The impact of one water drop is the answer that marks the difference to overcome a world divided by wars and extremist ideologies: leaders with global minds. The capacity of resilience for facing current crises should be based on a political attitude towards a global joint action.
Globalisation is not one and must not be considered in only one shape. Is it a system that needs to be reshaped under the light of different dimensions according to their impact on each national political system. Is it here that leaders need to mainstream their capacities and resources and not repeat an anti-global “cliche” without an alternative and tangible model. Every country and region needs to build roots around a modern leadership able to break current profile of rhetorical and rusty leaders with no global and/or visionary integration focus.
In current stage of multiple crises it´s imperative to change frameworks towards a reshape of the system adapted to each reality, under a political will and attitude around: UNION.
A political message based on isolationism it’s not only not updated to global standards but of not practical implementation. It´s clear: isolationism gives “wings” to populist leaders in turbulent times, -or maybe we could say populist messages on inflammatory campaigns- however without content or even coherence with a global context. Brexit or recent triumph of Trump shows that an isolationist message is profitable to gain votes and empathize with millions of people which feel vulnerable facing this “new normal”. Indeed, crises are inserted in the new political reality within a process that starts when financial stability and economic growth become weak. Is it really against a globalization model the demand of the people? Or is the frustration for a corrupt system that doesn´t give guarantees and not assure security?
A joint action wouldn´t never been the obstacle but the effective implementation that leads to make global agreements within a global institutional system…. or in other forms. That is the clue that populists try to avoid: there is other shapes for a global model that changes the establishment without abandon a global political strategy. The one water drop is VISION to change the establishment in an updated way, not going back to old models. If the main argumentation from populists is “breaking the establishment” we could do it by reforming institutions and make it less vulnerable to crises, assuring transparency and accountability within a renewed political class.
The global and European institutional vulnerability derivate on a strong lack of credibility means not only internal weakness but also the lack of accountability from their leaders and a real joint action strategy that justifies the essence of a global institution. Global and European institutions have become an “elite” that doesn´t involves citizenship in a proper, fair and transparent way. Is it so that campaigning: “against establishment” become a successful move even without alternative projects but striking statements that capture attention and raise euphoria. With this political marketing strategy, populism takes the streets with a message that empathise with the frustration of millions of people that are seeing only the financial vulnerability of the system and a no responsive political institution. In Europe, austerity measures are the best example that describes this frustration. Indeed, initially associated as the main factor for achieving good levels of economic growth it becomes a notorious failure in which only a crisis management was the result.
In addition, the biased role of traditional Media extended to social Media as Facebook of Twitter, instead of fulfil its role of “globalise” information and invite all people from all backgrounds to give solutions and report injustices, it becomes a driver of conflict. By manipulating the information and using Media as an entrainment show, it has made of the political arena a dangerous game without a solid model behind. Brexit shows the vulnerability of the own system that with contradictory positions from their supporter leaders, exposure the only consistent doctrine: a far right ideology that does not influence the system in order to change it effectively and keeping those positive aspects.
The impact of one water drop could make the difference to change the system without changing global values and the feeling of being protected from a no responsive and vulnerable institutional system that, in addition, is not giving sustainable answers for crises. That water drop is: leadership. Only wise leaders with a global mind and a strong political attitude towards a global join action -that tend to connect instead of separate- could build a resilient world.