is the only context that an anti-global proposal may be reliable.

Current model of globalization is not working: right!, current global institutional structure either, European Union is not delivering the expected results sinking countries even more, that is the reason to build a new global model achievable in the long term.

We see with irony the unreal stage presented by this “leaders of the change” with a few examples that illustrates the absurdity of their proposals: After Brexit: UK internal fractures with Scotland, serious problems in relation to commercial agreement with US and with the rest of European countries. Marine Le Pen and their racist political message in which it seems that without migrants, financial prosperity and violent attacks will disappear. Or Donald Trump where all attempts to break an entire history of international relations with the rest of the world (except Russia), or being a racist mainly anti-Mexican or anti Muslim     become key for resolving US public debt problem or status quo created with the Middle East community.

In the end, only when real leadership fails is that this kind of candidates appear with a populist message without content but enough “show”. As a way to keep voters interested and committed. Giving a vote to a political program without measuring the impact for the future. It must be an ethical and political responsibility from this kind of behaviour that affects so many and created a so huge negative impact.