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: ‘Glocal’ 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 2: ‘Glocal’ competition / Part 1. Ideological / Part 3. Social

The world is in transition, first of all demanding ideological reflection within societies. But let us now consider this transition from an international perspective, because a second issue—already pressing—is becoming even more urgent: how important is national self-determination in a world that is increasingly interconnected and facing threats that demand international coordination?

Globalization is not new. For as long as we can remember, people have ventured ever farther from home in search of opportunity. History records a succession of winners and losers: those who benefit from other nations, and those who do not. Winners embrace the free movement of people, goods, and services; losers prefer to shut their borders. In past centuries, the West largely belonged to the winning side, asserting its right to free trade—even when selling, for example, opium to China. Today, we see the Chinese, Indians, Poles, and Mexicans seizing the opportunities of free movement, while the wealthiest parts of the West respond with slogans such as “America First” (Trump), “We Want Our Country Back” (UKIP), and “The Netherlands Is Ours” (Party for Freedom).

Behind this nostalgic nationalism and ironic protectionism lies a double motive: the West’s perceived loss of control threatens people not only economically but culturally. Chinese and Russian investors acquire Western companies and football clubs; Western mosques and Islamic schools are funded with Turkish and Arab money. Add the fear of Europe’s “Islamification,” and, in the Netherlands, the heated debate over Black Pete, and for many it is clear: it is not only Western economies but also Western culture that must be fiercely defended.

At the same time, something unprecedented is happening: never before has the entire world needed to collaborate to safeguard the planet. All nations face the same threats—climate change, nuclear risks, scarcity of water and raw materials, cyberattacks, refugee flows, human trafficking, and more. Each of these issues requires international coordination to be addressed effectively. No hacker, tsunami, or radioactive leak respects national borders, trade balances, or cultural heritage. In all these cases, nationalism alone is doomed to fail.

Now consider the pandemic unfolding amid this “glocal” competition. Here is another global challenge that binds nations together precisely as nationalism surges. Which way will the balance tip: toward international collaboration or national self-sufficiency? At present, we see both: countries confronting the same virus as if the rest of the world—or even the EU—did not exist, while scientists collaborate across continents to develop a vaccine.

This duality highlights an essential fact—one that shaped Europe’s history but is often forgotten in nationalist times: science and technology are never purely local affairs; they determine the fate of all humankind. Countries that isolate their scientific knowledge may protect a patent or two, but they forfeit the global potential of brainpower, expertise, and innovation.

And what of the economy? Will the pandemic push nations apart or bring them closer? History offers a lesson. During World War I, the sudden halt of global trade exposed nations’ vulnerabilities. Food shortages led to crises—including a national revolt in the Netherlands. After the war, many countries sought economic self-sufficiency (autarky). This strategy, however, created winners and losers. Some nations managed far better than others, and after a few decades, three proud nations—trapped by their own autarky policies and convinced of their entitlement—sparked World War II.

Today, we again witness the vulnerabilities of a globalized world: first physical, then economic. Disruptions in global trade are causing shortages, tempting politicians—especially in the West—to advocate economic self-sufficiency. In some cases, this makes sense: securing medical supplies, medicines, or reducing CO₂ emissions. But new self-sufficiency inevitably creates winners and losers. Famines and civil wars may follow when countries close their factories, and even less dramatic effects—for instance, reduced exports—can ripple outward.

This raises another question: when is it appropriate for a nation to defend its self-interest, and when does such defense backfire because cooperation and good relationships with other nations are essential?

The West is losing influence in the world. The United States and Great Britain, in particular, suffer from a “post-imperial stress disorder.” The world no longer aligns so neatly with Western interests, and some politicians interpret this as a license for unfettered national self-protection. The coronavirus may intensify this tendency, but the more inward-looking the West becomes, the more China—and soon India—will fill the leadership vacuum. Not only do these nations benefit from international partnerships, but many global challenges still demand cooperation. Countries can only achieve their goals if they can mobilize allies when decisions are made. China understands this and continues investing in relationships—even during the pandemic—while the West often weakens its old alliances.

The pandemic has made one reality undeniable: all nations share a single fate on one planet. As Westerners, we once held noble ideas about global responsibility. Let us hope we do not long forget why liberty, equality, and fraternity were cherished—not for one privileged nation, but for all of humankind.

Part 1. Ideological / Part 3. Social / 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