The transition is unlikely to happen without the system fighting back. To paraphrase the early 20^th century activist, Antonio Gramsci, “When the old is dying, but the new has not been born yet, a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.” The first challenge in dealing with them is pinning down the system. The existing system is not one thing, nor even several discrete things. Some of its aspects are everywhere, and yet it is nowhere completely. It is partly physical and partly psychological – the latter permeating not only individual psychology but also the social zeitgeist, widely accepted ideas and beliefs.

To make all that manageable, we address here three major avenues through which the resistance to change is channelled: political/state agencies, the corporate and financial sector, and system-generated populism. This is not to say that all political and governmental institutions are bad, that the entire corporate and financial sector is rotten, or that every populist movement is malignant. Black-and-white thinking is itself a product of the system, and if we fall for it, we may lose potential allies in the worlds of politics, commerce, finance and popular movements. However, there is little doubt that a big part of the political and corporate worlds, as well as some populist movements, knowingly or unknowingly serve the system. Although these forces may appear at loggerheads on the surface, they are united in resisting evolution and preserving the status quo. Let’s consider how we can withstand such pressures and protect the change – and ourselves – from them.

Political/state agencies

We should clarify first that neither the government nor the state is the same as the system. Most governments must serve the system to some extent, as they don’t want to see it collapse during their tenure, but this is almost never black-and-white. Many good initiatives that can contribute to evolution are supported and even launched by the state, particularly in social democracies. For example, co-op and social enterprise incentives, green energy and recycling projects, protection of the commons (including oceans), investment in R&D, regulation of the financial and corporate sectors, and protection from the ‘tyranny of the majority’. We need to capitalise on that and try to reach out to those in charge through existing channels of communication. Contrary to popular belief, many people, especially at the local level, still enter politics for idealistic reasons and can be helpful in supporting constructive change.

We also need to continue engaging in existing political processes. A great number of people don’t vote because they believe that all politicians serve the system, so it doesn’t really matter who is at the helm. Even if this might be true to some extent, who is in charge still matters. For example, some leaders may be less obstructive to the creation of parallel structures, or their stewardship may buy us more time to prepare for what will come next. From that perspective, it is not so important whether they are ideologically on the left, right, or centre. What matters is who has a steadier hand. This is no longer about the direction of the runaway train but who will make the decline less damaging. Let’s take the US as an example. Indeed, there is not much difference in the overall direction if the Democratic or Republican party is in charge. However, putting an inexperienced and erratic president, such as Donald Trump, in charge reduces the chances of a soft landing manyfold.

That said, it is also true that the political apparatus tries to prevent or stall any changes that affect the (not always elected) ruling elite. And it is getting more sophisticated at that. It has learned that using force and overt aggression against dissidents and activists can backfire. A passive-aggressive approach is less conspicuous and can arguably be as effective. Here are some of its tactics:

Containing and ignoring: the biggest UK protest to date was against the Iraq invasion in 2003. Two million people throughout the country. Massive but peaceful. In response, the government that was planning the invasion did precisely nothing – it just ignored us. A similar tactic was used with the Occupy movement in 2008. An initial negative reaction was followed by the closing of eyes to the ‘settlements’. After a few months living in tents and receiving little attention, most protesters grew tired and left. The remaining few were easily dispersed following claims of drug use and the appearance of guns. These public displays are still useful, though, as they unite the opposition. Years after the Iraq protests, the question “Were you there?” would frequently pop up in casual conversations and if the answer was yes, a sense of bonding and comradeship would form straightaway. So, if this is your thing, carry on, but do not expect too much in the short term.

Marginalising is a tactic used for neutralising troublesome individuals. It consists of removing them from the system (e.g. making people lose their jobs and be unable to get another one, as in the infamous anti-communist witch-hunt in the US in the 1950s). The banality of invisibility and poverty can wear one down even more than torture. However, in the age of social media, nobody can be made totally invisible anymore, so make a noise if there is an attempt to quietly marginalise you.

Discrediting (smear campaigns): the system may try to find or invent something to turn public opinion against you. Jeremy Corbyn’s smear campaign was a stark example when the mainstream media and even some elements of his own party did everything they could to make certain that he would not win the election of 2019. To make this more difficult, no movement should be identified with an individual. Individuals may play an important role, but movement should be defined by its principles and aims. The system has the resources to sift through individuals’ pasts and always find something to smear them with. We cannot stop them from doing it, but we can stop them from using it to discredit the whole movement.

Surveillance: Your phone may be tapped, your internet activity monitored, or your conversations eavesdropped via your electronic devices. If this happens, do not let it feed your ego and sense of self-importance, and most importantly, do not get paranoid. These things are an inconvenience that might be used against you, but in themselves do not harm you.

These tactics are hardly avoidable and can be frustrating. However, we must not allow them to provoke us into ‘responding in kind’ or into giving up. In both cases, they win.

If you are also interested in the larger picture – how these social processes fit within the evolution and meaning of life as a whole, please visit thesynthesis.info

The corporate and financial sector

The business world has at its disposal enormous sums of money. For example, the leader of the UK far-right Reform Party, Nigel Farage, was given a ‘gift’ of £5 million from just one person residing in Thailand. This makes fighting the regressive elements within the business world hard – but not impossible. After the 2008 financial crisis, Iceland arrested implicated bankers, financiers and politicians and closed or nationalised some parts of its financial sector. The process was, overall, relatively painless. However, Iceland is a very small nation with a population the size of a large city. Making such radical changes in countries like the USA or the UK would be much harder and would have far-reaching consequences. Society and the corporate & financial sectors are, at the moment, co-dependent, so that any radical changes would come at a price. For example, if you succeed in undermining the financial sector, your parents may lose their pensions, or your mortgage may skyrocket. Weakening the corporate sector may lead to substantial job losses and turn the public against the move if there isn’t something else on offer in its place. This is why it is important to be selective and try to get at least some elements of these sectors on your side. Not all CEOs and bankers, or, for that matter, wealthy people, are necessarily resisting change and protecting the old system. It would be a lost opportunity not to give them a chance to join and contribute to this evolution.

In 1995, philanthropist Chuck Collins co-founded the non-profit advocacy group United for a Fair Economy. Later, he formed Wealth for the Common Good, which recently morphed into Patriotic Millionaires, a group of wealthy individuals who advocate a tax system that serves regular Americans. Resource Generation (in the US) and Resource Justice (in the UK) are non-profits that work with wealthy people ages 18 to 35 to encourage them to devote a portion of their financial assets to social causes, including addressing economic divides between the haves and the have-nots and race- and gender-based discrimination. The organisation encourages members to think beyond quick fixes and focus on using their money to address the structural issues that cause inequalities.

However, a good part of these sectors will do everything possible to maintain the status quo and deflect responsibility for the damage inflicted on people and the environment. Ultimately, businesses depend on people, so they use various tactics to influence people’s minds in their own interests.

Countering propaganda: since the early 20th century, companies have invested heavily and developed sophisticated tools to manipulate the general public. Most of advertising since has not been about informing but titillating desires and emotions. Activists, of course, do not have nearly enough resources or time to match that, but there is another way to counter corporate propaganda. Digging deeper to expose the real motives can be both efficient and effective. For example, global institutions such as the UN and the WHO have been under sustained attack by some corporations for years. Peter Thiel, the head of infamous Palantir, in all seriousness, declared that the UN is Antichrist. This can be countered by revealing who benefits and how from undermining these organisations; in this case, these are corporations that see international cooperation as an obstacle to corporate globalisation.

Revealing the motives may not be enough, though. We also need to help people recognise the value of what the propaganda machine attacks. To reach the same audience, the response must be at the same level of complexity. Simplistic undermining requires simplistic responses; complex attacks, complex responses. For example, a response to slogans such as “Federal government/UN/EU will take your freedom away!’ could be “Only federal government/UN/EU can secure your freedom against corporate tyranny.” This may sound crude, but for a game of tic-tac-toe, a chess move would not do. Of course, you can refuse to engage, but if you are going to play, you need to make a tic-tac-toe move.

Pushing back against delay tactics: the corporations know that they do not have to win the argument about safety or environmental damage to prevail – they only have to keep the argument going. Uncertainty is often sufficient to placate customers, fend off government regulations, and deter lawsuits that might squeeze profits. Central to keeping an issue seemingly unresolved is making it appear that not all experts agree (climate change being the most prominent, but not the only, example). This involves funding studies friendly to the industry while attacking those that raise questions, placing industry-friendly experts on advisory bodies, and seeking to discredit scientists whose views differ from theirs. Finding an obscure piece of research that aligns with their goal is a gift to them because it suggests the scientific community is truly divided. Of course, it is important to hear both sides of an argument, but we cannot allow this to be used as a delaying tactic. We must not be fooled by demands for absolute certainty. There will always be some exceptions to the general trend that some try to capitalise on. Waiting until the damage is beyond any doubt is often too late. This is why we need to adopt and promote probabilistic thinking – aim for beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not a suggestion to promote what is most likely as if it were the absolute truth, which some have done. That usually backfires as it is a form of deception. The risks, the most likely causes, and the consequences need to be communicated clearly but accurately. You don’t need to discuss every piece of research or data thrown at you just to demonstrate that the evidence for what you are arguing is stronger than the evidence against, and therefore closer to the truth of the matter. If the other side insists, you can engage on a meta-level with something like: “Why does this research/paper/view weigh more than a hundred others concluding the opposite?” On rare occasions, there may be a meaningful answer to this, but usually it only reveals confirmation bias.

Raising awareness through Investigative journalism, for example, can have a big effect in informing, debunking and pre-bunking. To build reputation and trust (and avoid potentially lengthy and costly libel actions), every claim needs to be backed by evidence. Raising awareness does not need to be only about issues, but also about tactics. For example, a very popular one nowadays is projection. In 2026, US vice president JD Vance lectured Europe on free speech, even as the administration he served was decimating it in the US. He also went to Hungary with the intention of interfering in its election and used the platform to accuse the EU of interference. These kinds of projections are favoured because they combine defensive deflection and an attack. They are also so obvious that they leave critics speechless. A response such as “So and so is actually doing what he accused the other side of doing” lacks the same emotional punch. The best way to fight this is to raise awareness and understanding of this phenomenon, so that just invoking its name is sufficient to recognise what it is. Alternative names for projection are attribution, accusation in a mirror, and mirroring. We just hope one of them catches on.

Countering social engineering can be combined with the following actions:

• Direct action (strikes and other forms of protest) is most effective when targeting specific companies rather than whole sectors. This is why it is helpful to first locate the worst offender and focus energy on that one. If successful, others may follow suit to avoid the same risk.
• Petitions can put the spotlight on culprits. For example, in the UK, petitions with over 100,000 signatures are usually discussed in Parliament. In these, as in many other cases, targeting the weakest link first, rather than the whole chain, produces more effective results.
• Boycott campaigns rely on consumer power. They encourage consumers to vote with their wallets by not buying products from unethical companies (usually those that violate human rights, degrade the environment, or collaborate with states implicated in such violations). To be effective, accurate information must be provided about which products are associated with the target. The companies have become very good at deceiving or hiding the origins of their products.
• Divestment campaigns urge other companies and organisations, such as banks, charities, NGOs, schools, co-ops, local councils, churches, pension funds, and universities, to withdraw their investments from unethical businesses. Divestment may also involve withdrawing sponsorship or participation in sporting and cultural events. Divestment can be quite effective. It played a significant role in dismantling apartheid in South Africa. We can start by checking not only whether our workplace, pension fund, or bank is ethical, but also who they deal with.
• Sanctions campaigns pressure governments and governmental bodies to refrain from doing business, ban others from doing business, or impose punitive measures against rogue companies. This may also involve ending military trade and free trade agreements, as well as suspending membership in international bodies such as the UN and FIFA. However, states typically have double standards in this respect, so political pressure may be necessary to bring them on board. For more details about the last three, see https://bdsmovement.net.

