Posted on

Corona as catalyst: Social competition

Five centuries of Western dominance are now giving way to a new world order. Political, economic, military, cultural, and ideological structures are already being reshuffled. If the coronavirus spreads far enough, it will merely accelerate this transition. In this essay, I aim to briefly outline three of the major intersections shaping our time. Part 3: Social competition / Part 1. Ideological / Part 2. ‘Glocal’

The third question demanding attention in this time of transition—and even more so during the coronavirus pandemic—is the stark inequality in vulnerability within societies. I do not mean the increased vulnerability of the elderly, but the vulnerability of those lacking opportunities and security.

In recent years, many have highlighted growing inequality, particularly in so-called ‘undercover oligarchies’ such as China, Russia, India, Brazil, and the United States. Europe, Canada, and Australia fare somewhat better, thanks to more extensive welfare systems, stronger social dialogue, and progressive tax policies. Yet even in these regions, vulnerability is rising, as people find themselves unable to escape inadequate circumstances or overcome structural barriers that deny them the opportunity to thrive.

Consider the growing number of self-employed and gig workers, struggling with temporary contracts, low incomes, minimal social protection, and little political voice. In 2011, Guy Standing described this group as the “precariat” in The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class—a term combining ‘precarious’ and ‘proletariat.’ Standing warns that chronic vulnerability leaves people susceptible to populism and extremism.

Daniel Markovits, in The Meritocracy Trap (2019), examines how a segment of American society that initially benefited from meritocracy has now become a closed elite. From a young age, this group prepares for top positions, commanding top salaries and responsibilities, while the precariat struggles to keep up and remains trapped in insecure, low-status work. Markovits illustrates this through Uber: a small group of privileged managers and designers at the top, and millions of underpaid, overworked drivers at the bottom, with little hope of advancement.

Even in Europe, Australia, and Canada, social mobility is declining, leaving many only one accident away from financial disaster. And we are only beginning to grasp how automation, robotics, and digitalization will disrupt labor markets in the years ahead. The question gains urgency: how can we prevent social unrest fueled by structural inequality?

Now consider the pandemic in this context of social competition. One silver lining is that we have suddenly noticed those previously overlooked—the essential workers whose labor keeps society running. At the same time, the world faces a solidarity test of unprecedented scale.

The social and economic toll of lockdowns is immense. For millions of small business owners, losing a livelihood means losing a life’s dream, accompanied by sleepless nights over layoffs. For 60% of U.S. citizens, unemployment also means losing health insurance. Factory workers face hardship when global trade stalls. Labor migrants lose income abroad and, with it, the ability to support families at home. Day laborers risk a day without work, a day without food.

As the dust of the pandemic settles, one fact is already clear: those who have nothing to lose are vulnerable to extreme solutions—communist revolutions, ethnic cleansing, fascist nationalism, scapegoating, and sectarian violence. History has shown this before, and these threats remain real.

Anger is fueled by a lack of recognition. In times of uncertainty, we cannot afford for people to feel humiliated economically or socially. To prevent such anger, we must urgently ask: how can we safeguard each person’s self-esteem and dignity?

This raises a further question: what matters more to society—someone’s income or their contribution to its functioning? As long as income dominates our valuation, society remains divided into ‘workers’ and ‘volunteers,’ with the latter feeling undervalued. If, instead, we recognize all contributions to the common good—whether a police officer, accountant, nurse, family caregiver, church elder, or babysitting grandparent—we create a culture of genuine appreciation.

Recognizing unpaid work may require calculating its economic value—for example, the costs saved in healthcare by family caregivers. The next step is deciding how much value to assign to various contributions and how to ensure all efforts are appropriately recognized, including financially.

Hopefully, the pandemic encourages us to shift our admiration away from CEOs and traders toward the silent, often forgotten roles that keep society functioning. With unemployment soaring and the most vulnerable suffering the most, we cannot lose sight of everyone’s potential contributions. People need more than charity—they need to feel needed. Solidarity must take the form of acknowledgment and inclusion of every individual’s skills and efforts.

These are not optional exercises. The solidarity test is, in many cases, a matter of preventing anger. What applies within societies applies internationally: how do we prevent entire nations from having nothing to lose and becoming prone to extreme solutions?

The answer requires a global vision. It is time to rise above the four-year election cycle and consider what we want our nations and the world to look like in 2030, 2040, and 2050—and what investments are needed today. Climate change already demands this long-term perspective, but many other issues require the same approach. As Jeffrey Sachs writes in Common Wealth (2008): “The defining challenge of the 21st century will be to face the reality that humanity shares a common fate on a crowded planet.” That is our reality. Time is short. The pandemic is accelerating trends that were already in motion.

