To move forward in times of multiple crises we need to tackle the political crisis as one of the main root causes of the current chaotic scenario.
Citizens are not influencers, Media is manipulated, Social Media is a tool at the service of biased politics and political leaders are not agents of a “healthy” change. Paradoxically we are living a historic moment full of changes, although chaotically and negative, the challenge is precisely that: delivering change but on a resilient basis. Let s see some of these big and rusty changes:
1.-Brexit. The no exit for British society. Maybe it is not that wrong to change the current European structure and establish new geopolitical relations. The European Union is built under Bretton Woods principles, successfully for their historical time and conditions, not for modern challenges adapted to new demands from the people and general interest. A re-boost of old principles is key for reshaping the structure and spirit of the Union.
However, all the process has been tarnished by lies and a disappointing lack of transparency and accountability although printed with a sense of legitimation as the Union has become, indeed, an ineffective, decadent, bureaucratic, centralised and costly initiative. So, the argumentation against is quite acceptable, the procedures, timing, and leadership are not. As a result, the Brexit process is out of control even though in the last weeks it seems to be reaching a way-out. Particularly concerning their impact on British society in terms of confrontation and deep fracture that will last even if the process is finally settled.
Changes are the answer for a no responsive system in crisis, but not coming from biased interests and an egocentric leadership but from a joint action and wide-open minds that create innovative solutions, not spontaneous reactions towards crises and financial opportunities for certain sectors –e.g. hedge funds.-
2.-Trump´s decisions for changing America establishment are not wrong but certainly, they are on its procedures. Indeed, changes are a boost of innovation and prosperity but now, instead of a solid debate there are feeding hate, racism, and violence and they will fail in their goal to unite and lead within sustainability. Being out of global institutions seems not an illogical decision under the light of the current crisis. Is a fact that they are not delivering and is a legitimated reaction against them, although, is not suitable for the “job” of delivering the Global Goals. I agree that United Nations is too politicised, therefore less effective, but its also true that recent withdrawal from UNESCO – a global institution on education, science, and protection of world cultural heritage-, does not contribute to a healthy American nationalism but the denial of protection that goes beyond national interests. It is about boycotting the system that is different from showing discontent against the system. In addition, US, that contributes with 22% of the total budget, has “accrued $600 million in unpaid dues..” which exposure that is not only a philosophy of isolationism but practical aspects in which current American Administration sets an agenda with “out of the box” priorities, killing their ambitious project of becoming “the most powerful isolated Nation”
Solutions will not be delivered, not for global resilience neither for the US. if there is a goal of rejecting global institutions instead of working towards its reshape. Just because they are not delivering or/and they are expensive is not enough reasons.
In the case of Paris agreement there is no logical argumentation from the US in terms of international politics map more than a practical financial issue that had nothing to do with the content in itself, but for the need for national innovation and its impact on the economy. Maybe American society is prepared for changes and for becoming sustainable in the long term, although not the private sector and definitely not the political sector, negatively linked and controlled.
3.-Fighting against “terrorism” would be a fair and also heroic peacebuilding attempt, however, when analyzing carefully we realize that there is not such a “terrorist” threat but complex and interconnected relations that include support and financing from the U.S. –and other countries- through decades. Sadly, they have contributed active and harmfully to create “more threat” using military presence to destabilize the Middle East already fragile peace balance and political and ethnic conflicts.
Is it so, that the debate is not about nationalism, isolationism, ideologies or terrorism but a response to a system that is failing on its very essence: political leadership. Now we are facing a clash from a troublesome relationship finance-politics in which the private sector is seeing a crisis as an opportunity to gain strength not to become resilient in the long-term. Even from a nationalist and isolationist perspective, there is no room for a system built outside accountability mechanisms, besides, the monopoly from the political sector makes it even worse.
Politics, like the photograph, is just a clean road that shines empowered when facing obstacles by moving forward cautious and firmly. However, a lack of accountability marks the end of the road that approaches dramatically when there is no vision to see beyond the immediate impact. Media plays a devastating role in terms of being cautious and “just in” news comes as an irresponsible response that creates fear and stagnation, instead of stability and reassurance.
Changes on the political leadership are not enough but there are one of the pillars for reaching a resilient road, or at least, not to find an end in this promising goal of long term global sustainable goals that are claiming for independent and innovative leaders and healthy and accountable relationships with the private sector.