System-generated populism

It may not be immediately obvious that populism can be generated by the system. For example, the nationalism of some populist movements may seem at odds with corporate-led globalisation. Closer inspection, however, shows that these two in fact support each other. Political fragmentation and the weakening of global institutions that nationalists desire suit multinational corporations perfectly well, as individual states are usually powerless to challenge them effectively. Some populists may scream and shout against refugees, but are conspicuously quiet about corporate internationalism and trade agreements negotiated in secrecy that weaken national sovereignty much more – and more profoundly. They may be against the ‘establishment’, the ‘political elite’, or ‘experts’, but this is not because they want to change the system – it is because they feel these groups don’t do enough to preserve it. But how does the system ‘create’ populism?

Late capitalism is fertile ground for the proliferation of certain psychological traits, notably wilful ignorance, selfishness, and arrogance. We should clarify that these terms are not meant as judgements but descriptors. In this case, we are breaking with a customary etiquette that dictates the use of more euphemistic terms because they best describe the kind of mentality that flourishes in neo-liberalism. Of course, the system did not invent these traits (they existed long before neo-liberalism), but it has nurtured and encouraged them. Donald Trump and his followers, who are almost religiously devoted because they recognise themselves in him, are a representative example. Let’s examine each more closely.

Wilful ignorance is encouraged because it is easier to control and is, therefore, less troublesome. Well-informed people are more likely to recognise issues and question the system. Wilful ignorance is embraced because it is effortless – highly valued feature in the consumer society. This is combined with the Dunning–Kruger effect, which, in short, means that the more ignorant someone is, the less capable or willing they are to realise the extent of their ignorance. They easily convince themselves that they know better than others, particularly experts (hence the proliferation of conspiracy theories). Trump is a good example: he maintains his belief that he knows best by simply ignoring his often staggering ignorance. Such a mentality treats knowledge, truth, and understanding strictly instrumentally, as a means to advance one’s agenda. Only evidence that confirms what one wants to believe is considered. If facts or reason are not aligned with it, too bad. This is why those who are captured by wilful ignorance are easily taken in by leaders who tell them what they want to hear, no matter how illusory it is.

Selfishness has been legitimised by a reductionist reading of Adam Smith since the beginning of capitalism, but in the neo-liberal stage, it has been made into a virtue: “what is good for everybody must be good for me” is replaced by “what is good for me must be good for everybody”. As above, selfishness is embraced because it is effortless – taking others into account requires effort. In this case, ethics and moral standards are treated only instrumentally, when they serve oneself; otherwise, they are ignored. Trump is again a good example: he feels moral outrage about exactly the same things he has been doing to others when he thinks he is on the receiving end. Selfishness, though, runs against our innate moral sense and creates cognitive dissonance. Even the obviously selfish people do not want to admit to themselves and others that they are. This is why they often justify their actions by appealing to something greater than themselves, usually the system itself (“This is how it works”), or a collective identity (“This is how we do it”). As selfishness is associated with the individual, they seek cover in numbers. The more selfish or self-centred they are, the more likely they will justify it by using ‘we’, ‘our great country’, or similar phrases. It doesn’t matter if the majority of the group they refer to do not share their views. What matters is to legitimise their narrowness. It is not surprising that ‘us against them’ tribalism is typical of such a mindset.

Arrogance is easily combined with the above two. The system encourages people to believe in their greatness without any basis. Many adverts end with “… because you deserve it.” Similarly, politicians use flattery around elections, just to ignore those ‘great’, ‘hard-working’, ‘deserving’ people until the next electoral cycle. As the above two, arrogance is embraced because it looks like an easy shortcut. Normally, people build their self-esteem by putting effort into achieving something. However, from early education onwards, the system encourages high self-esteem without effort, but this is only skin-deep. Low self-value remains, so more air needs to be added to keep the ego inflated. This is one of the reasons why such people do not target the powerful, but the weak and less fortunate. It is an easy way to make themselves feel superior, even if there is no basis for it. If they talk against the ‘elite’, this is not because they want a more egalitarian society, but because they aspire to be seen as the new ‘anti-elite elite’. They idealise successful people such as Elon Musk because it makes them feel they belong to a club they could never be part of. The more arrogant the person they put on a pedestal, the better. Needless to say, Trump epitomises it again.

What unites system-generated populists is not so much what they are for but what they are against; Trump used it to the maximum, speaking against the Democrats, immigrants, Mexicans, Muslims, China, global institutions, environmentalism, the mainstream media, wokeness, science, etc. They are very thin on their vision of the future and are either hostile to, or don’t see any point in, societal evolution or investing in their own growth. They hanker for ‘the good old days’ and mythologise the past (as implied in the slogan ‘Make America great again’). This is why such populism can be called regressive.

Regressive populism is highly dangerous, as it leads to social fragmentation and regression, which is the opposite of human society evolving towards greater social harmony and development. If that direction prevails, we may find ourselves in a worse place than we are now, looking back at this neo-liberal era with nostalgia (if we survive as a species at all). The system-generated populism can be seen as a group defence mechanism. Naturally, those who the system enabled to effortlessly feel good about themselves, do not want to let it go.

If this is the case, we can expect it to grow as the system declines. This is why it is essential to find constructive ways of engaging with populists and help them see that there are better alternatives. To determine the most effective ways of doing it, what they stand for may be less important than how they stand for it. On this basis, we distinguish three categories of populists: soft, hard, and extreme. As this is about how, rather than what, they do not necessarily coincide with soft, hard, and extreme views. Someone may harbour extremely regressive views but hold them lightly, while somebody can pursue a progressive agenda with fanatical zeal. We would consider the first soft populist and the second one an extreme populist.

Soft populists

They adopt populist ideas without much reflection, simply because these ideas have become part of the current trend. In other words, they go with the flow of the social dynamic. For example, they may take some slogans uncritically as truth just because they are frequently repeated in the media (e.g. anti-war demonstrations being called ‘hate marches’). It is worth engaging with soft populists irrespective of how far their views are from your own. However, they easily give up, so an approach that will motivate them to remain engaged in a discussion is required:

• A 2024 study found that talking to AI can reduce beliefs in conspiracy theories, while another suggested that using a chatbot could reduce scepticism about issues like climate change. This is because AI engages in a non-threatening and affirming dialogue, which makes people more relaxed and open. We can do the same. Make conversation enjoyable and self-affirming.
• Agree with people on what you can. Rather than challenging conclusions, tease out assumptions and the way the conclusions are reached. Instead of trying to prove them wrong, expand their views with alternatives. For example, if they believe that self-interest and competition are the only driving forces in human society, acknowledge the importance of these factors, and then invite them to consider the value of mutualism and cooperation.
• Rather than focusing on the worst, focus on the best in people. You may even explicitly distinguish them from hard or extreme populists by saying something like, “I can see you share some views with X, but you don’t like their methods”. Populist movements have a disproportionate impact because they gloss over subtler differences and, in doing so, appear to have a much broader appeal. For example, the populist Reform party in the UK gained broad appeal by tapping into people’s worries about immigration; however, they are coy about how they intend to resolve the issue because they know many of their supporters would disapprove of their methods. Highlighting that difference on one hand and building alternatives based on what you share with them on the other might lead to subtle but significant shifts in their perspective.

Hard populists

Hard populists are driven by short-term desires and emotions – usually fear (of the unknown) and insecurity. This needs to be borne in mind when engaging with hard populists: they find it difficult to keep an open mind, because they can’t tolerate uncertainty. Thinking style is black-and-white, with nuances ignored (essentially the inverse of the style described in Thinking Anew). Rather than relying on rational arguments, they use various forms of defensiveness, such as accusatory and emotional language. Here are some tips on how to engage with them:

• Research indicates that understanding the power of fear and helping people feel safe through the way the discussion is conducted can be highly effective. If they treat an interaction as a box match to win, you don’t have to. They may try to provoke you into that by creating an impression they are winning; don’t take the bait. They cannot win if you don’t play that game. Demonstrate that this is not the only game in town by talking to them differently.
• If they go low, switch to metatalk – “talking about talking”. For example, “I see you feel the need to interrupt when I am bringing facts.” It may be tempting to follow this with “… Are you afraid of them?” but that will make such people only more defensive. Let them draw a conclusion in the privacy of their own minds.
• If you are stuck, involve others (e.g. “What do you think about what so and so just said?”, “Do you find this jibe persuasive?” Bear in mind that it may be more important to win the hearts and minds of those involved than to win the argument.

Extreme populists

They are driven by hate and aggressiveness. Although they don’t necessarily know what they are angry about, they know that they are angry. They are set in their ways, no matter what, and do not engage with anybody outside their echo chamber except with hostility. They are not interested in a dialogue, but in getting a kick out of attacking others and emotional abuse. Attempting to talk to or even understand the extremists of this kind is usually a waste of time. It is better to try to isolate them. The only thing that should be made clear, over and over again, is that they do not represent the people, the nation, or anyone outside their circle. Even if they have thousands of followers, that is a drop in an ocean in a country of, say, 50 million people. So, we must say loudly that they do not speak or act in our name. Even if we agree with some of their views, we should distance ourselves if the ways of achieving them are not congruent with our values. No end justifies any means. Extreme populists should be left alone with the feeling that they are, indeed, alone. Like all bullies, they thrive on reactions and attention, so depriving them of these is the best response.

If you get worked up by their provocations, think about creative ways of using that energy for a good cause: for example, in a small German town, Wunsiedel, residents and businesses, fed up with extremists marching through it, ‘sponsored’ the participants of a march in what was dubbed Germany’s “most involuntary walkathon”. For every metre they walked, €10 went to a programme called EXIT Deutschland, which helps people escape extremist groups. Similarly, French charity Calais Action encourages supporters to donate whenever they spot trolls targeting refugees with online abuse, rather than simply getting upset by it. The funds raised are then used to support migrant relief projects. In both cases, the marchers and the trolls are made aware of their contributions through pedometers and ‘thank you’ messages that indicate how much money they have inadvertently helped raise.

Pressure tactics

We have already touched on intimidation and abuse in relevant sections, but some forms of harassment cut across the board and may require additional consideration.