Part 1. Ideological / Part 2. ‘Glocal’ / BACK TO BLOGS

Posted on

Corona as catalyst: Ideological competition

Five centuries of Western dominance are now giving way to a new world order. Political, economic, military, cultural, and ideological structures are already being reshuffled. If the coronavirus spreads far enough, it will merely accelerate this transition. In this essay, I aim to briefly outline three of the major intersections shaping our time. Part 1: Ideological competition / Part 2. ‘Glocal’ / Part 3. Social

Since 2006, Freedom House has reported a decline in freedom and democracy worldwide—that is, freedom and democracy as Westerners understand it. China plays a major legitimizing role in this trend. With its collectivist and paternalistic regime, it challenges the ideological benchmark of the West. No matter how much privacy, journalistic independence, or political participation is curtailed in Chinese society, no Western country is willing to pay the price of a direct confrontation. Too costly, too risky. Some banks are too big to fail; some countries are too big to franchise. A giant like China cannot be reshaped in the West’s image, and under Xi Jinping, it has abandoned any hesitation. China openly emphasizes the non-universal nature of Western democracy, and the West exposes its impotence by remaining silent.

At the same time, the failures of the “global democratic revolution” announced by Bush during the 2003 Iraq War, the continuous arms supplies from the ‘free world’ to autocratic regimes, and the exposure of Western hyper-liberalism during the financial crisis are all evident. And one group is keenly watching: the authoritarian leaders of the world. They interpret these developments as confirmation of their own ambitions.

Loss of economic power leads inevitably to a loss of ideological influence. Gradually, we are realizing the implications for the emerging world order. The “Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era” has become an alternative ideology alongside Western political thought. Every country is now forced to take a position. Neutrality is no longer an option. Each nation will occupy a place on a spectrum between Western individualism and Eastern collectivism, between American liberalism and Chinese socialism.

Even the West is beginning to feel drawn toward Eastern thinking. According to the OECD, by 2030, 60% of middle-class consumption will take place in Asia. Global products—movies, for example—will increasingly be tailored to Eastern cultural tastes. The West will not remain unaffected. And this is only the beginning of India’s rise. The more India asserts its independence from the US, the more its cultural and ideological influence will expand.

Now consider the pandemic amid this ideological competition. What captures our attention as we fight the virus: individual or collective interest? And which approach proves more effective: the individualistic West or the collectivist East? For authoritarian regimes, the crisis only reinforces confidence. The coronavirus has provided a perfect justification for submitting China’s 1.4 billion citizens even more fully to an omnipresent surveillance system.

The West, meanwhile, has suspended a dramatic range of freedoms to combat the virus. Citizens largely approve, trusting the measures are temporary. But how temporary is “temporary” if pandemics recur, and other dangers—climate change, cyber-attacks, nuclear risks, global terrorism—remain just as menacing? All these threats demand collective responses. Should we really restore all freedoms? Would it not be wise to adopt at least some of the digital technologies proving effective in Asia?

The coronavirus has intensified a question that has been pressing since China’s rise: how to strike the right balance between individual and collective interests, liberty and security. I expect Western countries to drift toward Eastern thinking. How far they move will depend on how convincingly they can articulate the value of individual liberty—and the responsibility it entails. Liberty requires less control, and less control entails risks. The more insecure our lives become, the greater our faith in freedom must be if we are not to surrender it in the name of security.

Part 2. ‘Glocal’ / Part 3. Social / BACK TO BLOGS

Posted on

Corona reveals the world’s peculiarities

A ghost is haunting the world – a virus that enters all nations into a holy alliance. Yet, no matter how much we fight the same enemy, our battle is as colorful as the nations. Whoever wishes to get to know the world can learn a lot these days. In response to the same virus all countries and leaders reveal their own peculiarities. Let me mention a few.

National personalities

  • In egalitarian countries, leaders are quick in calling upon their citizen’s responsible; in hierarchic countries, citizens are quick in holding their leaders responsible.
  • In democratic countries, leaders are checked for accuracy and honesty; in authoritarian countries, leaders tend to avoid criticism through concealment.
  • In more ‘reason oriented’ countries, leaders tend to consider a targeted lockdown to spare the economy and build immunity; in more ‘passion oriented’ countries, leaders tend to reject this as cold and calculated and advocate for a total lockdown.

