I had thought I might agonise over all the strange twists and turns of global politics for today’s piece. It is hard to keep up. I made a few starts at analysis, but each day brings something more outrageous. And besides, there is a sense that focusing on outrage, or what Trump did in early January versus what he’s doing today, really isn’t a particularly good use of time. Instead, I tried to think what some of these issues came down to at their core, and came up with the following list.   

• Poor Global Parenting

It is possible to look at some of the seemingly surreal things taking place in world politics today — Trump’s actions in Venezuela, followed by his adamance that he must have Greenland, for example – and sense a gross failure of global parenting. On some level, it seems that what would not have been tolerated on an individual level, has been tolerated and even promoted on a global level. A “softly-softly” approach was possibly never the best approach to dealing with Trump’s behaviour. And the fact of him being the leader of a major “ally” perhaps needed to be less relevant right from the start. In a world of bullying powers, it is clear that the rules of the game are no longer predictable, or indeed anything like what they were. Here Mr Merz mentions the “stark contrast” that is Davos, as well as words like “great powers”, “strength” and “force”. “It is not a cosy place”. No, Mr Merz, it certainly isn’t.

• A focus on talk over action

The propensity for politicians to talk is endless. Today is the annual “Ukrainian Breakfast” at Davos. I mean the idea in itself is fine, I suppose: people wearing lanyards about their necks getting together in a room, with bright lights, presentations and speakers. Every year. And this year, they look to be doing all the same things: talking, mingling, saying that there is reason for hope while noting how bad things are, perhaps displaying some sobering statistics on the screens. And then?

There is another version of the “Ukrainian Breakfast” which goes something like this. It involves waking up – or already being awake having not slept much – with a feeling close to that of a hangover. There has been no drinking, but being woken up repeatedly by the sound of air raid sirens, air defence and the passage of drones overhead followed by explosions can have a similar effect. The next question is: “Is there power this morning?” Check the light switch – no power. This means the “Ukrainian breakfast” will not involve tea, coffee or porridge – unless it’s cold tea, coffee or porridge. Some cold cereal and out the door into the sub-zero temperatures, breakfast over. Bringing soldiers from the frontlines to Davos doesn’t really change that either – I guess it means they can enjoy a hot breakfast in the warmth for a change, but apart from that?

• The suits and ties brigade: appearance over substance

The idea of a politician or leader hasn’t changed much over the last 50 odd years. Sure, we have Trump, who would have been unimaginable as a political leader in times past. But Trump is perhaps an extreme case in point: as long as it wears a suit and tie and looks like it knows what it’s doing, then that’s what counts. The idea of business attire used to be associated with things like moderation, thoughtfulness and seriousness. Now it is just another tokenistic nod to bygone days. Zelensky is perhaps the notable exception. He might wear that black jersey because it’s war time, but there is something refreshing about a politician who just is – without frills or pretence. His career trajectory, too, goes against the norm: from actor to politician, rather than politician to actor.

‘Young leaders’ are subtly schooled in appearance as much as they are in substance. Look at a meeting where graduate students meet older officials, for example – many if not most of the students will already have started dressing in a way that they consider to be “professional”. It’s all about the looks – the shirt sleeves, the hair, the nails, the business dress – the signs that these are people with means, in clothes that matter, with the time, inclination and resources to invest in a manicured appearance.

• The long lag of education

It is interesting to look at the content of educational programs in disciplines like international relations and diplomacy and find how little they have changed. I put this down to education generally being slow to catch up with what is happening in the wider world. I get the sense that universities are at heart generally conservative institutions, with an over-riding belief that each generation must be taught “to do things properly”, according to how they have been done for generations. This means that all the essential rules and building blocks of academia must be repeated over and over again, in a way that is time-consuming and possibly out of touch with reality. All the wonders of research must be instilled from scratch – from understanding the underlying philosophies and concepts, to the mastering of statistical tests and applying of investigative methodology. There must be theses, and theses supervisors and defences of dissertations – and of course, the idea that there is a stable and secure career at the end of it all. That career is of course anticipated to involve business attire, and maybe even the leisurely prospect of breakfasting at Davos.

The problem is that the world of slow, methodically digested pieces of research doesn’t exist anymore, if it ever really did. I recall a professor at university challenging us about statements like “we need to do more research”. Was the problem really a lack of research, or a problem with how to translate the already vast body of existing research into workable solutions? Were we going to spend our time ponderously researching the reproductive biology of sea slugs, for example, when maybe there wasn’t even the luxury of time to do so? In a discipline like Ecology, many of the “solutions” seemed inherently political. And yet – politics itself is arguably just as slow to see the writing on the wall and change direction.

• Repairing old institutions and reputations, versus considering a new approach

To come back to Merz’s speech at Davos in which he recommends not giving up on institutions like NATO: maybe it’s time to recognise that such institutions had their place, are still with us today, but are perhaps not the only or best way forward from here. The focus on NATO, economic strength and defence that he proposes, are very much pillars of the old world. If, in the words of the Bob Dylan song “the times they are a Changin’”, then we might need to start thinking along multiple tracks at once. Having populations sitting passively behind their screens listening to Merz talk about strategically strengthening their defence, much as I did just now, does not suggest great action for times of great change. It suggests an overwhelming sense of passivity, and a sense that the old guys in suits and ties might be in need of new ideas.  

Image credit: AI. Title borrowed from the Bob Dylan song of the same name.