One of the main reasons for those that believe institutions are in crisis is that is related to a lack of determined leadership. “leaders are not the same as in the past”. Is it true, charismatic leaders have given way to politicians that do not follow a philosophy of living but to different temporary agendas, shaping a new wave of politics based on personal mediatic presence, nationalism euphoria, etc.
A global world needs strong leaders meanwhile isolationism needs the weak aspects of leaders in the sense of not controlling the global political agenda –not even their own- . Bretton Woods´s times have become a no updated idea of an ideal financial-economic connected world. Currently the axis of power is divided and –in many cases- ,obscure and hidden. Instead of a global world in which all can get benefits, it becomes a tool that attacks the own roots for a system based on democratic principles.
Corporations seem to be another negative element for this absurdity scenario, however, Middle East reality, religious extremism and a trend towards nationalism make of it just that, one more element that eventually may become negative if there is not a clear transparent and accountable global political system.
The current complex geopolitical map has boosted a wave of libertarian feeling, as a logical consequence for the loss of State leadership in which the private sector is taking the lead. It is quite clear in the humanitarian aid sector; institutions that are failing in their main goal: delivering aid ,and are going through serious financial troubles. Donors are seeing new perspectives for their contributions. The same donors that have historically trust institutions are now diverting to a direct shape of aid. In addition, development cooperation, originally associated with a public sector “dominion,” is now part of private initiatives, although within a no coordinated action.
Is not necessarily wrong. The idea of moving from a Welfare State to a libertarian one seems quite logical as more and more crises can be associated to the decline of the traditional concept of Welfare State, however, is the political sector the one in crisis, not the welfare concept in itself. It transforms the public sector into an obstacle, not a solution. Even if we get into political systems based on transparent and accountable management is it not what the world is currently needed. the way to “Walking” towards revolutionary changes is the only way to get into the core of “all diseases” that the world is going through, a connected, dynamic system within innovative and massive use of Social Media and technology as a way to make of the world just ONE. This is more than just “being global” its about reshaping structures by keeping the same philosophy of the last century but changed, adapted and innovative.
Pushing for changes or pushed by changes?* Both sides are extremely relevant to be enough innovative to make of institutions an axis for holistic approaches and diversity of people, ideologies and focuses. That is the way the world is moving and the Sustainable Development Goals are a shy sign that is showing us the way towards a common ground of action.
The consequences of current stagnation are that we are not taking decisions strategically but as a result of frustration, anger or just inaction. United Nations is not what we remember or what was meant to be: a place to deliver not just deliberative. Withdrawal from UNESCO as US and Israel exposure that a new reality must be addressed and that we cannot remind within the same institutional structures, particularly when they are not changing the narrative towards a fierce and effective action.
Institutional ambitious attitudes towards change are paramount as the only way to show political will to changes.
We need a new leadership but above all change agendas at global level, instead of a repetitive and quite theoretical approach. It would naturally lead us towards new frameworks of action and new people that lead with the courage to present holistic proposals and working within innovative codes.
In the meantime, the private sector and the civil society will take more and more power as a way to replace the inaction coming from the big “bureaucratic monsters” centralized and not updated that even with the correct agenda they failed on implementation. There is not a will to call all actors on an equal basis and get into solutions in the same way.
A kaleidoscope of crises demands a kaleidoscope of focuses.From grey to colours…