International reflexes

  • In the United States, we hear Trump speak of the “Chinese virus”; in Russia, we hear people speak of an American bioweapon.
  • In Africa, people suspect the West of using Africans as guinea pigs in the development of a vaccine.
  • In the European Union, old accusations between north and south come to light as soon as financial support is discussed.

Ideological priorities

  • While the US president makes every effort to protect the economy (leading to measures that are long overdue), the Chinese president makes every effort to secure the well-being of its citizens (leading to an even greater state control).
  • While the one European leader calls upon everyone’s sense of public responsibility, the other seizes the moment to rule by decree.

Seen in this light, this corona time is not exactly a revolutionary time. Rather, it is one big affirmation of the status quo. Still, many people state that the world will not be the same after corona. Are they right? I think they are. But let’s not forget that the world was changing already and will change anyway. In the next blogs I will explain why.

BACK TO BLOGS

Posted on

Three unavoidables if the West wants to sustain itself in a rapidly changing world

Speech I recently gave for the Koninklijke Industrieele Groote Club (www.igc.nl) in Amsterdam.

Brexit, Border Wall, Catalan separatism — western countries are absorbed by their own sovereignty issues. As a consequence, a much bigger issue is not addressed: how to sustain the West itself? Precisely when the West as a whole is losing influence, it is trapped in internal division. Instead of reflecting on a future-proof and non-imperialistic role for the West, (too many) western politicians are wasting precious time fighting each other and bullying the rest. The result is that they catalyze precisely the kind of marginalization they try to stop.

On 2 February 2019 I wrote that if the GDP projections of PwC are correct, not a single European country will sit at the table when the G8 gathers in 2050. Yet precisely now, nationalism is thriving and entire nations manage to grossly overestimate themselves.

As a Dutchman I live in the midst of this turmoil. At the same time, I crossed the globe in the last 10 years, speaking with social actors on all continents about sustainable solutions for social issues. Based on this experience, below 3 urgent recommendations to western politicians if they want the West to play a viable role in the years to come.

I. Stop being in denial

  1. Stop disguising the present
    • In this critical time of shaping our planetary future, facing major threats like cyber crime, nuclear risks, pandemics, global terrorism and climate change, the West cannot afford misleading politics: presenting ‘alternative facts‘ for electoral gain, hiding costs and difficulties when promoting solutions, and creating a false dichotomy between nationalism and globalism.
  2. Stop idealizing the past
    • As the West needs to respond to new issues (like its loss of power and the need for global solutions to global issues), it cannot afford a nostalgia that makes people only yearn for times that won’t come back. Above all, western countries need to overcome their post-imperial stress syndrome in which they only weaken their position by behaving as if they are still calling the shots. Brexit is currently the most dramatic example of this. It painfully shows that the United Kingdom is in no position to negotiate with 27 nations on an equal footing. Ironically, only a supranational entity like the EU can make this kind of equal dialogue possible. Leaving the EU means: falling back on the old law of the strongest between nations. Separatists in Scotland and Catalonia will bump into the same reality if they ever face negotiations with the UK or Spain.
  3. Stop blocking the future
    • Reform is gravely needed to make international institutions more suitable for global dialogue and collaboration. The longer the West waits with giving up its disproportionate power in the UN Security Council, World Bank, IMF, etc., the bigger the chance that non-western nations create their own entities (like China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank). This weakens not only the western-controlled entities, but also the world’s ability to solve its joint issues.

II. Secure your Western values

  1. Secure your activism
    • 400 years ago, the West started embracing a mentality of not accepting human suffering, but always seeking “to relieve and benefit the condition of man” (Francis Bacon, 1620). This mentality is inherently optimistic, as it persistently believes that it is worth seeking solutions for whatever challenge we face. The current doom and gloom attitude of the West threatens this spirit. Time to breathe new life into it and make the whole world benefit.
  2. Secure your democracy
    • 200 years ago, the West started embracing the idea that every human being deserves equal respect and equal opportunity to participate in civil and political life without discrimination or repression. This idea is currently under pressure, with politicians disqualifying entire groups in society based on religion or ethnic background, with income inequality rising again, freedom in decline worldwide, and even EU countries leaning towards authoritarian types of governance. Time to re-affirm the meaning of universal human dignity.
  3. Secure your solidarity
    • 100 years ago, the West started embracing a welfare system in which the state protects and promotes the economic and social well-being of its citizens. After World War II, this system got expanded in Western Europe in response to Fascism, Nazism and Communism. It had become painfully clear that people who have nothing to lose become prone to extreme politics. In this time of new uncertainty and discontent, the West can draw from its past a powerful incentive to invest in solidarity again. Globalization, automation and robotics will disturb the labor market to such an extent, that a growing group of unemployed people cannot be retrained in time and stay unemployed. It will be up to us to decide, whether we want to further humiliate these citizens by treating them as a ‘cost item’ to society, or invite them to show their value in other ways.

