Like inside a stone we´re trapped in a world with the feeling of being overwhelmed by factors and actors that are shaping a new world. As a consequence it demands new approaches at political and individual level. Indeed, climate change denial, violent attacks, isolationism, nationalism, xenophobia, no accountable and/or transparent leaders, etc. are a conjunction of elements that block any attempt to make changes and throws us to the abysm of isolationism and anti-system ideas without tangible results.
It´s time for changes, it´s time to get out of the “stone” and find solutions adapted to current challenges, not proposals out of the political-economic-financial context. It´s also time for keeping the “good establishment” that has delivered well-being to millions of people along history. A permanent anti-establishment message with no alternative model may gain votes but not a reflexive-adaptive model.
The argumentation uses by “anti-establishment” leaders seems more a matter of an anarchist system rather than a proven alternative model within current structures and realities.
Awakening to a new world in which uncertainty and constraints are part of our daily life means also the acknowledgement of what is truly effective and not a repetitive anti-system message that erase all done.
In this new era the political world exposed its weakness showing that is not reliable anymore. In addition, transparency and accountability become values with a vague implementation that allows irresponsible messages.
Is it so that leadership becomes a pillar that through an active and solid citizen engagement will be the revolution beyond politics.
However, as a difference of what anti-establishment supporters sustain this is not about being “against of” but to deliver a new model that takes the best of the system, getting ride of what is not useful and moves forward towards new adaptive alternatives. Is in this sense that also the voice of extremists need to be heard, negotiate and find solutions -even inside a stone-. Nationalism is an example of the need to become stronger in our positions as well as giving space for negotiation. Is not impossible is a matter of will and education. Fighting for our principles is a duty and accepting the impact of our actions in a global world is also part of a realistic and adaptive focus. Is unacceptable the manipulation of those principles at the service of private interests or for the justification of wrong policies.
In current political scenario in which lack of transparency and accountability dominates the stage is not feasible that the system would become a guarantee of safety in itself or a tool to protect human rights by the contrary, ineffective policies, private financial interests and a strong military agenda are creating literally: chaos.
This is not a matter of changing establishment for extremism. Anti-system, anarchy or isolated positions fit better with dictatorships rather than a democratic system. An adaptive revolution is the answer and the way out for short-term achievements.
Definitely the system is not working and need in-depth changes. A smart election of leaders capable of supporting each of their proposals and promises is part of those in-depth reforms. Part of this trend of populist leaders without accountability leads to an anti-system message but not to an alternative model that in the short-term would be capable to make radical and profitable changes.
Recent London attacks are the sign that leadership –and particularly global leadership- is falling. There is not coherence in the official message from the government that justifies their policies. In fact all the decisions taken are showing the contrary of what they pretend to achieve. Open more military bases in Middle East -as well as the participation in the invasion of Irak- will not protect British citizens, in fact is what it makes them more vulnerable. In addition, Theresa May concludes that the attacks “are not organized” which confirms the idea that the strategy should be focused in stronger secret services and a radical change of military strategies.
In relation to climate change and Paris agreement we have recently witnessed the contradictory position of US expressing their intention to withdraw and at the same time re-enter under different conditions. This could only be explained because of a lack of leadership. The element that is failing -again- is the capacity to face challenges with determination and addressed one of the worst pillars: that is the own survival of the planet. Is it clear that if a country changes its strategy it cannot impact any international agreement, it must be negotiated. If each country would change international agreements after elections we should only be able to get international commitments for 5 years.
Our world needs stability that leads to resilience.
If anti-establishment means an in-depth change is desirable that is achieved through adaptation to current system in which progressively and accurately there are being adopted. If not is a “military coup” that is unthinkable in current globalized world.
Advances in technology that are leading the world into new standards of living shows that isolation and extreme nationalism has no place.
We agree that a revolution that shakes up leaders and structures at global and national level is needed, however it´d not be considered a truly revolution if it comes from the political stage and not from the actors: citizens. The role of civil society is key and must change the spectrum of the political stage by becoming influencer leaders having social networks as global structures; working as pillars of transparency and accountability.
Adaptive revolution: finding gold inside stones….
*Sculpture: Hirotoshi Ito