What’s the best thing world leaders could do now? ‘Let go’ and ‘embrace uncertainty’ | Fran Boait
IF There is one thing that marked the first year of the Minister of Keir Starmer, it is a propensity for control – that it is to manage his own party, to suppress civil freedoms and to protest, or to integrate fear and anxiety in marginalized groups. For a center-left party, the authoritarian Starmer strain has shown is not exactly in accordance with the “change” of the conservatives who have been promised.
Governments seek to control the populations, politicians seek to control their parties: it is nothing new and was explicitly promoted since the Prince of Machiavelli was published in 1532. When leaders understand the power of detention as an end in itself, and see the method as controlling those which they have more power, they prevent them from causing real changes, because “non-control” that they seek to create. And trying to closely control the results is poorly suited to an increasingly complex and unstable world.
At the same time, a different mode of control exists in institutions that implement government policy. It is based on rules, favored by strongly hierarchical structures promoting conformity, rigid frameworks and inflexible mentalities, as well as an excessive culture of confidence. This dynamic may seem benign or even necessary for a functional bureaucracy. However, if they are unbalanced, they can stifle the creative thought and collaboration necessary to meet complex challenges. Whether it is consultations without the intention of an in -depth commitment or listening, or an inability to integrate the climate crisis in economic frameworks, seeking to maintain control, institutions are not able to make significant changes.
Or to put it frankly, key performance indicators and descendants’ reflection, combined with an overly zealous control frame, will not have the chance to combat climate break, the cost of living, the mental health epidemic or the loss of confidence in politics. This situation of crises that overlap is what academics like to call polycrisy, characterized by radical uncertainty and nasty complexity.
Leaving the pandemic, there was an increased discussion between decision -makers, recognizing the need to recognize uncertainty. The value of this is clear: a report commissioned by the European Environment Agency and published in 2002 has examined more than 100 years of policies development, highlighting the areas where uncertainty has not been sufficiently recognized or taken into account when key decisions were taken, as during the ESB crisis. The authors concluded that, many times, what was missing was the need for humility more in the development of public policies on what was not known, declaring: “Decision -making is faced with the continuous prospect of surprise. This is the condition formerly known as ignorance. ” When the institutions do not recognize what they do not know, they are left exposed and not prepared, and the leaders obsessed with control and certainty are blocked to take serious perspectives. These dynamics are not well suited to a world that is upset, with fascism and ecological collapse at our door.
However, the need for certainty and control is not limited to power rooms. Through psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, evolutionary biology and the shutters of spirituality, it is recognized that our brains are wired for certainty. Neuroscience studies show that the brain reacts to uncertainty as a threat based on fear, triggering the response center to the threat called amygdal. There is a reason for evolving survival to this, to detect and react to danger: “How will I protect myself if I don’t know what comes to me?” The response to the excessive threat of humans is also shaped by culture and society. We have a political media establishment which is happy to pump ready opinions not only which are not only baseless and false, but also provoke our response to the threat. And during the period of economic decline and uncertainty, it is possible for far -right groups to divert and trigger emotional and psychological reactions towards marginalized groups. When imaginary fears are adopted and promoted by those in power, it is not a mistake: it is a way of controlling.
The dominant mode of power which continues to function in society, and certainly in the Labor Party today, is “power over”, which is built on control, domination and coercion. Leadership exerts pressure and stress, which can often cause our response to the tonsil threat. People become paranoid and enter Overdrive by trying to control everything. To a certain extent, I understand these answers. As a 27 -year -old too confident player, when I assumed a director’s role, I certainly wanted to control everything. I had to work hard against this trend in order to direct collaboratively. The expression “maintaining uncertainty” was useful to me, because it meant that I did not always trust my first reaction in situations, or to the stories that my brain told me. It reminded me of taking different opinions, rather than rejecting them simply. Of course, I made mistakes, but I was also open to examining my own control and perfectionist trends.
“Kissing uncertainty” or “letting go” was mainly limited to the pages of self-assistance books, but letting go of the individual level does not make sense if you cannot pay your rent or if your family is expelled. However, if we apply it to our institutions, power centers, systems and structures, this can be a travel direction against authoritarianism, move towards co-creation, pluralist thinking that goes beyond compartmentalized categories and the construction of coalitions against the extreme right. We are a quarter of the path throughout this century, and the climate change report of the IPCC indicates that the increase in global temperature could reach 5.7 ° C by 2100, which makes a large part of the world not livable. At the same time, fascism is increasing. Renewing our democracies, going to a healthier culture, attacking the climate crisis and redirecting the economy will only occur if we distance our culture and our institutions from control. We have to let go. What do we have to lose?
