After World War II, many decision-makers realized that the most efficient and effective way to ensure peace and well-being for themselves was through guaranteeing peace and well-being for others. Many governments around the world organized to create a vast global architecture that would fulfill this goal. On one side, a system of multilateral institutions with global and regional reach was created, which were united in the imaginary of being part of the “United Nations.” At the same time, the so-called national development agencies were consolidated.
Overall, it was an imperfect system because there were opposing visions that hindered the implementation of a unified agenda. A global government was never imposed—simply a system of governance that put wars with the potential to directly confront the great powers on pause. In any case, the search for containment of Soviet socialism led liberal segments to use the state and international system as a means of spreading their agenda through the investment of large sums of money injected into the global system.
Through this investment, Western countries, primarily the United States, secured positions in decision-making and maintained the system in such a way that the Soviet proposal would not expand. But indirectly, it also managed to contain the vices of capitalism itself. Although private enterprise and the role of free trade were protected, minimal survival conditions for the majority of citizens were ensured, and the idea was spread that all members of society deserved basic dignity conditions.
Under this system, humanity was able to challenge the vices of war (as the 20th century was offering), hunger (although not completely eradicated), and diseases (at least in their most deadly forms). However, for many segments that did not benefit from this model, as well as critics of capitalism and neoliberalism, it has been insufficient, as the process of change was too slow. Although statistics reflect a significant improvement in the quality of human life, at least compared to the previous system, the persistence of the problems that this global architecture fights against is frustrating and unsatisfactory for many. Millions of people continue to die in medium-scale conflicts, from starvation, lack of drinking water, and preventable diseases. In addition, millions of people live below the poverty line while the wealthiest 1% of the planet accumulates nearly half of global wealth.
Although the System Has Been Showing Signs of Exhaustion for More Than Two Decades, the Warnings Have Been Ignored at All Levels of Decision-Making. The model has become stagnant, tied to schemes of great bureaucracy, slow processes, and cumbersome procedures. What many decision-makers did not realize is that the system depends on states promoting its change, and among them, the most relevant has always been the United States.
In other words, changing the system was not really in the hands of the great international bureaucracy of the United Nations, although their comfortable silence turned them into accomplices. Meanwhile, the politicians in power have used the existing international system to economically benefit from the temporary peace created through the important work of specialized agencies, which have gradually and steadily reduced conflicts by injecting financial resources and projects that improved the quality of life for global productive forces.
However, the COVID-19 pandemic changed everything. Humanity faced a period of intense crisis that put the system in check, paralyzed the economy, and diverted resources from cooperation to safeguard national and private interests. This raised alarms about the effectiveness of the current model but, above all, awakened one of the most powerful survival elements for the individual—and most dangerous for the articulated society: distrust.
The disease, which led many people to believe that their lives might be at risk regardless of their personal circumstances, ended up being a Pandora’s box that accelerated a multi-crisis, where virtually all segments of human life have been hindered or deteriorated, including the economy, education, health, employment, and security. The origins of this virus are still a subject of debate, with some viewing it as a premeditated act, while others still see it as an accident, something that, in fact, contributes to instability and interpersonal and international distrust. Meanwhile, the results of its mismanagement severely impacted the credibility of global institutions.
Certain segments of the global economic elite, long criticized as responsible for the system’s shortcomings, have taken advantage of this situation. Reports on the poison of economic inequality, tax evasion, and disproportionate justice have been growing since the early 21st century.
What better than a scapegoat to deflect attention and shift the blame?
Thus, despite the significant evidence of how cooperation and development aid have brought stability and prosperity to the world, the wealthiest 0.1% have decided that this era has come to an end. Some signs of institutionalism are striving to make themselves present. However, the lack of organization within civil society, which is ultimately the true engine of structural change, means these victories are temporary.
If the great puppeteers of global power succeed in convincing the world’s population that democratic institutions, which serve them or at least provide a systemic counterbalance to the interests of the elites, are unnecessary, the world will enter a cycle of authoritarianism similar to the feudal period. This would imply that the political apparatus would lose interest in responding to the needs of the majority, moving directly to the imposition of those who accumulate the most power, even denying the legitimacy of the claims.
Supporters of the new regime will strive to point out that it is not an exact replica. However, the return to a regime where the gap between those holding power and those at the bottom of the social pyramid is further widened will show that the essence of the new system will resemble that of ancient feudalism, with a few destined for power and many forced to follow it.
And although there are some pockets of healthy resistance and debate, everything seems to indicate that the antibodies to fight against this systemic infection are too weak to prevent the consolidation of this new and uncertain global scenario. Those of us who lack the tools of power will have to be passive spectators as the world we knew is left behind, until history begins a new cycle, with no guarantees that, in this new phase, Homo sapiens will remain the dominant species on Earth.
*Machine translation proofread by Janaína da Silva.
Autor
Master in Public Policy and Human Development with Specialization in Regional Integration and Multilevel Governance. Co-author of the books “The path to integration from identity: A South American approach”; “Strategic intelligence of the future: Critical and interconnected thinking in a global world.”
