Globalisation is about creating a new kinetic system, not centralising old models 

Recently I hold the honor to be part of the Geneva Forum in the United Nations for 1st time present, and not virtually as in past Editions.
Exposing the fact that despite technology becoming the axis for any perception of innovation, real advances come from the capacity to join efforts traditionally, to then consolidate resilient virtual relationships. 
The current not consolidated global model of living within a status quo based on multiple crises exacerbated by a post pandemics stage is pushing us into an emergency mainly at the political decision-making level, therefore on leadership. 
Is it key to figure out if we are pushing for changes or if we are pushed by the changes. The latest exposure the lack of robust leadership in global terms, although furthering a determined centralised agenda towards a pseudo democratically global achievement.
Searching for new models that truly pursue the “globalisation project” in its meaningful purpose is an imperative that would let us become sustainable in the long term, and reducing vulnerabilities in the short term within a results -driven assessment. It should be a priority, although is driven by political partisan decisions that do not reflect the real senses of what means a global order, in terms of conciliation, dialogue, and Diplomacy, consequently impacting on a peace-building focus. There is no agenda on balance but a strong one on confrontation from the powerful political, and financial sector.  Is precisely the political sector that prevents the transition into a new system because of their weakness, and ineffectiveness to gain “mass muscle”, and finally make the needed reforms. 
It is important to reflect on the concept of Globalisation, because for now is it only an ambitious idea, not a reality. However is it by standardisation of products, and centralised information by massive Media that the citizens are forced to perceive international issues as if we were a real global system. Although, without the guarantees of the latest: respect and integration from all national sovereignties, within the complexity of religions, and cultures. 
Under the current circumstances, it may be wrong to consider a global world as one homogeneous system, instead of a multi-polar world that ensures a global counterbalance by block of Nations, not a centralised power. Political alliances must be separated from a global political system. 
The SDGs mission comes precisely from the capacity to join diversity, not to build only one dominant criteria or/and approaches. For whom innovation becomes paramount, from global institutions to local governments, making from transparency, accountability, openness, cultural, and ideological diversity their true drivers. Merging traditions, and modernity into one, past and present coming together to boost tailored made solutions. Is this steady exercise that compromises an urgent boost, and reshape from the most atemporal tool that is: critical thinking one of the axis towards change for both: leaders, and citizens. Although, the first impression that we get is: 

Do we boost critical thinkers or just thinkers that criticise? Mainstreaming critical thinking… 

Social Media has printed the idea that everyone has a place and an opportunity to have a say. However, the capacity to be critical is usually associated with critics rather than a real reflection that boost a wave on intellectual production.
Social Media and Media become powerful in terms of debate, and information not on intellectual construction, and certainly not on solutions. It seems to go to the same foreseeable ends. True critical thinking supposes a different conclusion than the elements presented in the beginning, and that is the precious gift of reflecting, and “working” together towards stability. Is not enough to shape ideas around perceptions but on deep intellectual exercise. 
In light of the current war crisis, it becomes evident that there is no reflection at all about the root causes of the conflict or even the search to negotiate, and conciliate positions. There is no determination to learn, reflect and get into solutions, but to be “against” one or other position, instead of just being “against war”. To erase the own existence from one side, and not to erase the root causes of the conflict. This is a clear massive Media manipulation that deliberately is driven society into confrontation rather than peace within a wave of a disappointing Zero intellectual production.
Critical thinking it’s for me like a Kinetic tree: being our engine of intellectual production;  going deep into the roots for future generations, and for the current ones taking the colourful fruits from the top.

Mainstreaming 5 elements to get into revolutionary critical thinking: Education, Citizenship, Massive media, Political Leaders, and Global Institutions 