III. Start valuing your assets

  1. Value your allies
    • If China can openly reject western democracy, Russia openly annex Crimea, and Turkey openly censor the media, western countries better start valuing their like-minded allies. This is the worst moment for the West to be internally divided, as it directly undermines the strength and credibility of western ideology. Building and preserving western partnerships, even at the cost of national sovereignty, may be the only way for the West to keep the critical mass that it needs to sustain what it holds dear.
  2. Value your culture
    • In 2030, Asia will represent 66% of the global middle-class population and 59% of middle-class consumption. Economic power means cultural power: the world will see more eastern-oriented products, adapted to the preferences of the biggest market: Asia. The West will have to decide where it draws the line in adapting to this culture shift. Not for superiority reasons, but to maintain a western sense of home and preserve the cultural assets with which the West can complement other nations.
  3. Value your planet
    • All of the above becomes irrelevant if the West cannot preserve the biggest asset it shares with all nations: our one world, with its global issues and vulnerable ecosystems. Before sustaining itself, the West needs a plan for the planet, for “there is no planet B”. The planet does not care about East or West, North or South. It only feels the weight of 7 billion people and eagerly awaits the moment in which all unite around one vision for the one earth we have.

In short, we urgently need western politicians who don’t give in to polarized debates but boldly manage to do both: preserving our assets with western nations as our contribution to the common good and our sense of home in the world, and preserving our planet with all nations to have a home at all.

BACK TO BLOGS

Posted on

The irresistible features of Western populism

What characterizes Western populism ? Matthew Goodwin, professor of politics at the University of Kent, gives the following answer:

In the aggregate, national populists oppose or reject liberal globalisation, mass immigration and the consensus politics of recent times. They promise instead to give voice to those who feel that they have been neglected, if not held in contempt, by increasingly distant elites.

Given the rise of populism in the West, what is so attractive about this opposition to liberal globalization, mass immigration and consensus politics? Some very basic human needs. And although one would expect every politician to address these needs, populists somehow manage to be more convincing to a growing group of people. Here they are:

  1. Populists tackle people’s cultural need to come home somewhere.
    • Populists show that they realize that unlimited globalization leads to homelessness. A world that only facilitates free movements of people and ideas across the globe, makes people feel lost in their own country, city or street. ‘The world’ is too big and too diverse to provide a local neighborhood that feels safe and familiar. To feel at home somewhere, we need to understand the language of our neighbors, appreciate a common set of customs and attitudes, and share some basic values and convictions. Without these, a society becomes socially disintegrated and culturally perplexed.
  2. Populists tackle people’s social need to be seen and economic need to be protected.
    • Populists show that they realize that people on the losing end of globalization, automation and robotics cannot keep hearing that these changes are unavoidable. They need politicians who can make them feel that they actually care about the ‘forgotten ones’ in society, and are willing to take an uncompromising stand in protecting their well-being.
  3. Populists tackle people’s political need for clarity and leadership.
    • Populists show that they realize that people who are not trained to deal with complex issues can feel more and more lost in a world that gets more and more complicated. This group is not waiting for academic reflections on the uncertainty and ambiguity of things, but for a clear description of both the problem and the solution, and robust leadership when it comes to pursuing this solution.

So, here is the good news about Western populism: it raises awareness of some basic human needs that are currently insufficiently addressed, forcing other politicians to respond as well. The solutions that populists promote, are, however, not without a price:

  1. Populists promote nationalism at the cost of global collaboration.
    • Protecting national cultures and economies won’t solve issues that still require international collaboration (cyber crime, nuclear risks, pandemics, international crime, global terrorism, climate change, etc.) It also won’t stop the dependency of countries on international trade. Somehow, the ‘art of the deal’ lies in combining all three: securing people’s cultural homes and securing international trade and securing the planet’s future. A juggle as difficult as it is unavoidable.
  2. Populists provoke disappointment by over-shouting themselves.
    • In their effort to respond to people’s need for clarity and leadership, it is tempting for populists to bring a lot of misery in society back to one enemy or cause. Build a wall, leave the EU, stop the immigrants, fight Islam, and most will be well. This simplicity won’t last. One day, reality will reveal the true complexity of things – and who will people then believe? Somehow, the ‘art of the deal’ lies in offering a clear vision to people who deal with uncertainties, a vision that secures people’s well-being and keeps everyone participating, but without hiding unavoidable costs and difficulties.