Online harassment and intimidation

This kind of harassment started with genuine trolls who used it as an emotional outlet. By and large, such individuals can be ignored, as most of them fizzle out and move on to the next target when they hope to get more attention. However, digital intimidation has become a big industry with sponsored trolls and bots. They can be tenacious, so considering how to counter them may be useful. The best protection is, of course, to limit social media engagements if there are other ways to reach out and engage people. If this is unavoidable, we should bear this in mind:

Sponsored trolling consists of well-organised networks, financed and sometimes set up by political, corporate and other agencies. They are more sophisticated than spontaneous trolls and may even be difficult to recognise. These are some tell-tale signs: as they need to survey and engage with many messages, discussions and chats daily, their comments are usually brief and formulaic (you can find identical comments on different feeds and platforms by apparently different individuals). Also, they usually work in pairs, trying to create a mini echo chamber in a discussion by talking to each other. Do not be tempted to argue with them. Their main purpose is to provoke you into saying or writing something that can be used against you. Only engage to correct misinformation for others’ sake, but do not address them directly.

Bots: at the very basic level, a bot is a social media account which is pre-programmed to do stuff without real people having to do much. A botnet is a group of fake accounts that can tweet, like, and post together (hence some posts that just appeared have thousands of likes or shares). Commercial botnets can have tens of thousands of fake accounts. The use of such accounts has become more advanced with the introduction of AI. The idea is that sheer quantity will produce results even if the quality is low. They are mainly used to manipulate the public and spread disinformation. Using bots to get hashtags trending on Twitter (now X) is one of their most effective ways. A small group of people can create the impression of 20,000 to 40,000 tweets in an hour and push the relevant hashtag into the trending lists. For example, it was reported that close to half of Donald Trump’s followers are bots, used to boost his image. To identify a bot, watch out for four As:

• Activity: a hyperactive account (e.g. a few hundred thousand posts in a year)
• Anonymity: a cartoon or blurred image of one’s avatar and no meaningful bio
• Advert-like posts: if a post feels like an advert, it most likely is.
• Amplification: drumming up essentially the same message over and over again.

Learning to recognise bots and, if possible, ignore or block them is the best defence.

Cancel culture (populist trolling) is a form of social ostracism and public shaming often carried out by self-styled ‘activists’. It is supposed to act as a tool for accountability, but is often reduced to “online lynching” by mob mentality that denies individuals due process. It is deliberately toxic and erodes free speech, the plurality of views, and the chance of reaching common ground through dialogue. Cancel culture spans the political spectrum, though it often centres on specific issues. Those engaged don’t have the resources to sponsor trolls. Still, they usually have time on their hands and energy fuelled by ‘moral righteousness’, which, in their eyes, justifies falsehood, aggression and threats. In fact, ‘righteousness’ often covers another motivation. When asked why he was doing it, one of them responded, “Because I can.” This indicates that the real motivation is to experience a sense of power. Many reputations and careers were unjustly ruined for that reason. Obviously, the best way to protect oneself from this is to avoid social media altogether and let your good work speak for itself. A good example was Jeremy Corbyn, who endured relentless, orchestrated attacks by mainstream media, political establishment and online trolling when he was briefly the leader of the Labour Party in the UK. After he stepped down and was subsequently expelled from the party, he continued doing what he had always done – fighting for what he believed in and helping ordinary people in the community. In 2026, he was completely vindicated by revelations about the shadowy organisation Labour Together, which was working to destroy his reputation from within the party he led. However, all that may take time, so it is better not to give the trolls any ammunition:

• Be very careful what you post and say. Never post anything while ‘drunk’ on emotions or late at night. Write down what you feel strongly about, sleep on it, edit with a clear mind, and then post it.
• Avoid reading comments or posts about yourself, and if you must, don’t take the bait and engage with senders. Just block them.
• But how can we prevent these attacks from affecting others? Remember that nothing you do will make any difference to those who want to attack you or want to believe these attacks. It is only worth doing something for those who have not made up their mind. For them, make factual information available and easy to find. If asked publicly, you can respond with something like, “I don’t engage with nonsense; you can find all you want to know about me at…” If you feel you need to speak out, avoid denials as they usually don’t work. Affirmations ‘stick’ better than denials, so turn negative statements (e.g. “I never said that”, “I did not do that”) into positive ones (e.g. “I always maintained that…”, “I carry out my work with utmost integrity.”). If you must apologise, always be specific about what you are apologising for and remain strong.

The most important thing for remaining strong is to mentally prepare. It is only human that threats, abuse, and hypercritical comments, particularly if untrue or unfair, affect our well-being. After all, that’s their point. Do not assume that you are immune. Preparing may involve creating a psychological buffer or distance so that they can’t penetrate. Inoculate yourself by exposure in imagination (imagine reading such a comment while maintaining calm until it becomes natural). Last but not least, secure social support: discuss this eventuality with your family, friends, colleagues, and fellow activists, and what to do.

Verbal abuse (in person or online)

Verbal abuse can come in several forms: shouting, talking over somebody, using language that is meant to hurt, personal attacks, etc. It is used to shut the other person down or ‘win’ an argument when it cannot be won any other way. It betrays insecurity in themselves or their position. Verbal abuse can be a challenge because of our natural urge to respond in kind, but if we do so, we lose, even if we manage to shout louder. If we cannot or don’t want to remove ourselves from such interactions, a better response is again to move to the meta-level: we can acknowledge what’s happening by saying something like: “If you had a good argument, you wouldn’t need to resort to abuse.” If they continue with abuse, that will only prove your point further – not just to you, but to them, too.

Physical violence or threats of physical violence

It is a form of intimidation and abuse that you will hopefully never experience, but it needs to be mentioned. There are many parts of the world where this is still commonly practised by the state, extremists, and, in some cases, businesses. Even in places that are supposed to be protected by human rights charters (such as the ECHR), there are instances of resorting to or violently dealing with peaceful protesters and activists. If you do find yourself in such a situation, you may face a choice to either fight back or remove yourself from it. There is no shame or glory in either; you need to think, in a cool-headed way, which is the strategically better option for yourself and others. If you cannot do either, try to minimise the damage by protecting the head and neck (tuck your chin, raise your shoulders, and cover your head with your hands; if on the ground, curl into a foetal position). If you can, record the incident or signal somebody else to do so. What happens after is what really matters. You are not beaten if you get a broken bone; you are only beaten if you have a broken spirit. Rather than feeling sorry for yourself, get public, get support, get organised better and stand up again.

The most abhorrent cases are threats of violence not only against activists but also against their loved ones (parents, partners or children). One recent example (among many) is the experience of a brave and outspoken legal scholar, human rights expert, and United Nations Special Rapporteur, Francesca Albanese. All the above-mentioned pressure methods were used against her. In addition, her flat was illegally confiscated, her credit cards were cancelled by the US administration, and her husband lost his job. The only time she contemplated giving up was when she received anonymous calls threatening her daughter. She chose to carry on, but this must remain a personal decision for anybody who finds themselves in such a situation.

Needless to say, we should refrain from violence, unless in defence (of oneself or others). Violence breeds violence, and it does more damage to the cause or movement than it helps because, as a rule, far from winning hearts and minds, it turns people off. So-called passive resistance (non-violent action, non-cooperation, and civil disobedience) produces better long-term results.

Instead of a conclusion

We hope that when you finish reading, you will feel motivated to engage and contribute to social evolution. To keep the momentum, you can revisit practical suggestions in the area of your interest and, most importantly, get together with like-minded and even half-like-minded people. It doesn’t matter if you don’t agree on everything – leave fighting each other for later, after dealing with the greater challenge of setting the course of social evolution in a progressive direction and diverting it from destructive or regressive paths. Modern technologies make this easier. There are already many online or meet-up groups. If you can’t find a group that matches your interests, you can start one. Whatever you do, keep going – you are defeated only if you give up.

This stage is also divided into two parts: suggestions to facilitate the process of implementing change ourselves and suggestions to encourage others to do so.

Applying change ourselves

Go for evolution rather than revolution

Let’s compare two types of changes implemented during the crisis. One refers to the economic reforms introduced after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, known as Shock Therapy. They were designed to rapidly transition the country to the so-called free-market economy. Key elements included dismantling the old system, drastic cuts to government spending, abolishing price controls, rapid privatisation, and opening the economy to foreign trade and investment. The reforms resulted in a severe, long-term economic recession, high inflation, and an enormous increase in inequality, with a dramatic drop in living standards for many in Russia on the one hand and the rise of oligarchs on the other. When China emerged from a decades-long economic crisis, it took a different route. They did not throw out old institutions but adapted them to new goals and introduced ‘direct improvisation’ to the system: the change was centrally directed, but local officials were encouraged to improvise local solutions using local resources. Three elements – partial limits on power, accountability, and competition – were introduced into the bureaucratic apparatus, in effect turning local leaders into entrepreneurs and CEOs (Ang, 2016). This led to what is known as the economic miracle from 1978 to the 2010s (it is unfortunate that China did not evolve politically too, but regressed in recent years). The first is an example of revolutionary economic changes as it focused on dismantling the old and left rebuilding to ‘spontaneous processes’ in neo-liberal fashion. The second is an example of evolving the economic system. There are many other historical examples indicating that evolutionary changes lead to better outcomes than revolutionary ones.

Broadly speaking, we can help evolution in two ways: we can help existing structures reform, and/or start developing new structures in parallel with the existing ones. If there is too much resistance to the former, we can focus on the latter more; if the latter is too slow, we can do more about the former.

Be strategic

You can change the world, but you can’t change everything in the world. Choose carefully where to invest your time and effort, considering the short- and long-term impact. There is much each of us can do, but do not wait for a grandstand. Small incremental changes can keep motivation going if successful, but won’t completely discourage you if not. Big changes require more effort, generate greater resistance, and can lead to big failure, which can be detrimental to motivation. Besides, small changes can make a big difference – if everybody does a little, it all adds up. If stuck, you can find many suggestions in other parts of Social Synthesis.

Invest in your personal development

This is not about self-care but about your growth – you contribute to collective evolution, but also to your own. Personal and social development can enhance each other, and neither should be allowed to wither. This is like walking: we rely on one leg while taking a step with the other, and then the order is reversed. The same logic applies here. We can rely on our personal strengths and qualities when dealing with social issues, and on the experiences from our engagement to help us take the next step in our own development. Personal Synthesis offers comprehensive materials and helpful tips for personal development.

Refuse to play the game

None of the above, of course, means that we should just go along with the system. We can refuse to play the game instead. Resisting consumerism and de-investing are two ways to do so. For example, we don’t need to create a run on all banks (which could bring down the financial system with unforeseeable consequences), but each of us can shun the worst culprits by moving our bank accounts and investments. This requires disentangling oneself from the system as much as possible and making steps towards sustainable, self-sufficient living. For example, grow some of your own food, install renewable energy sources and go off the grid if possible, learn repair skills, help create a local internet service provider (yes, this is possible), and invest only in ethical, stakeholder-based businesses. All of these will pay off, as environmental degradation and the decline of existing structures are likely to lead to serious crises. In short, prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Motivating others to apply change

We can do much on our own, but for social change to take root, it has to be widely accepted. Without it, the most wonderful projects are likely to wither. Winning their hearts and minds is what makes a real difference. This part is about motivating not just activists but the general public to make and adopt change. We will consider five major types of motivation:

• Extrinsic – wanting change, believing that it will be better than what it is
• Values – valuing change as it is aligned with our values
• Meaning – common direction
• Self-efficacy – believing in oneself, that one’s involvement matters.
• Intrinsic – liking change

Neo-liberalism has done much to systematically undermine all five types of motivation for social change:

• TINA doctrine (‘There Is No Alternative’): there is nothing better and never will be than capitalism as it is, which undermines extrinsic motivation.
• The belief that people always act solely in their own self-interest undermines being motivated by the values we uphold.
• The belief that life and its evolution don’t go anywhere. It is meaningless. Progress and growth are seen as having more of the same.
• Learned helplessness undermines the belief that we can change anything.
• Identifying happiness with consumption (hedonistic, effortless pleasures) undermines intrinsic motivation for change.

