A renovated style or a total innovative global leadership that changes everything done? Crises has brought surrealism to global leaders and institutions, in the sense that it become ineffective structures that are meant to be global but indirectly they boost anti-global positions. Making of isolationism an option to build national defences. That we need to be innovative is a fact, but is it also about a better and new management of the resources that we already have.
Renovated or innovative leadership? In terms of results it seems the same, although there is a clear difference between being creative by implementing new codes or a change of the system towards a complete reshape of models of doing business and politics.
Do we need an almost “robot man” or just a fresh leadership transparent and accountable?
To search for answers we need to look at voters. In a democratic system they are supposes to be leaders and address there own national crises through a legal framework. However, when systems of transparency fail, the political arena is transformed into a Roman circus in which the citizens are the warriors instead of the lions. The political sector is walking a wild road of no accountability and the citizens are defending themselves with strength but from a disempowered position. Indeed, the “show” created by political marketization makes of leaders look as warriors but there are just playing with citizen´s expectations. This unbalanced relationship undermines the own concept of democracy and make reflect about the need to try new models of doing politics, not only on a stronger parameter of transparency and accountability.
As a difference from the private sector, political leaders do not seem to be able to adapt to current challenges. Is a stagnated sector and innovation is reduced to just better technology and leaders with a new political marketing that attracts more voters. That is not innovation, just exploring new paths of becoming resilient at political partisan level. Nationalist trend its part of the problem in the sense that are driven the voters towards a pseudo anti-establishment policies but in reality its only part of the same“package of isolationism”. Not a truly innovative strategy towards a change of the system that redounds directly on the well being of their citizens.
Is it true, challenges are creating the perception of global instability; therefore generating defensive attitudes feeding by their own leaders. Is a responsibility from leaders to deliver serenity to the population by accurate decisions based on a results-driven focus. Feeding hate and fear without an alternative and effective model means “killing” the global project without facing crises.
Globalisation its precisely the best achievement from Nations to become united and resilient by being generous enough to reshape the traditional concept of national sovereignty. On an attempt to enrich it without loosing the power that delivers the freedom of an independent and sovereign country that takes decisions by their own.
When the message from leaders is delivering on democratic terms there is room for changes -even dramatic- but when it’s biased, undermines the sovereign roots of a society empowered to decide their destiny. That´s what happened with Brexit, in which leaders pretend to exposure a harmful situation but in the end, they exposure there own lack of vision and a no innovative model of doing politics for UK. Just that, a rusty and old way of gaining votes by putting pressure on citizens, on an “demonization” process of the conflictive relationship with the EU. In this case “erase everything done” by more than 40 years of relation with EU was not an innovative step coming from visionary leaders but of politicians without a strategic plan for the future –even if they display a successful campaign strategy.-
Simply failure of current times: political leaders with a vast experience on campaigning but without a smart plan for future generations.
About business leaders the projection its much better as they have shown commitment for joint action -not only climate change action- and for building a global model in multiculturalism and innovation. This ideological aspect makes them a key pillar for creating new models.
Give more power to the private sector has been part of neo-liberal policies from many decades and still there is an idea that globalisation is only about less regulation and total liberalisation of the market.Its important to highlight that reducing the State is not necessary a goal for a global project but it looks as essential when political leaders apply global standards under old traditions. The clash is evident and leads to dismantle the State and search for an even harder framework of “no rules”. In ideological terms globalisation is about joint action and common rules and institutions, not a libertarian position of leaving the State just at minimum standards. The benefits that the private sector acquired must be reshaped towards a more transparent contribution. Is in this particular aspect that business leadership must be renovated, -not necessary innovative.-
The role of a traditional State its paramount as a guarantor of minimum standards of ethics, although in an adapted model to new challenges.We need solid States and reliable leaders that think global and act locally. In current times it means to be creative by transforming their strategies and above all, attitudes of doing business and politics.
Is it so that innovation and renovation are both side of the same coin: change of the system.
Creating new structures but also working on rebuilding old relations and healing wounds that make people revisiting old patterns of confrontation and rejection of open models of living. Isolationism and a trend on bilateralism -instead of multilateral relations- are not allowing innovation or creativity but the repetition of and old style of no targeted leadership.
An innovative or just versatile leadership? It’s not necessary to be a “visionary” but of leading with vision a global future. The combination of both as well as holistic approaches is what would make of leaders truly and legitimated authorities in current political map of multiple crises.