Here are 2 lessons for Western politics we can draw from the above:

  1. Don’t make people choose between nationalism or globalism, but invest in both a cultural home and collaboration across borders.
  2. Don’t make people choose between compelling simplicity or realistic complexity, but invest in the clarity and leadership that is required to keep everyone on board in a transitioning society.

This last point I will pick up in a later blog.

BACK TO BLOGS

Posted on

Why tomorrow will be less democratic than today

Western-style democracy, emphasizing individual freedoms and rights, is under global pressure and facing decline even in the West. Here are five reasons why.

1. China gets away with an authoritarian approach
Some banks are “too big to fail”, some countries are “too big to franchise”. There is no way Western democracies can shape China in their own image. It is also clear by now that they are not willing to sacrifice political and economic relations with China in exchange for upholding a Western view on democracy and human rights. So, get used to a world where superpowers can be openly undemocratic (according to Western standards) and get away with it. And don’t forget how inspiring it can be for other regimes, and how much it can add legitimacy to their own authoritarian ambitions, to see China ‘win’ with an authoritarian approach.

(Russia is a different and more complicated story, due to its strong army and vulnerable economy. Its military strength demands caution in the West; its economic needs provide opportunities for the West.)

2. Western-style democracy does not seem the ultimate solution any longer
Western-style democracy is a tough seed to sow: in most countries where it was recently introduced, it failed. Democracy is a vulnerable system as it requires discussions among equals and does not stop the election of undemocratic people and parties. Whatever its value, recent history has made it much easier for opponents to dismiss it as a universal solution. In October 2014, an influential journal of the Chinese Communist Party (Qiushi) made the following statement with reference to the enduring violence and turmoil in countries like Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq and Libya:

The West always brags that its own democracy is a ‘universal value’ and denies there is any other form of democracy… Western democracy has innate internal flaws and certainly is not a ‘universal value’; its blind copying can only lead to disaster.

The days are over when the West could suffice with simply supposing the superior nature and universal resolving power of its democracy.

3. Secular societies lack the resilience to withstand their need for security
More freedom means less security, more security means less freedom. A well-known dilemma in democracies, leading to the question: what will democracies need more in the coming years, security or freedom? The answer is clearly security, for two reasons: 1) the growing amount of threats within and around democracies, making citizens feel more vulnerable, 2) a lack of resilience in democracies to accept risks.

Ad 2) The Democracy Index of The Economist Intelligence Unit shows that the most democratic countries also happen to be the most secular countries in the world. This combination seems to have a price: the less people can surrender to Someone or Something that controls the universe – a God (Jews, Muslims, Christians), Spirit or Life Force (Taoists, Buddhists, New Agers), Social Order (Confucianists, Socialists) – the more difficult it becomes to accept adversities and risks in life. Friends and family can compensate to some extent, but solitude is a major problem in secular societies and only some problems can be fixed by others. So, what we see in secular societies is a lack of resilience: people can be the happiest in the world when their life is in order, but easily get anxious or depressed when things get out of hand. There is little tolerance for anything that threatens the good life. Combine this with the growing threats in the world and we may see a growing willingness in precisely the most democratic countries, to sacrifice freedoms in exchange for more security.

Big question: where will this process end? How much loss of freedom does it take before people start to accept insecurities in exchange for freedom?

4. World issues cannot be solved in a tolerant way
Pandemics, climate change, cyber crime, international crime, global terrorism, nuclear risks – the dangers these issues contain can only be tackled if all countries cooperate. Leave one out, and hackers, criminal organizations and terrorists will pick that country as their hiding place. And so, the more urgent these issues become, the less countries will be patient with those that obstruct the process. World issues, by their nature, don’t care about the sovereignty of states, and so will powerful states when facing a clear and present danger. Authoritarianism will take over, a less democratic world order appear.

5. Democracies cannot be defended in a democratic way
Another notorious dilemma: democratic tolerance can only be defended in an intolerant way. We simply cannot differ about the democratic space to differ. Democratic rules ensure freedom, but only if everyone submits to them. This raises the question: do democracies need to be more intolerant in the coming years, to ensure a fee and open society? The current rise of oppressive groups, in and around democracies, clearly points towards a yes. And so, expect to see more ‘inevitable intolerance’ coming from democracies as a matter of self preservation. Democratic governments will have to be specific about the rules of an open and free society, and they will have to enforce these rules where needed. A process as unavoidable as it is tricky, because of the continuous risk that democracies become too specific about the rules and a source of oppression in their fight for freedom.