We will now discuss how we can reignite all five types of motivation.

Believing in change

Put simply, the alternative needs to be perceived as better than what already exists. Considering that the current system is deteriorating, this should not be hard; many people are already looking elsewhere. We suggest here one theory-based and one practice-based suggestion to ignite the belief in a better alternative:

• Developing models or ‘blueprints’ of the new social order that can demonstrate that there are better alternatives. These ‘blueprints’ need to be living documents that can be updated and adapted in accordance with developments on the ground. Social Synthesis is one such model.
• Highlighting existing examples. When people see that what others do can make a difference, they are encouraged and motivated to act. Also, examples are not perceived as an imposition, so they don’t trigger ‘defence mechanisms’. If you personally have nothing to show at this point, you can share stories about a growing number of individuals, projects and initiatives who are already making good strides. Social Synthesis includes many such examples, but Positive News are more up to date with monthly updates on the latest successes and progress.

Values

We mustn’t assume that people are driven only by their self-interest. Psychological research is clear about that, but also, there are many historical examples, of which we will just bring one: Lancashire workers who stood firm against slavery in the mid-19^th century (before the system’s propaganda inoculated the belief that we always and only act in our self-interest), even though it was very much against their interests. More recently, many people sacrificed not only time and effort, but their careers, reputation and even freedom in support of the Palestinians who were experiencing genocide with complicity of the world. Justice and fairness may be the most prominent, but there is a host of other values that matter as well. The activists of old knew how important values can be. The French Revolution was fought and won under the banner of liberty, equality, and fraternity, which reverberates to this day. Nowadays, people may be more cynical, but that does not mean they cannot be motivated by them. We just need to be clear which values we stand for.

Meaning

There are already numerous initiatives for change (whether on social justice or the environment favoured by the left, or on immigration control and self-interest favoured by the right). Most of them zoom in on what they believe is wrong and try to persuade people of their solutions. However, very few offer a coherent vision that could have a broad appeal and be transformative for the whole system. Consequently, neo-liberal ideology still dominates the current zeitgeist.

As our individual lives acquire coherence when they are perceived as meaningful, societies too are more robust and coherent if there is a shared meaning, the sense of common purpose. People need to feel that they are part of something bigger than themselves. However, there is a widespread suspicion of any kind of ‘universalism’. This is because the past ‘grand visions’ (that originated in religions, Soviet-style Communism, scientific materialism, and various other ‘isms’) too often turned ‘universal’ into ‘absolute’ (“My way or the highway”), which has been seen as a threat to individual liberties. The present system feeds such suspicions and glorifies individuality for its own ends. Even a hint of a shared meaning is perceived as a monolithic imposition from above that necessarily limits individual freedom. It is not surprising that another ‘ism’ – post-modernism – infected the left and the right (albeit for different reasons). To motivate a broad audience, we need to confront this cynicism head-on, and define and be clear about a common purpose or shared meaning that most people can identify with and have a unifying character. The power and tenacity of people when they believe in something and hold ideals can be amazing. We don’t want to repeat past mistakes, but we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. A common purpose need not be monolithic, forced, or unduly restrictive. This can be avoided if:

• It refers to an ongoing process rather than a fixed destination.
• It is broad enough so that diverse groups of people can relate to it.

• It has wide enough boundaries to allow a lot of freedom within them.

Here is a suggestion that fulfils these criteria:

Moving towards greater social harmony and development.

Such a purpose is not fixed but an open-ended process that would make sense to most people (many social reformers from widely different orientations, from Plato and Confucius to Adam Smith and Marx, would also approve). Although broad, it can still serve as a benchmark against which various social processes can be measured. For example, it is easy to see that considerable inequality, a two-tier education system, or politics based on competition or an ‘us v. them’ mentality, do not fit well with it. It provides a direction that can reignite a belief in the future, which is necessary for long-term engagement. Capitalism was enthusiastically embraced because, for a while, it held the promise of a better future (at least in material terms). However, faith in its ability to deliver is now waning, and it is time to replace it with something more inclusive and meaningful. To see if the above motto makes sense, check if a change you want to make fits with it, and if it does, don’t be shy to talk about a change you are passionate about in that context. Most people want greater social harmony and development; it is just that it is rarely spelt out.

Believing in oneself

Inculcating learned helplessness is one of the big successes of the neo-liberal project – the sense of helplessness leading to resignation (“What’s the point of trying? You can never beat the system”). As an author and activist, Alice Walker, put it: “The most common way people give up power is by thinking they don’t have any.” Yet, before the neo-liberal revolution, major progressive changes were achieved by efforts of ordinary people (200 years ago, slavery was still legal; barely 100 years ago, women could not vote; 60 years ago, being gay was an imprisonable offence in most parts of the world). These social aberrations were overturned, thanks to those who did not accept the status quo. These changes were a result of many individuals coming together. We want to make the case that we are at a point where even the actions of a single individual can matter.

The so-called Butterfly Effect highlights that even small acts can have huge consequences. Many people think the butterfly effect is rare because we usually cannot trace all the consequences of our actions. In fact, it is extremely common (each of us being born is the result of many small, seemingly inconsequential choices and actions of our ancestors). It may be true, though, that on the social level, individual actions blend into the background during times of stability. However, in times of rapid change and great instability and uncertainty, like we’re living through now, our choices and actions might have significant effects on the trajectory of evolution. It is such a fine balance between forces pulling humankind in one direction or another that a small difference may be decisive. In the highly complex and interconnected system that human society is at this stage of evolution, small actions can easily cascade. This is why every one of us, and the choices we make, matter more than ever. Of course, this doesn’t offer a guarantee that we will ‘win’. But people don’t need to believe they will win, but that they can. And they can.

Liking change

Understandably, many people like the comfort, familiarity, and security (however illusory) that the existing system still offers, along with consumer pleasures. To overcome this, the new needs to be liked at least as much as, if not more than, the old. Considering that changes require (at least initially) more effort and that self-benefit may not be immediate, what is it that can be liked? Potentially a lot: the sense of belonging, fun, exercising curiosity and creativity, people feeling good about themselves and that they matter, the sense of progress and achievement, enjoying contributing and doing something constructive, being positive, optimism and even love. This all is intrinsic, meaning that we don’t need to do much about it – just to ensure we don’t kill them by excessive control or imposition.

However, there are other things we can do. For example, making good practices fashionable (and bad ones unfashionable) through influencers; enabling people to exercise their agency; making social action fun (an example of this is a new board game Rise up, created by the Toolbox for Education and Social Action) or an opportunity to socialise, nurturing that all-important sense of togetherness.

Some things can be pushed to offer the taste of the new and an opportunity for people to discover what they really like (for example, banning smoking in public spaces, which led most smokers to spontaneously stop smoking at home, too). Any such push, though, should be finely tuned to avoid triggering the opposite reaction. People don’t like it when something is forced upon them, even if it is for the best, because it is perceived as a threat to their agency (more commonly called freedom). This only alienates, as many activists learned in the past. A gentle nudge is best until the tipping point is reached and change is normalised. Let’s take one example: charging 5p for a plastic bag in UK supermarkets was a resounding success in cutting down on disposable plastic. What was decisive in this instance was preserving a choice (you could bring your own bags or pay the charge) and that the money was largely symbolic and not meant to hurt (there was virtually nothing else that 5 pence could do). However, 5 pence was sufficient to serve as a public reminder. Also, bringing one’s own bags makes people feel good because they are doing something both for themselves (saving money) and for the environment.

This stage is the journey in which change is forged. It can sometimes be a long process with many challenges, which we will address here. As the previous one, this stage also has two parts: one on personal and one on interpersonal challenges.

Personal challenges

Tiredness

With all the technology around us these days, we probably work more than ever (especially if working in the US or Japan). This is not an accident – it serves the system well. If people are kept busy all the time, they will find it difficult to think and question, let alone do something about the system in which they live. After long working hours and taking care of the home and kids, it is not surprising that, at the end of the day, the vast majority just want to slump in front of one or another screen. But this, of course, doesn’t get us anywhere. Fortunately, it is possible to rest and still contribute. Rest is primarily about a change. If you have spent all day in front of a computer, a good way to rest is to do something physical, which can also be productive and useful. For example, growing your own vegetables, helping your neighbours, taking a shift at a local soup kitchen, running an activity with local kids, delivering leaflets, etc. Your kids would benefit from including them in some of these activities. On the other hand, if your work is physically demanding, you could do something sedentary, such as online projects or activities.

Idleness

Nowadays, it is not only easy to be lazy but also to justify laziness. All the props that surround us, such as television, social media, easily accessible games, gambling and porn sites, encourage us to be passive or provide us with an illusion of activity. Overcoming this hurdle is difficult at first, but it becomes easier over time, as being socially proactive is ultimately more satisfying. If inertia is pulling you down and away from doing anything, acknowledge it, but don’t surrender to it immediately. You can say to yourself something like “I will give [an activity] a go for 10 minutes and carry on only if I feel like”. Start with something small and manageable, and take on bigger projects as your confidence increases. If possible, get involved with other like-minded people, exercise your creativity, and make what you do fun rather than another chore. You won’t even notice that idleness is gone.

Indulgence

The late 1960s were truly evolutionary. But within a few years, free love descended into sexual debauchery and abuse; a genuine desire to expand consciousness ended up in banal drug misuse; and yearning for more freedom was quenched by a greater variety of consumer products that were little more than ego trips. This shows how easy it is to succumb to the hedonistic part of our nature, especially when the system titillates and encourages it. Satisfying our needs is necessary, and enjoying life is energising, but indulgence induced by consumerism is different. We not only get addicted to certain things; we get addicted to pleasure itself. The first step of dealing with this challenge is to recognise that the system has got under your skin. Keeping the bigger picture in mind and setting your priorities helps you fight temptation. This is not to say that all pleasures and conveniences should be disregarded, only that your choices should not be driven solely by them.

Self-neglect

Our attempts to make a difference in the world cannot be a justification for neglecting our own mental and physical health. Creating change is often like a marathon that requires being in good physical and mental shape. As they say on planes, “In case of an emergency, put the oxygen mask first on yourself.” You can find resources on maintaining activist well-being here: https://commonslibrary.org/10-great-resources-on-activist-wellbeing/. That said, wellness should not become a trap. You don’t need to be perfect in every way before contributing. Some (such as the regressive influencer Jordan Peterson) insist that people put their own house completely in order before attempting to change the world. This is often no more than a cynical ploy to discourage people from engaging, as, of course, the ‘order’ can never be perfect (Peterson himself didn’t seem to follow his own advice). What we really need is to balance self-care with social engagement, as they depend on and can support each other. You may find not only that being in good shape can make you contribute better, but also that your contributions can enhance your own well-being.

