Like this surrealist sculpture political leaders without political vision see in global negotiation a threat, making joint action impossible as if there´re “glued” to each other. The capacity to joint efforts at global level supposes tolerance to diverse political ideologies and merge in a new wave towards political sustainability.

In a world hit by institutional global crises, joint action is the only effective way-out and a global leadership the strongest tool. The latest represent an essential element for acting globally and being enough flexible for addressing national crises derivate from a global impact. Is it so that negotiation and capacity to form coalitions become key to face crises and build resilience. Now, the question is how it works when there are opposite ideologies not only different political approaches? Simply by resignation and flexibility. Only a leader with strong negotiation skills could do it. COP21 is the best and most recent model that shows that even if the results are not perceiving immediately, this first attempt is the political correct attitude that leads to a world “ideologically” united. Leaders without vision that get stuck with past models, as Venezuela, are condemned to isolation and a fall of its economy and political instability.

“Vision is the art of seeing the invisible” * and the “invisible” is resilience, the capacity to manage crises and lead the world towards sustainability. There are not tangible and immediate results in a world institutionally weak however, a good management with sense of negotiation leads to results in the medium term. Although a global strategy is not mark -like in the past- by traditional visionary leaders but by innovation and adaptation processes leading by global minds and solid institutions.

Negotiation for resilience means changing concepts of a super powerful leader and boost a culture of globalization under a different model of “doing politics”. Maybe less powerful leaders but under a joint-action basis would build a renewed institutional global structure.

The amount and dimension of current crises forces to change approaches. Brexit, Trump´s proposals for foreign affairs or Spain political limbo –before was Belgium- are some of the examples of a culture based in and excessive and negative role of political individualism and media show.

The concept of global leadership is not experimented the necessary changes adapted to new challenges but transformed into a personal and authoritarian style. In addition, biased interests and an over exposition of leaders are making visionary proposals an extravagant element.

Short-termism and private interests dominate the stage and boost a new global order of isolated positions that tend to preserve political movements that are not updated to the new challenges.

Joint action is made for humble and wise leaders that see in global negotiation a way to find solutions with the mentality of “think global and act local”. The feeling of being “glued” in global initiatives or concerns about a loss of personal or national identity is a sign of weakness and lead to isolationism and uncertainty.

The mystery of what means a political vision transcends personal skills and go beyond  the generosity of a successful negotiation process.  Merging in a global structure and transforming national sovereignty in a resilient element of contribution to a multicultural and multi approach system. Identity is just one more element of this mosaic of diversity. A global structure is meant to be a counterbalance of the different ideologies and perspectives.

Join action: the way to assure national identities in a reshaped globalization model with respect to all cultures equally.

* “Alien software”, Adam Martinakis

*Jonathan Swift