Politics in a changing world
The death of former British Prime Minister Margret Thatcher has proven to be as controversial as her tumultuous 11 years at No. 10 Downing Street. The controversy has centered on her legacy and how she would be remembered. According to Prime Minister David Cameron, “History will recall Thatcher as the person who saved England.” The debate over Thatcher’s legacy also opens a debate about today’s leadership and whether it is able to deal with the challenges facing the world. The world economy is reeling from one crisis to another without a solution in sight.
A quick rundown on the problems facing the world and ineptitude of leaders to deal with them are quite conspicous. In the United States, no one is sure how to handle the gargantuan budget deficit and national debts. In Europe the best its leaders can hope for is to contain the ever-growing euro zone crisis, which on the face of it appears to be monetary, but in effect a political one. Its political underpinning is evident as politicians still talk and dream about a European Union without having the guts to concede some of their national interests. While Japan seems to be content with papering over cracks in its system without going deep to fix them, China and other rising powers in Asia and Brazil are very much reluctant to play a leading role.
That leaves the United States a de facto leader. But given the high political and economic cost of its blunders in both Iraq and Afghanistan with no clear outcome to justify that operation, the US is becoming “war-weary and war-wary” as described by an eloquent Op-Ed piece by the Washington Post columnist David Ignatius.
The issue of lack of leadership in a changing world is becoming so pressing that the World Economic Forum in Davos last January chose it as one of the topics of discussions. The Davos meeting was held close on heels of publication of a report on the level of trust people have in their leaders. The annual “Trust Barometer” survey published by Edelman, a public-relations firm, reports widespread scepticism about the ethics practised by political and business leaders. The lowest scores were when those surveyed were asked if they trust leaders to “tell the truth, regardless of how complex or unpopular it is”: Only 18 percent trusted business leaders, whilst government leaders scored a yet more miserable 13 percent of those surveyed in 26 countries where people are informed. On the other hand trust in institutions and NGOs is improving, though not to a satisfactory level.
However, the problem with leadership exceeds that of public trust and centers more on the ability of those leaders to do anything to resolve the crises engulfing the whole world. The Arab Spring uprising that is changing the Middle East, impacting the rest of the world, is a case in point. These uprisings — peaceful or violent — have one thing in common: They lack leadership or even a face people could rally around. On the other hand, the enthusiasm with which both Britain and France embraced these uprisings is sorely missing in the Syrian crisis. They were the ones who pushed for military intervention in Libya and the outcome of that intervention was so worrisome that they shunned repeating the same role in Syria. And Obama, who borrowed the phrase of “leading from behind” from Nelson Mandela, has opted to stay on the fence.
After decades of repression in the region, the uprising is unleashing powers, which nobody, including Western powers with their think thanks and resources, is clear or sure who they are and how to deal with them.
But more important is that this development is taking place at a juncture in human history, where the communication revolution is taking over from the well-established institutions inherited from the industrial revolution. What is happening now is a classic case where old institutions are crumbling with their strategies, policies and leadership, while new ones, reflecting new realities, have not yet fully emerged. A good example is democracy, where people can vote in and out their rulers. Is that still valid in a world where the individual, not the party or a similar association can decide on his/her own affair without waiting for a deputy to that or even access the needed news and be active in dealing with them instead of the passive role audience used to have in the past. This is a development that is impacting the relationship between the leadership and the individual and has yet to find a way to express itself in a political format.
This article is exclusive to Arab News
[email protected]