Fear and anxiety

Some measure of fear and anxiety is natural and can even stimulate us, but if we succumb to them, they can be paralysing and make us miserable. However, fighting or suppressing these feelings is hard and energy-consuming, but we can learn to use them instead. Let’s take fear first. For example, if you fear losing your job, you can turn that fear into motivation to do what you can to prevent it and to prepare for such an eventuality. In this process, you may even find that losing your job may not be that bad and may be conducive to making further contributions.

We will address anxiety separately because it involves uncertainty rather than an imminent danger, as in the case of fear. For example, uncertainty about responses to making a stand on a social issue or uncertainty about the outcome. There is no answer to uncertainty; we just need to learn to live with it. Whatever you do, whatever you choose, uncertainty will be there, in one form or another. But that’s not bad. As long as there is uncertainty, there is hope. Likewise, anxiety is bad only if it gets out of control. The best way to regulate anxiety is to develop competence and be well prepared. If you can’t beat waves, learn to ride them like a good surfer.

Anger

How can one not get angry when seeing what’s going on in the world? When seeing how politicians that are supposed to represent us and the media that are supposed to inform us are corrupt and biased? When the rich and powerful manipulate the masses to blame the poor and weak for everything? When seeing that they risk the future of humankind for their short-term, selfish ends? Anger is understandable, but it makes it harder to contribute constructively to social change. In a social context, anger arises when we perceive injustice and unfairness and don’t know how to remedy it. These are two ingredients for anger. If either is absent, anger is unlikely to take hold. We cannot make unfairness and injustice suddenly disappear. Even if, by some magic, we could, it would not necessarily be a good thing. A sense of unfairness and injustice may be a driving force of our collective development. On the other hand, we don’t need to carry the sense of powerlessness with us. We can get rid of it by doing something constructive. This can help channel its energy away from its (self)destructive tendencies. Ronaldo Lemos, a lawyer who oversaw a successful legislative crowd-sourcing campaign in Brazil, summarised it brilliantly: “In the end, I think, anger is helpful – but you shouldn’t respond only by being angry, you have to transform that into a constructive proposition and alternative to what you are angry about” (Whitford, 2016). So, if you are angry, don’t wait for a perfect opportunity. You will benefit from doing something even if it doesn’t change the world.

Love

If your loved ones share your passion for social change, it can enhance your motivation and multiply your contribution many times (the whole can be much more than the sum of its parts in this case). Likewise, the sense of partnership or comradeship adds great depth to a relationship. Appreciate all that, and don’t be petty about other, less important things. However, if your loved ones are not on the same page with you, love can compete with your passion for social change. You may try to bring them closer, but do not push, as it may have the opposite effect. A ‘truce’ is sometimes the best outcome. For that, both sides need to love each other for what they are rather than for what they want the other side to be. What you are may include your desire to make the world a better place, and what they are may include not prioritising it at that point.

Ego trips

We are all born into and live in a system based on the zero-sum game. It is not surprising that many expect something in return and feel entitled when they invest in social change, particularly when they succeed. This is a well-known phenomenon: people who feel they have been very good in one way make allowances for themselves in other ways. Thoughts such as “I am doing so much for others, so I deserve some special treatment” are common, but they easily spoil good work. So, how do we deal with this? Depreciation and false modesty do not handle the excitement of success well. You can try something like this instead: “I did a very good job. I am happy that I lead a meaningful life, and I am not going to risk losing it for a meaningless indulgence. I am going now to enjoy a nice cuppa and a good night’s sleep. Tomorrow is another day.”

Failures

Failures are a normal part of the process and are hardly avoidable. As Robert F. Kennedy said, “Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly.” However, failures may trigger a host of negative feelings, such as resentment or self-pity, which can kill motivation. If you are going in that direction, stop. We can never fully know the consequences of our actions. What we consider failure may not be. Don’t ruin the potential effects of your actions by assuming that you have failed, because if you do, others are likely to follow. According to the legend, Jesus had only a few disciples when he was crucified. If he thought of himself as a failure, it is unlikely that his following would have grown much.

If you are also interested in personal development that can help you make some evolutionary changes in your own life please visit personalsynthesis.com

Interpersonal challenges (among the engaged)

Those who are engaged usually form or join groups, communities, and movements, which is important, but can create various interpersonal challenges. We address here the most common ones of that kind (practical challenges such as money, time, space, and organisation are not discussed, as they differ from case to case, so general comments on them would not be of much use).

Activist righteousness (AR)

Activism involves passion for a cause, but that passion gets the better of some activists when it turns into righteousness. When the whole movement is affected, it creates another form of oppression. It condemns well-meaning individuals and groups who may have the same goal, but take a different route. As Frances Lee, an activist himself, concludes, “I am not the first nor the last to point out that these movements for liberation and justice are exhibiting the same oppressive patterns that we are fighting against in larger society.” This happens because AR is more interested in establishing local power and control than in helping society as a whole evolve. Those who display AR see no need for self-reflection and prefer their monologue to dialogue — fear and intimidation, rather than inclusiveness and cooperation, rule. Moral conviction is weaponised to shame or silence others.

A cautionary example of devastation that AR can cause when unleashed on a large scale is the so-called Cultural Revolution in China (1966-1976). It was carried out mostly by young people who saw themselves as, and in many ways were, grassroots activists. China’s leader at the time, Mao Zedong, used and encouraged them in a fight with his own Communist Party after his economic reform led to mass starvation. However, things got so out of control that he had to quickly stop this destructive force, send young people to the countryside for ‘re-education’, and establish a de facto military dictatorship. AR has never gone nearly that far in the West, but it still plays into the hands of the system there. As Lee points out, the tactics AR uses (call-outs, mobbing, shunning, shaming, cancelling) “…hold back movements by alienating both potential allies and their own members”. Furthermore, AR is not only internally disruptive and divisive, but it also gives the other side ammunition.

So, what can be done about it? As with other forms of righteousness, dealing with AR is tricky because its adherents challenge but do not allow to be challenged. We suggest that a ‘hard boundaries with a soft core’ approach is the only feasible option:

• Hard boundaries are created by defining values that set limits to methods of achieving social change and standing firm in upholding these values. They may include, for example, not oppressing or discriminating against anyone (even those we oppose), forging rather than imposing consensus through dialogue, and equality and freedom to share one’s views without fear of retribution. In other words, making clear that achieving an end by means of physical, emotional or verbal abuse and the dictatorial imposition of one’s own views is unacceptable.
• The soft core implies engaging with those who are taken by AR with empathy and compassion, as long as they remain within the boundaries. A dialogue, if they are willing to engage, may include discussing inherent contradictions and negative consequences of AR, that demanding immediate perfection may slow large-scale social change, and that winning hearts and minds rather than imposing our way leads to lasting change. If they are not willing to engage, AR must be isolated to prevent its spread and minimise potential damage.

Revolutionary zeal

There will always be activists who want to see quick change. Revolution may appeal to them more than evolution. These are those who would rather fight than create. It is, of course, worthwhile trying to reason with them, but talking may not always work. If this is the case, it may be better to let them go than to try to contain them. History shows that revolutionary zeal can be too dangerous to give a chance to take over. However, if possible, those people shouldn’t be alienated either. When the forces behind the existing system start lashing out (see below), revolutionaries may play an important role not so much in overthrowing the old (which can be left to spontaneous processes), but in protecting the new. Protecting projects and initiatives that are part of the evolution may be necessary. Even if we don’t fight the system, it will retaliate against any alternatives, as it sees them as a threat.

Power

Power can become an issue that affects the dynamic between leadership and the grassroots. Both are important and depend on each other. There is no movement without the grassroots, but leaders also matter as they can steer the movement in a consistent direction and also bring on board potential allies and ‘undecided’ as it is easier to relate to an individual than a faceless movement (it can be telling to compare, for example, the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King in the US in the 1960s and the more recent Black Lives Matter movement).

However, charismatic leaders can be intoxicated by power. It is known that power produces natural opiates in the brain. This can lead to wrong decisions and alienate those outside their close circle. Leaders may also feel under siege, not only from their enemies but also from supporters and friends. The concern that their hard work might be hijacked is often justified. The trouble is that they can hijack social change themselves, too. An example of that is the Islamic Revolution in 1979 in Iran; the revolution, ignited by secular, educated Iranians as a protest against the Shah’s dictatorship, was hijacked by Islamic clerics led by Ayatollah Khomeini. The first victims of the new regime were the students and others who started the revolution in the first place. This is why a balance of power is crucial.

Leaders may have a vision and charisma, but neither they nor those around them should assume they are always right. They need to be transparent, delegate, remain open-minded, and, most of all, balance leading with listening. This is not easy. There are always many more grassroots than leaders. Even if the movement is small, it may be impossible for leaders to engage individually with everybody, so they must be selective. Delegating selection to others, asking for executive summaries, or engaging in random, informal interactions with grassroots are ways to keep the door open without compromising other priorities. In turn, activists who feel that the leadership could do a better job should not start by challenging them personally, as this can create a split within the movement or make the leaders more entrenched. It is more constructive to outline an alternative, gauge its traction with other activists, and then present it to the leadership for consideration.

Debating

Debating matters, not only to find the best ways forward, but also to balance power. However, excessive debating has led to the demise of numerous initiatives and movements, particularly on the left. Some cooperatives, for example, have failed for this reason. Debating too much can make decision-making prohibitively slow and even paralyse it. It also consumes time and energy and can kill the enthusiasm of those who are more interested in action than in words. For these reasons, some checks and balances might be necessary:

• The greater the number of participants in a debate, the stricter the time limit needs to be. Two people may debate all night without much harm, but if fifty people are involved and the debate drags on, many will get disgruntled.
• Some people just like talking. In a group of about fifteen, there will be at least one person who will try to dominate the debate. Such people need to be contained by giving everyone an equal chance to contribute, reining in any digressions and, if necessary, imposing a time limit on individual contributions to the debate. Also, those who have not spoken can be prioritised over those who already have (the old-fashioned practice of raising a hand before talking may be invaluable for this purpose). Such boundaries may lead to losing one or two people, but they help keep many more.
• If you are thinking of participating in a debate, it is a good idea to think first which point you want to make is the most important. A debate topic usually involves many interrelated issues, which is why debates frequently go off on tangents. Try to unpack them – this is like unclenching your fist, noticing the five digits and then focusing on one of them. Once you decide which point you want to home in on, park the others until that one is sufficiently addressed.

Disagreements about how to move forward

They can be resolved by voting, but unless the vote is overwhelming, many of those who lose may be left unhappy. To avoid that, the group can be split into two or more teams that try different ways to achieve the goal. This may sound counterintuitive. Isn’t fragmentation bad? Yes, but overt splitting is less likely to lead to fragmentation than covert splitting (which usually happens when a substantial minority is forced into line). Furthermore, internal competition in action rather than in debate may be more useful. Practice will show which way is better or that the two ways can complement each other. When this happens, people get together again without being forced to.