The Education system plays a very important role to boost generations creative enough to fight back against Massive Media , and information managed only by elites. It is important to build models based on each Nation, and individuals, not on Media, boosting inner resilience not pre-established codes of behaviour imposed by external agendas.
Education for both: children and adults. Critical thinking it’s not only about an innovative Education system but also innovating the way we are educating. Having as a main goal the development of creativity skills as the best legacy to face uncertain future global multiple crisis . 
Education for adults is mainly about re-skilling which supposes steady work on self-skilling, maximising the power of being part of new platforms, volunteering, and in the end, taking responsibility as citizens by changing mindsets and structures. 
The citizenship is not part of the decision-making process and has become an observer, sometimes activist “against” a system that paradoxically belongs to them entirely.
Is Social Media the one that is facilitating the path towards merging with organisations by individual advocacy to finally enter in a whole reshape of the civil society.  
However, there is one obstacle: the “maze” created by Massive Media that may be fixed by the best resource to fight back: deep critical thinking. Even if we are heavily connected, the lack of development in terms of criteria makes the citizens very small, feeling disempowered, and with few chances to influence.Have you ever considered reading on a newspaper two contradictory analyses although from the same facts, and on the same page? Instead of only one formula of delivering “the truth” out of any critical thinking , several shapes of the same facts gives colour to a grey and authoritarian reality does not allow nuances.
A pseudo “more communication” is leading us into more ignorance, and intrusion instead of being more informed, thus more empowered. The determined political will that pushes to abandon cultural or religious codes is a misinterpretation of a global system respectful, efficient ,and above all not ideologically biased. 
The other striking element to take into account for furthering a new system based on critical thinking is the role from political leaders and how they meet citizens expectations. I find particular importance to analyse the deep senses of what means exercising the right to vote. Democracy has brought freedom as well as a demagogue system. As presented by Edmund Burke´s model: do we need a trustee or a delegation? What do voters expect from their leaders? Political leaders taking decisions by their own? or based on citizens’ contentment ? Voters expect from their leaders a steady rapport or they need to wait 5 years to renew their trust? May demand accountability at any time or just delegate all their rights to their leaders? 
These and many other questions should be posed to finally get into a truly democratic system. Once we decide which model is the best is when we realise how important is to make critical thinking a must to make political systems reforms. 
The capacity to develop different tools, especially technological ones, like E-government is one of the drivers to success that may “democratise” all those processes by not only engaging with the citizenship but truly bringing into accountability the decadent political sector.
Even if we embrace with passion the idea, philosophy, and structure of global institutions, in terms of principles and values, is not easily assumed by the citizens. Is an agreement among Nations, not people, in the same way, that the SDGs framework. No matter if repeatedly is stated as a goal for the current challenges: the so-called “human centred” approach, if it doesn’t encompass the process it becomes a theoretical focus without any impact on the people. Is it so that the SDGs become not sustainable in themselves if they are not considered in the context of people’s needs or/and addressed individually. 

Is it then that we easily get into the conclusion that global institutions are not building bridges open and flexibly, but furthering a rusty political, instead of being pure representatives from a wider scenario called global democracy. 
Innovative platforms, change and the insertion of the citizens as new actors in the political sector demands new rules and mechanisms to deliver. Its part of individual responsibility and renewed actors to make experts engine of creation and the boost of new structures for whom critical thinking becomes a goal in itself. 

Working out from emotional bias, boundaries, and hierarchies is the attitude not yet inserted in the “institutional mindset”. Competition is the leading thought without taking into account that their meaning is “Cum Petere”, simply …”come together”. In crisis time it may not be the best strategy to build around traditional terms on competition but to make of joint action, “the real and only action”. 
Trustworthy relations based on people’s strengths, expertise, and critical thoughts are, not surprisingly, a challenge that demands strategic partnerships to make it a reality.
The current extremely bureaucratic organisations are made for making specific alliances on a delimited space, timing, and subject. Doing differently is perceived as chaos, and a threat to their “institutional stability”. Is precisely the use of critical thinking that may change the mindset and let us explore new combinations of expertise, and innovative exchange.

Is it truly a new time for citizens to stand up, out from activism but like Lorenzo Quinn’s latest version of Mother Nature´s sculpture: naked but transparent, focused on their goals even on the edge, inserted in the society, but reassuring individual creativity, strengthening their skills to finally get into a critical thinking process for delivering thee correct solutions. 
Indeed the correct solutions coming from: re-educating leaders -institutions- towards the pursuit of Global Goals is not an ideological matter, and can not be led by political goals but people’s values for whom flexibility helps on the road to the maximisation of each member’s potential: when one supports another by climbing to the top only because they are aligned with those at the bottom.

Lessons learned from the negative experiences from the political sector: is not all about financial investments -in and out the public sector-, it does not necessarily represents progress, and in occasions are been diluted by bad management, corruption, and extremely biased political partisan interests. The political sector becomes a contradictory pillar: is essential and at the same time a threat for moving forward. When ideological aspects become part of the strategy there is no possibility for joint action, and any effort on financial aspects is completely useless.

Moving towards a true democracy nationally and internationally represents the capacity to make citizenship a voice not an echo from massive Media.
Keeping a multipolar world rather than a centralised one, that in the end, tends to become dictatorial, and biased, without developing results-driven action for crises. 
Globalisation is about creating a global kinetic system, not pre-determined concepts that then become global. because of Massive Media manipulation  
Disruptive critical thinking; educating future generations on creativity, and inner resilience, and the present ones by re-educating leaders around new values: flexibility, openness, and interconnections

Is not possible to get towards sustainable goals if we move through unsustainable political systems.
Because it is not about a sustainable utopian world, but a sustainable tangible multi-stakeholder process towards a new technologically developed world within very old patterns based on values, ethics, and certainly .. critical thinking.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s