BACK TO BLOGS

Posted on

How cities changed our spirituality

Once, we were all hunters and gatherers. Then we started developing agriculture and domesticating animals. Some of us turned into pastoral nomads, moving livestock between pastures. Others turned into farmers, cultivating fields. Then the urbanites appeared, doing everything but producing food (13 May 2012).

Those who ended up in cities had to organize themselves in new ways, as the old ways of running society didn’t suffice any longer. Innovations occurred with a profound impact on people’s spirituality. Here are two of these revolutionary changes in society:

Conflict control – from nomadic blood ties to urban law enforcement
As all the members of a nomad group belonged to the same tribe, it was in their common interest to end internal conflicts as soon as possible. Any revenge or escalation of violence within the group would only diminish their own survival chances. Most issues could therefore be resolved quite peacefully. The traditional Indian approach was to discuss the issue until consensus was achieved.

In sharp contrast to this stood the city with its many different tribes. When these tribes clashed, blood ties could no longer inhibit the escalation of violence. In order to resolve urban conflicts, a third party was needed, one with the authority to adjudicate and with a monopoly on violence. The judge appeared, and to avoid controversial verdicts that would only provoke new conflicts, laws were carved in stone. Whoever violated these laws would face another urban invention: law enforcers.

All very understandable, even unavoidable, these urban innovations. But the fact remained that the communal self regulation of tribes was replaced by laws and law enforcers. Relational solutions had to make way for legal solutions. And it wasn’t always obvious that laws and rulers served the interests of the entire community. Endless fights occurred between those who thought it right to enforce the law and those who thought it right to break the law. New forms of spirituality were needed to enhance the arrival of righteous laws and law-abiding citizens. And it still took many more centuries before one powerful idea, the idea of democracy, would finally convince sufficient citizens to combine the necessity of laws and rulers with the good of communal self regulation.

Solidarity – from family duty to religious and legal duty
Some quotations from Stephen Sachs about leadership and solidarity in traditional Indian tribes:

Leaders (who have mistakenly been called “chiefs”) functioned primarily as facilitators, consensus builders, and announcers of decisions. In general, they had little or no decision making power of their own, though usually they had influence. They were chosen for positions of leadership on the basis of their high moral character and ability to represent the people and lead in the long term interests of the community as a whole. (..) Culturally, people believed in, and related on the basis of, mutual respect, identifying with the band or tribe as an extended family, in which members supported each other in their individual endeavors to the extent that they did not contradict the common good, while they collaborated out of mutual interest and a strong sense of shared consensus. (..) At the same time, economically, as well as socially, the structure of living caused people to need each other’s support, while economic power was at least not so concentrated as to upset egalitarian relations, and was most often broadly dispersed in economies based upon reciprocity (..). Thus, by developing cooperation and a sense of unity through honoring diversity on the basis of mutual respect, these communities usually maintained a very high quality of life.

What a contrast between this servant leadership, solidarity and mutual respect among the members of nomadic tribes, and the oppression and exploitation that seems almost inextricably connected to the rise of urban societies. But let’s not rush towards moral qualifications. Let’s first recall that cities became the habitat of many different tribes. As these tribes were focused first of all on their own survival, conflicts would usually end with winners and losers – meaning that one family would turn into a dynasty of rulers and the others would have to settle with being subjects or slaves. New forms of spirituality were needed to rediscover and redefine the value of brotherhood, of equality, solidarity and mutual respect beyond ethnic borders. And it still took many more centuries before one powerful idea, the idea of human rights, provided a legal basis for egalitarian relations and community-based leadership.

We city-dwellers can easily marvel at the social and natural harmony of nomadic tribes. Romantic Hollywood productions like “Dances with Wolves” (1990) and “The New World” (2005) make us sometimes yearn for that which we lost in the city and never fully found again. Urban life has put us on a long journey towards a new understanding and embrace of brotherhood and solidarity. And yes, we did make progress, thanks to the idea of democracy and human rights. But it seems the search isn’t over. Precisely in the most democratic societies, loneliness and individualism have become major issues. It seems we need more than democracy and human rights to fully enjoy brotherhood again.

BACK TO BLOGS