Disunity

Many good initiatives fail because opposition to the existing system is disunited. Rather than changing the system, they fight each other. To prevent this, we need to tolerate diversity as long as it doesn’t undermine the shared direction. Some groups and individuals may differ, sometimes substantially. But we need to ask ourselves if these differences are so important as to make us lose sight of the greater prize. We sometimes must compromise on small things to avoid the main priority being compromised. It needs to be accepted that not everybody (including ourselves) will ever be happy about everything. Once the change is made, there will be plenty of opportunities to iron out details.

Isolationism

Some people reject mainstream social life and seek to create their own local paradise, often in a remote place. Although they may not directly contribute to change, such experiments can still have great value, as much can be learned from their experiences. Isolationism is more often, though, manifested as inward-looking, self-ghettoisation within wider society, which can lead to an ‘us v. them’ mentality (‘them’ being everybody else). In extreme cases, this can turn into a community akin to a sect or cult. To avoid such closures, every group needs to be somewhat fluid. In other words, there should be some degree of permeability between the inside and the outside. Connections and collaboration with other groups and multiple belongings can go a long way towards avoiding a largely unhelpful in-group / out-group attitude, as well as black-and-white thinking.

Excessive optimism (utopianism)

Even the best Ideas are not going to make an impact if they are not carefully applied. Wouldn’t it be great if we all switched to renewable energy suppliers? Yes, but even the most determined customers will give up if it takes an hour for their customer service to answer a call. It’s an unfortunate fact of life that things rarely run smoothly. Even with a perfect system (and there is no perfect system), things would not run smoothly, because it would require perfect people, and we can’t expect those born into and living in a dying system to be perfect. Hope is essential, optimism is good, but excessive optimism is a recipe for failure. It is important that any organisation or movement is prepared for reality to kick in and for challenges along the way.

In this section, we discuss some productive ways of engaging oneself and others.

Engaging oneself

If you are reading this, you are probably already engaged in some ways or are thinking seriously about it. There have never been more possibilities of doing so –  online or in person – we can organise or attend meetings, rallies, and protests;  write online blogs or commentaries; sign petitions and make donations, or simply engage in informal conversations with friends, colleagues and family. We can leave this to personal preferences. Very often, though, it is not so much what we do, but how we do it that makes a difference. So, we discuss here emotions, thinking and attitudes to optimise engagement constructively and fruitfully.

Emotions

It would be almost inhumane not to have strong emotions with all that is going on in this last stage of capitalism. The question is what to do with them. We know that suppressing emotions is not good for us, and expressing them is often not good for others and the cause we feel strongly about. Luckily, there is a third way: we can channel the energy of emotions into determination to address the issue that touches us. When emotional energy arises, instead of bottling it up or spending it on online shouting matches, promise yourself that you will engage and do something.

Thinking

In the post-truth world we live in, it may seem that empirical evidence and rational arguments have little currency. And yet, they are irreplaceable because they provide common ground for a dialogue and living together. The only alternative is ‘might is right’. Of course, sharing ‘lived experiences’ can have great value, but they widely differ and therefore cannot be used as a basis for the common ground. Evidence and reasoning have come into disrepute due to their misuse and abuse. Capitalism turned them into a competitive game to win rather than a collaborative way of discovering the truth. This is not to say that they should be abandoned, though – only that the way we apply them needs to evolve (for the principles that can elevate thinking to the next evolutionary step, see Thinking Anew). This is what it involves in practice: rather than cherry-picking evidence, consider all (at the same level of detail) – even that which contradicts your existing view. In discussions, if you present all the evidence in a balanced way, others will be more open to your views. Similarly, play devil’s advocate when reaching conclusions through reasoning. You will prepare better if you do the same before engaging in a debate.

Attitudes

We can learn from the past which attitudes don’t work. For example, when the New Atheist movement mainly focused on attacking religion rather than promoting what is good in atheism, they lost momentum and support. More recently, a postmodernist version of Social Justice Ideology (also referred to as ‘wokeness’) rose to prominence. The vast majority of people were initially sympathetic to their progressive agenda (greater equality, diversity and inclusion). However, attempts at forceful ‘conversions’ into their ideology, imposition, dogmatism, and demanding unreflective acceptance alienated most sympathisers and gave ammunition to those who were not. After initial success, their approach spectacularly backfired and more likely contributed to the resurgence of the far-right in the US and elsewhere. The attitudes below are more likely to bring lasting social change:

• Strive for, rather than fighting against. This is a crucial difference between evolution and revolution (in fact, even between successful and unsuccessful revolutions). Fighting against is often a waste of time and energy and can have unintended consequences, such as alienating the general public.
• Prioritise solutions over problems. Criticising and taking things apart is easy, everybody can do it – which is why everybody is doing it. However, focusing on what is wrong has limited value. A better world is unlikely to rise spontaneously if we take apart the old. We need to experiment, test and debate potential solutions and new ways forward now. This may be harder and riskier (riskier because it opens you to criticism) than being an armchair critic, but it is far more useful.
• Make friends, not enemies: arguments and fights (in person or online) are a waste of time. We can’t (and it wouldn’t be good even if we could) force change, so winning hearts and minds is really what matters. Rather than burning bridges, we must build them. This involves seeking common ground, being inclusive, and supporting each other. This is different from online echo-chambers, whose members also support each other but only to rage against others.

If you are also interested in personal development that can help you make some evolutionary changes in your own life please visit personalsynthesis.com

Engaging others

Listening

It is only fair to listen if we expect to be listened to. No matter how eager we are to share our ideas, it is usually better to start by listening to see where the other person is emotionally and cognitively. Good listening consists of the following:

True listening means not using the time the other is talking to think about what to say next. You may miss not only something important but also the other person, as that’s incredibly easy to notice. If you need to think about what to say, take a short pause before responding. It is far more agreeable.

Deep listening involves understanding – not only the content but also the person (where they are coming from and their experiences). Don’t worry that this may soften your convictions. If what you hear does not make sense to you, it will strengthen them. If it does, your views may evolve, which is a good thing.

Active listening shows engagement. It includes these interventions:

• Paraphrasing and summarising help you check and demonstrate your understanding and can reduce defensiveness. Emotional reframing – summarising what the other person said without emotive words – can help calm down another person without explicitly telling them to calm down, which usually has the opposite effect. For example, a statement such as, ”Those idiots are destroying our country with their socialist ideas”, can be reframed into, “So you think introducing these changes would not be helpful.”
• Clarifying usually involves asking for explanations or examples, but it can go deeper: it can make the implicit explicit by clarifying the information or assumptions on which an assertion is based. For example, assumptions behind statements such as “There is no alternative to capitalism” can be clarified by simply asking, “Why do you think that?” If somebody says, “The state (or the EU or the UN) is taking our freedoms away!” you can say, “Exactly which of your freedoms is eroded by the state (the EU, the UN)?”, to get to the source.

For additional suggestions on listening, see Awareness of others.

Remaining composed

It is hard to accept that people we relate to really think or feel differently from us. We’d rather believe that they just ‘don’t get it’, don’t hear or understand what we are saying. So, we must get our point across more forcefully or more loudly! But this only alienates others and makes them even more entrenched in their existing views. The phenomenon is known as the backfire effect or reactance: forceful attempts to persuade make people feel their agency is threatened. To protect it, they assert their original view more firmly or shut down. Similarly, raising one’s voice doesn’t make an argument stronger (unless addressing a large crowd already leaning in the same direction). Furthermore, forceful arguments do very little to win hearts and minds – even if we win an argument that way, we are likely to lose the person. On the other hand, creating an atmosphere of trust, openness, and safety while confidently but calmly exploring an issue alleviates resistance and the sense of threat, making others more open to alternative views. But what if the other side argues forcefully or lectures? They can’t win if we refuse to play that game. Remaining silent may sometimes be more persuasive than any argument.

Establishing common ground

Persuasion is more likely to work if you first find common ground: look for things you agree on or have in common (e.g. certain values), and share them with the other person. Ask them what they believe, what they hope for and what they fear. You don’t have to agree with everything – you can empathise and acknowledge their hopes and fears without necessarily agreeing with them on the causes and ways forward. For example, someone says, “High unemployment is the fault of letting too many foreigners in”. Rather than engaging in a discussion about immigration, you can say, ”I hear your worry about your job – I have the same fears”. If they say, “This is socialism”, you don’t need to defend socialism or argue that what you are hoping for is not socialism. You can say instead, “You seem to value freedom and everybody getting what they deserve for their honest work. Me too”. Only when you establish some common ground can you think of challenging.

Challenging

Challenging is sometimes necessary, but can be tricky. If you just tell people they are wrong, you lose them. To avoid that, challenge views, not people. Frame the issue in the context of shared values and what you agree on, and affirm anything you have learned from the other person. Rather than challenging conclusions, challenge assumptions or the way conclusions are arrived at (deficiencies in evidence or reasoning). Then let them reach their own conclusions.

Two methods can help with this: the so-called Socratic dialogue, combined (if necessary) with argument by analogy. Socratic dialogue consists of making enquiries to tease out inconsistencies or contradictions. Argument by analogy consists of finding something that the other person agrees with and then highlighting a parallel with what you would like to help them see or recognise. Remember to paraphrase or summarise before questions to avoid the impression of an interrogation. Here is a condensed extract from a real conversation, as an example:

• There is no global warming.
• Why do you think so? (Inviting the other person to talk about how they have come to that conclusion, rather than going for counterarguments).
• Look how cold it is here.
• So, you think that global warming would make the world hotter everywhere. (Teasing out a belief on which their conviction is based).
• Well, I don’t believe what I don’t see.
• So, you trust your senses most (paraphrasing). Hmm. I wonder… Do you sometimes stir the food that you cook?
• Of course, why do you ask?
• Why do you do it?
• What a silly question! (at that point, the person may have already realised the link, but doesn’t want to admit it) –To make it evenly hot, right?
• So, if you didn’t stir it, it wouldn’t be hot everywhere? (Making it explicit)
• What’s your point?
• Well, nobody stirs the climate, so we can’t expect it to heat up evenly.
• Maybe God stirs it? (Laughing)
• Well, God wouldn’t need to if the planet weren’t getting hotter (Laughing together)

To remain emotionally on the same page, it is important not to close in for the kill and leave the conversation open-ended. In the above example, the person got the point that a cold stretch in one part of the world doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t getting hotter, so spelling it out wasn’t necessary and would have been counterproductive. We have to forsake the pleasure of winning an argument to avoid the divisiveness and win over the person, which is far more important. In many cases, after listening carefully to what the others have to say, you may even skip the challenge and offer an alternative viewpoint, with something like “I wonder what you think of…”.

Describing your vision / making a point

If you hear something you disagree with, such as “This leader will restore our glory and greatness”, rather than challenging, you can move it forward by saying something like, “I’m hoping for better than that”, and no more. If they don’t take the bait, don’t push; just leave that door open. If they are curious and ask, “What?”, this is your invitation to explain the better alternative. Try to do so in simple, tentative terms. Don’t use jargon or academic-speak; use language to which people can relate. It is critical, though, to do your homework. Using valid data to support your case helps others come on board. However, some may respond better to stories, metaphors, historical analogies and real examples. Bear in mind, also, that they are more convinced by arguments that address their own, perhaps unspoken, concerns than general ones. If you still get responses such as, “What you’re saying is rubbish! I will tell you why…”, you may revert to listening. It can help you improve your arguments. Furthermore, even if the other one remains closed to your perspective, they will at least think you are a pleasant conversationalist because you listened to them. Later, when they are on their own and no longer need to be defensive, they may start thinking that you might have been making sense. You may never see the fruit of your efforts, but if you plant enough seeds, some of them are bound to sprout.

