“The unexpected red theory is basically adding anything that’s red, big or small, to a room where it doesn’t match at all, and it automatically looks better.[1] Says Taylor SImon presenting this new design trend that becomes quite inspiring when analysing the meaning of “political correctness”.
Under the current levels of emergency, we realise the need of a “red in the room” , that project, idea or simply comment that contributes greatly to calm down the turbulent mood, although is not politically correct. The current popular message is based on being “against of”, instead of “pro solutions” from an open mindset that welcomes diversity from deep tolerance encompassing a dynamic scope towards outcomes in a multilateral vision.
It seems that to be integrated into the global debate, you must be politically correct to be heard with respect. However, we do not have to forget the true origin of this concept[2] “that first appeared in the 1930s, when it was used to describe dogmatic adherence to ideology in totalitarian regimes such as Nazis…”
Is indeed a source of totalitarianism, and a violent attack to the right of freedom of speech. If there needed tolerance is not present, finding peacebuilding solutions and make it last in the long-term becomes a true challenge. Is precisely a robust debate based on complete opposite versions, that facilitates the process towards creative solutions. Peace is a matter of a new mindset or better said, a very old one coming from Diplomacy, and intellectual construction.
Sustainability in the context of the Development Goals can only be achieved if its precedes by the SDG 16, “peace, justice and strong institutions”, without them, any process becomes unsustainable. Is with this purpose that we develop this article around the word PEACE, each letter inspired the following five topics, eventually it may become pillars towards an immersive approach:
- Politically correct & Polarisation
- Equity & Equality
- AI & Tech
- Citizen engagement
- Emotions
On this analysis we are not trying to be “Politically correct” yet being “politically accurate”. Not surprisingly when you search the truth, is when the possibilities of conciliating become wide and profound. Instead, the debate is fuelling with pre-established concepts, and prejudices, that as a result divides the world in two: in favour or against. In fact, political leaders, along with a fixed truth presented by Media and an odd concept that social media is about knowledge exchange instead of opinions exchange. Rather than a careful, transparent, and accurate delivering of neutral information they are leading the path towards fabricated realities that do not correspond to a fair judgment, withal, they do not contribute to reduce tensions.
Ursula Von der Leyen, President of the EU Commission, is a good example of how political correctness leads into polarisation, clinging to the idea that “as long as it takes” armed responses in Ukraine, and sanctions against Russia, will deliver and end to the conflict. Any kind of comment or action towards conciliation with Russia, to ending the tensions, is automatically submitted to public lapidation, as to present ideas or analysing the historical and political context were a determining argument in favour of violence against civilians. Although the context is extremely important, and sensitive when it comes to find solutions: from NATO expansion to the referendum for whom a vast majority of citizens in the Donbass voted to be part of Russia. The nature of sanctions relies on an economic reason rather than a strategy for peace, as it delivers a comparative economic advantage to other countries that come to replace Russian products or services. Not surprisingly it continues with zero impact towards a peace agreement.
In the end, the agenda must be about a results-driven peace action, and not a complex truss of economic interests, polarising the world in a never-ending spiral of hostilities “as long as it takes -Von der Leyen” *
The same happens with the agenda on Equality. A perfect, ambitious and philosophical correct SDG5 that, sadly is not delivering, tearing down the hope to be achieved in the short-term despite a strong, and committed global political agenda. The idea of 50-50 has been widely presented, and maybe wrongly conceived as a goal, instead of a vehicle to get into results. A good example is the representation of women in Parliaments. According to UN women data, in 2023, Rwanda reached a 61.3% and Emirates a 50%[3]. Surprisingly none of these countries are considered models of equality from a global standard perspective as displayed by SDG 5. An indicator that helps us to conclude that there is not about more in quantity, but different in quality: a new leadership that truly influence the system. Is it time to move beyond numbers and enter into results and quality action. As with women employment and entrepreneurship for whom an agenda on economic productivity that raises GDP comes before the pursue of their fulfilment and individual freedom.
Equity seems the true gamechanger to get into a sustainable process as new practices, and policies may be directly connected with women´s individual needs and not with a hypothetical idea of what should be from a model of a modern, professional women independently from their culture or religion, and certainly beyond any personal choice or consideration.
The fact that there was an increase of women appointments of in senior leadership positions, shows how strong is the agenda and at the same time how weak it may become when during pandemics it reached a peak and after that it begins to decrease dramatically year by year, because of AI replacement. Surprisingly -or not-, Technology is taking women ´s professional opportunities to the point that we need to reformulate the real meaning of gender equality, as is not women-men balance anymore, but a true agenda on women-men-robots, and their equal treatment. The AI “Diella” gives us an idea of the new scenario, appointed as the first AI Minister for Albania on Public Tenders, surprises with a speech revindicating what it seems to be the new gender: “robot” [4]
Is it time for leaving behind political correctness and respond to rescue human nature in their unique, warmth, creativity, and geniality, engaging with Citizens as true actors in a direct democracy system. Leadership from citizens become essential as political ones are not delivering or at least not focused on an agenda that guarantees the maximization of human potential.
A so-called innovative and politically correct leadership is sweeping away the possibilities for making citizens part of the decision-making processes, therefore, attending their specific needs – not those preestablished-. To make it happen a local activism is crucial and only possible if it retakes ownership for campaigns, currently leading by political leaders. Meaningful and fluid interaction with institutions particularly with local authorities, is a must and the model that makes globalisation fair and successful. The other way round, the creation of global standards in a one-size-fits-all model pretending to be adopted to all cultures in an “neutral” shape is unrealistic and progressively becoming authoritarian, thus ineffective in terms of results.
Polarisation is not an opportunity for ideological diversity as claimed by some political leaders if they are leading by hiding agendas. Global is not about “being one” neither “being all the same”, yet, coming together with a different footprint is what makes senses to merge into a global model of thriving and adapting to each Nation and mostly important to each individual wishes and needs.
At the very end, Emotions, are the big and convenient element to build polarisation in the most negative senses, playing with those that do not manage their emotions and easily hate, attack or abuse without further information than the one presented in Media disguised as “the revealed truth”. Is not, and once you manage emotions you realise how much external and manipulative elements are in the news. That if with the powerful assertiveness to place citizens in radical positions instead of conciliatory ones. Is the latest that creates peacebuilding, not the polarisation, neither violent opposition. For the current times of emergency for whom “being against” is the motto for succeeding and somehow being inserted in society, the call for moderation, on a radical and consistent form by Negotiation, Dialogue, and Diplomacy is considered a non-politically correct way for addressing the audience. Notwithstanding, being the “unexpected red” in the room is the assertive way to walk towards political correctness on the sustainable path of accuracy for a strategic peacebuilding mindset of global impact.
Be the red in the room!
[1] https://theeverygirl.com/unexpected-red-theory/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
[3] https://www.epdata.es/datos/mujeres-politica-datos-estadisticas/324
thesustainabilityreader 