Recuperating

These conversations can be exhausting and even hurtful, especially with people who matter to you, so give yourself time to recuperate. You may also feel despair if you don’t manage to move others. Good strategies may increase the chances of shifting people’s positions, but cannot guarantee an outcome. The best remedy for failing to get across to others is to discuss your experience with those who are on the same page, so you all can learn from it. In this way, you can make every encounter, even seemingly unsuccessful ones, meaningful.

There is little doubt that we badly need a functional international body that can help us deal with growing global issues. The reality, though, is that much resistance on all fronts will need to be overcome to achieve this, so we must consider how we can facilitate the process of getting all players on board for such reform.

Getting nation states on board

We can expect that those countries that have a dominant or privileged position on the world scene now would want to preserve their status and would be reluctant to accept some of the changes proposed. A design of the model takes this into account and tries to reduce resistance by, for example, limiting the mandate of global governance to make clear that it is not a threat to national sovereignty and giving states the power to finalise decisions. However, this may not be enough. More needs to be and can be done to encourage countries to accept a model along these lines. We propose the following:

• Fostering internal support by encouraging debates that would challenge common misconceptions, such as that global governance would restrict human liberty, as well as inconsistencies in valuing equality and emancipation for example, and rejecting a global institution that would uphold and advance these values.
• Encouraging external support by enlisting backing from countries and other entities that are sympathetic to the idea.
• Capitalising on the awareness that existing structures need to change in order to meet growing global challenges and that it is in the interest of all countries, big and small, to accept reform.
• Adopting a simultaneous approach: making changes on a global level is difficult because of the so-called ‘prisoners’ dilemma’ effect. Let us take agricultural subsidies as an example: they badly harm producers in developing countries, but no Western country would cut its own farmers’ subsidies, because the market would be immediately flooded by subsidised products from other countries, quickly bankrupting some of their own farmers, small ones especially. So, the change needs to be initiated simultaneously in many countries. This is supposed to take place at G7 and G20 summits, but they simply do not deliver, at least not anymore. However, there are more promising grass-root initiatives (see below).

It may also seem that a model based on contributions and population disadvantages small countries, as they usually have lower populations and make smaller contributions. However, the disproportional distribution of votes under the present ‘one-state-one-vote’ system leads to big powers simply circumventing the UN, so the smaller nations have no real influence at all. Under this system, there is no hope that General Assembly resolutions will ever become more than non-binding recommendations. It makes more sense to have proportional power than none at all. Prof Joseph Schwartzberg believed that most countries “would soon recognise that 40% of something – an empowered (General Assembly) that can respond effectively to the needs of the weak – would be a great deal more favourable to their long-term interests than their present 84% of the votes in what might, in practical terms, be regarded as virtually nothing.” (2013, p.29). Small countries could also make powerful coalitions and in that way increase their influence further (and potentially way beyond what they have now).

If you are also interested in the larger picture – how these social processes fit within the evolution and meaning of life as a whole, please visit thesynthesis.info

Getting people on board

Getting governments on board would be a big step in the right direction, but would not in itself be sufficient. Substantial popular support is also necessary. Here are some suggestions as to how such support can be secured:

• Nationalist populism is likely to resist any notion of global governance, and it is well known for spreading disinformation. So, it is crucial to inform people before they are disinformed. Doing so afterwards may require far more effort and be too late. It is particularly important to make clear that global governance would not be a threat to individual liberties and cultural identities. Quite the opposite, one of the reasons for its existence would be to protect individual freedom when it is threatened by state or corporate powers, and this is how it should be presented.
• Publicising the proposal to introduce people’s representatives for the first time in history and to provide the general public with an opportunity to directly engage and contribute could also help getting people on board.
• Making it clear that those who are behind this initiative are not a part of some kind of elite with ulterior motives, would also be of great importance.
• The help of grass-roots, social media-savvy individuals and groups who are sympathetic to the idea can be enlisted.

Getting the world of commerce on board

The private sector is likely to be a mixed bag. Some elements will recognise the long-term value of global governance, as it will not only help address pressing issues that threaten businesses, but is also likely to create greater stability that is beneficial to trade and the economy. However, the project may also have formidable enemies from this sector, who could see greater political unity as a threat to their ‘freedom’ to make profit. Those keen on economic and financial globalisation are often wary of greater international political coordination and collaboration, as it can lead to better control and scrutiny of economic and financial activities. Money can go far towards making a good idea live, but it can equally go a long way towards ruining it. There are ways, though, to mitigate this:

• Providing a sound analysis that explains how the commercial world can benefit from global governance.
• Locating and seeking the support of corporations and other businesses sympathetic to the idea and exposing the real motives behind the hostility of those who are not.
• Engaging with the so-called ‘third sector’ (charities, co-ops, and social enterprises); they are more likely to be sympathetic to this idea.

If you are also interested in personal development that can help you make some evolutionary changes in your own life please visit personalsynthesis.com

Starting the process

The model described here can be further developed and many details refined. Indeed, it is important to keep working on new models, but this does not mean implementation should be delayed. After all, practice informs theory best. There are two roads that can be taken: we can start building on existing structures and, in parallel, developing new ones. If there is too much resistance for the former, we can place more emphasis on the latter; if the latter is too slow, we can rely more on the former.

Reforming existing structures: there are already initiatives seeking reform of the UN and other international bodies, and alternatives have been forged at all levels. These reforms need to be gradual, seeking the points of least resistance. For example, the House of Representatives can be established as a subsidiary organ under Article 22 of the UN Charter by a resolution of the UN General Assembly. This would avoid the need for the Charter to be revised, which would require the approval of two-thirds of all members states and of all five of the Security Council members with the power of veto – a difficult hurdle (Leinen & Bummel, 2018, p. 370-1). In a similar vein, the Council of Global Affairs can evolve, for example, from the UN Economic and Social Council or even the UN Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, and, as suggested, incorporate the present International Court of Justice. Regarding the legal hurdles, Article 109 Paragraph 3 could offer a pathway to reform of the UN Charter and to bypass the threat of veto. The five permanent seats and rights of veto on the Security Council were not initially intended to be a lasting situation: Article 109 of the UN Charter established that a complete review would happen after ten years. A UN Charter Review, made possible by this process, could thus be the first step towards a fully constitutionalised UN. The committee for Charter review was never officially disbanded, meaning that it remains legally in existence and that the Review (already approved by the General Assembly and Security Council) is still on the table.

Working on the creation of parallel structures to the existing ones:  there is no reason why the creation of new bodies (such as the House of Representatives) cannot already commence, at least on a small scale. After all, the EU was built on the proto-unification of just three small countries (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, known collectively as Benelux). Of course, such structures would not have much power to begin with, but in time they could create enough momentum to be taken seriously and eventually join, merge or replace elements of the existing structures. In fact, as the value of US economic and political dominance is increasingly questioned, some countries have started creating their own parallel structures (such as alternatives to the World Bank’s system in order to counter the overreliance on the American dollar).

In addition, the model also needs to be flexible and able to adapt to changing circumstances and the prevailing mood, which is why it may be best to introduce new elements in stages (as some already suggest for similar models[1]).

What we can do now

Most politicians are generally more interested in perpetuating the status quo than rocking the boat by making substantial changes. So, it is up to us to start the process and there are things that we can do now.

• A good starting point to get involved with the UN reform and other similar projects is the Center for UN Reform Education. The mission of the Center is to encourage, generate and sustain discussion of various specific proposals to reform and restructure the United Nations and it contains a huge number of publications and resources. The Useful Links page on their website has many valuable resources.
• The International Simultaneous Policy Organization (Simpol) was founded by a British businessman, John Bunzi, in 2000. It has since expanded to Australia, Brazil, Canada, India and several European and African countries. Anybody can join. Its aim is to pressurise political representatives to pledge that they will support certain policies if other countries do the same. ISPO’s partners include the Canadian Action Partyand the Global Justice Movement. The International Labour Organization and Global Greens (the international network of Green parties) also recommend certain simultaneous policy initiatives, and closer co-ordination of their members in many nations. An initiative for global governance would greatly benefit from engaging with and support from these and similar organisations.
• We can all contribute to the bottom-up development of the sense of a global community with a shared fate and values. We have come a long way in respecting and valuing individual and cultural differences. It is time do balance this by respecting and valuing what we share and what can bring us all together – there are some hopes, meanings, visions and goals that very few would disagree with.
• Among existing coalitions of civil organisations, three merit special notice: Parliamentarians for Global Action and the World Federalist Movement, both with headquarters in New York and The Hague, and the World Federation of United Nations Associations, based in New York and Geneva, are particularly well connected for assuming positions of leadership (Schwartzberg, 2013, p.328). It is arguably only a matter of time before a multitude of actors coalesce into a powerful global governance reform movement (Schwartzberg, 2013, p.333).
• Supporting existing initiatives such as the Great Transition Initiative(GTI), a global network of several hundred scholars, intellectuals, civil society leaders, and activists working to develop visions and pathways for a “Great Transition” to a future of equity, solidarity and ecological sustainability. The Initiative was re-launched as an online journal and discussion network in 2014.

[1] See, for example, Schwartzberg, J. (2013). Transforming the United Nations System. New York, Paris: United Nations University press. Chapter 3.

The mandate

The mandate and regulations of the global governance structure should be delineated in the Constitution’s preamble and its chapters. In a nutshell, the mandate would be not to interfere with the internal affairs of sovereign states and ordinary people, but to deal with global issues or serious violations of commonly agreed core values and principles. The following are examples of such values, guided by the good of all humankind and by respect for the equal value of all human beings:

• no deliberate harm should be inflicted upon the civilian population
• no group should be discriminated against
• military intervention by one country or group of countries against another is not acceptable unless approved by the international body as a last resort
• Everybody should have a chance for basic sustenance and development: food and water, shelter, health (e.g. uncontaminated water and air) and basic education
• no state or corporation should violate or appropriate international space, including the land, waters, the atmosphere and outer space; no harm should knowingly be inflicted on future generations
• No exceptionalism: all agreed principles should apply equally to all states, corporations and other groups, as well as to individuals

As this proposal argues for a fluid constitution, these examples are not set in stone and can be amended and refined further.

Decision-making paths

In all three chambers, decisions will be made by simple majority, but decisions made in one chamber will be subject to objections by the other two. A decision will be submitted for ratification to the other two chambers, and if neither objects in the allocated time, the decision will be upheld. If only one objects, the decision will still be upheld. If both object, the decision has to be annulled or amended. This may sound like too slow a process, particularly in times of crisis, but it doesn’t have to be. A number of blueprints can be created in advance for various crisis situations. If they have already been approved, a suitable one can be quickly chosen and implemented and then further adapted, if necessary, to the unique set of circumstances of an individual case. In this system, the House of States would have the final decision-making power in many situations, which is not an accident. Without this proviso, there is little chance that states, on which funding depends, would accept the addition of the other two chambers and move (at least in some cases) from non-binding to binding resolutions.

One advantage of this model is that there is no need or justification for a power of veto – or the Security Council. This highly undemocratic relic from the aftermath of WW2 is demonstrably no longer fit for purpose. An inability to deal with so-called ISIS and the crisis in Syria and Iraq is just one example of how the Security Council (and the UN as a whole) has become ineffective. The power of veto is arguably one of the most unhelpful mechanisms in the UN, and should have been abolished by now. Nevertheless, it is anticipated that this could be one of the most difficult things to change, as those who have the power of veto are unlikely to give it up easily. For this reason, implementation of the new system would need to be strategic, at least until the reforms gain some leverage and the chances of success become realistic. To begin with, the new model would work around the issue of the veto and ignore it as much as possible. It would also be helpful to gain the support of the general public by encouraging public debate on this issue (which is currently almost completely absent). This could increase the pressure (from the inside and outside) on those states that have the power of veto. Until the veto can be completely abolished, attempts could be made to limit its use to certain areas, and to gain ground in incremental steps.

If you are also interested in personal development that can help you make some evolutionary changes in your own life please visit personalsynthesis.com

The means of implementing decisions

To be effective, global governance should gradually move from non-binding to binding decisions. In the case of violations of mutually agreed and accepted decisions, actions that are already pretty much standard can be taken (with some modifications):

• Suspended membership (and therefore suspended participation in decision making) of the international institutions.
• Economic and trade sanctions (e.g. limiting exports from the country, a ban on selling arms or other non-essential products to that country, freezing assets, etc.). These forms of enforcement are effective because they are highly flexible in terms of who is targeted, how, and to what degree.
• Interventions: in some (hopefully rare) cases, military intervention may need to be considered. This should be, of course, a last resort but it should not be entirely excluded as its possibility would also act as a deterrent.

Control and accountability

In principle, control and accountability can be internal, top-down, bottom-up and mutual. None of these is perfect on its own. Internal is not always sufficient (e.g. family members may be accountable to each other, but if that family has power over those outside the family, such internal accountability may not be sufficient). A problem with top-down accountability is that whoever is on top is not accountable to anybody; ‘tyranny of the majority’ is a potential issue with the bottom-up model; and mutual accountability can lead to collusion. As none of these options seems to be sufficient on its own, our model combines them:

• Mutual control and accountability are crucial to the system. One of the reasons for creating a tripartite model is that its chambers can keep each other in check. The Secretariat is accountable to all three chambers and, in return (in the case of a serious breach of guidance and regulations), the Secretariat can also recommend the dismissal of any member of those chambers, but the other two chambers would need to approve such an action. Additional but different forms of accountability are used with each chamber:
• As the Council has very little direct power, and has to go via other chambers to put its decisions into practice, internal accountability (in conjunction with mutual accountability) is sufficient. Any member of the Council can be voted out by its super-majority (two-thirds).
• Members of the House of Representatives will be accountable to the people who vote for them (bottom-up accountability).
• Members of the House of States will be accountable to their respective national governments, which will be able to recall and replace them (top-down accountability).

There is an imbalance with the last two, however. While states can respond to the actions of their ambassadors straight away, people cannot – they usually need to wait for the ballot box. To account for this, their representatives should report back to their constituents on a regular basis and broadly stick to the platform on which they were elected. If their constituents believe that their representative has changed their mind without good justification, an early election can be triggered by a ‘vote of no confidence’.

It is hard to say, at this stage, if this combination can guarantee fool-proof accountability. Human beings can be very inventive in creating models that would benefit all, but they can also be very creative in subverting and circumventing any model for their own ends. These two traits have always been, and are likely to continue playing out. This is why a complex and robust system of control and accountability needs to be provided to build on, but with the awareness that we should never become complacent and that the system should have to keep evolving.

If you are also interested in the larger picture – how these social processes fit within the evolution and meaning of life as a whole, please visit thesynthesis.info

Transparency

Transparency is essential for good governance. Although many governments nowadays, as well as the UN, are taking some steps in the direction of greater transparency, much more can be done. This model enhances transparency in key ways:

• Mutual observers: to secure transparency between the three major entities of this model, whenever one of them has a major meeting, observers from the other two should be present (e.g. observers from the Council and the House of States would attend sittings of the House of Representatives and so on).
• The organisation would need to be more proactive regarding the general public. As previously suggested for national governance, there should be a gazette, published in print and electronically, that would report to the public (e.g. on how much money has been spent and on what, what the plans and goals are, to what extent goals have been fulfilled and, if they have not, why not). Such a media outlet should be paid for by the organisation, but should run independently to secure impartiality.

Securing ongoing evolution

A number of mechanisms must be put in place to ensure the model is flexible and continues to evolve:

• Fluent constitution: one of the main tasks of the Council would be to keep refining and adapting the constitution to changing circumstances.
• The tripartite system itself provides a mechanism for greater flexibility, as any two components can request a revision or improvement of the third.
• Openness to grass-roots input can also contribute to evolving the organisation.
• The feedback loop mechanism must also be put in place. It normally consists of:
  • setting a clear and transparent goal and taking steps to achieve it
  • assessing the goal against the outcome
  • if the outcome was not fully satisfactory, analysing the reasons for this
  • on the basis of the above, making revisions and developing strategies to make improvements

This may seem common sense, but it is often ignored in international politics. For example, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 had no clear and transparent goal[1].  After initial triumphalism, a proper assessment against the outcome has never been officially carried out; consequently, a proper analysis and revision were also absent. The same mistake (not having a good strategy for securing normal functioning of civic society in the aftermath of military action) was repeated in Libya in 2011 with the same result: opening a door to endless civil wars.

Protection against the abuse of power

Rightly or wrongly, the EU is often perceived as interfering in the internal affairs of member states. This was cited as one of the major reasons behind the UK voting to leave the Union in the 2016 referendum. In this case it was unjustified, as the UK had to implement very little legislation that its own government did not approve of. However, this example shows that it is important to limit not only actual interference but also the perception of interference. This is why it is crucial to clearly and transparently communicate the organisation’s mandate: to deal with global issues and interfere with actions of individual states only and solely if it is collectively concluded that there are serious violations of agreed core values and principles (e.g. harm inflicted by one country on another or on humanity as a whole). We should also mention that the task of controlling interference as well as the perception of interference would be less taxing for this model than for the EU, as no economic or fiscal union is proposed.

Protection against privileging

The proposed tripartite system would reduce the concentration of political power and consequently reduce the risk of the special interests of individuals, groups and organisations gaining favours. In addition, a number of suggestions that parallel those for national governance can be utilised:

• Corporate lobbying that involves hiring professionals to influence the members of a governing body can be abolished, on the basis that ordinary citizens do not have the same opportunity to do so[2]. Commercial companies could make their case and offer suggestions in the same way as everybody else, using the same channels.
• Interest groups, think-tanks, NGOs and other such organisations are sometimes used as a façade to influence national and international politics. Global governance institutions would not be in a position to force them to disclose the sources of their funding because this could be perceived as interference with the national sovereignty of the country to which they belong. However, there is no reason why the cases of those who disclose it voluntarily cannot be prioritised.
• Some features of this model, such as the addition of the non-state-based chambers and the phasing out of the Security Council and the veto, reduce the possibility of a state or group of states being in a privileged position. It is true that the proposed system of weighted votes in the House of States (linked to their contributions) may legitimise the greater influence of some states, but such influence would at least be transparent and clearly demarcated. Furthermore, it would also be moderated by other chambers. This would be a far cry from the present situation, in which the permanent members of the Security Council effectively have all the power.

One can be forgiven for feeling that the tide is running in the opposite direction to all this: there is strong and growing opposition to ‘globalisation’ (and, by association, global institutions) on the left and the rise of nationalism on the right. But tides go into reverse, and this one may change direction very soon. People are increasingly aware of our inter-dependency, especially in the face of crises such as climate change. According to a recent BBC World Service survey, most people (except in a few Western countries) already consider themselves to be global citizens. Momentum is already present, and when the tide does change, we need to be ready, so let’s see how we could meet the challenges of implementing this or similar models.

[1] Disarming Iraq of (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction was more an excuse than a goal.
[2] In theory, people could collectively hire professional lobbyists, but to do so they would need to organise, while corporations are already organised for different reasons, which still gives them an unfair advantage.

Another crucial player in global governance needs to be considered – the people themselves. The public would be indispensable for informing the chambers about the situation on the ground, making suggestions and proposals about global challenges, and supporting, as well as challenging if necessary, the upholding of common goals, values and principles. Grass-roots involvement can be extremely valuable and could contribute to political maturity globally. Reversely, people’s disengagement can easily turn into hostility. Voting once in a few years is not enough, and more needs to be on offer in order to engage ordinary people. It is hard, however, to conceive utilising the usual channels of direct democracy on this scale for several reasons: they would be far too slow (although this may change in the future with widespread online access); they would be open to corruption and abuse on a large scale as monitoring across the globe would be difficult and expensive (e.g. in the case of a global referendum); and vast demographic differences (e.g. between rich and poor parts of the world) would create many distortions and potentially contribute to hostility rather than cooperation between groups. Ideally, the role of direct democracy should gradually increase until it reaches the same level as suggested at the nation-state level, but this may take some time. This is not to say that some elements of direct democracy cannot be included from the start and engage with many worthwhile grass-roots initiatives happening throughout the world. What is needed is the creation of accessible channels of communication with the global institutions. Here are some suggestions for how this can be achieved:

• Establishing an online platform where people can express their views on the present course of action and even informally vote for various options. There are already a number of websites that do something similar, but it would be important to create an official one for the sake of visibility and credibility. Organised responses by, for example, corporate or governments’ cyber agencies would have to be fought against as other online platforms (e.g. those for petitions) have to do. This may, though, not be enough, so the purpose of such a platform would only be to measure roughly the pulse of global sentiment. Such ‘world opinion’ would not be binding, but it could still have some real impact (as it has in some cases already).
• Providing opportunities for the general public to make proposals and suggestions for important global issues (e.g. what to do about the climate change, population increases, education and health, international crime and many other subjects). An agency adjoined to the Secretariat could initially vet any suggestions. Then, the Secretariat could choose to which chambers those proposals worthy of consideration should be passed for further deliberation. Tapping into this creative potential could be hugely beneficial. There are many individuals and groups that have great ideas, knowledge and experience in a particular field but do not have any way of channelling them to those who are in a position to implement them.

If you are also interested in personal development that can help you make some evolutionary changes in your own life please visit personalsynthesis.com

• NGOs are another form of grass-roots involvement and some already have their place within UN agencies and elsewhere. Maintaining this relationship would be beneficial for all. There have been some high-profile cases involving NGOs, but they represent a very small proportion of their number. Most are doing great work and even some of those hit by scandals continue to do so.
• Encouraging the formation of global grass-root interest groups (such as students, farmers, health professionals, or environmentalists). Such bottom-up interconnectivity can contribute to forming global identity far better than top-down decrees. Providing opportunities for such groups to attend relevant meetings, make their case, and suggest a way forward would contribute to establishing constructive relationships with them. The UN is already making strides in this direction.
• Modern technology is still a largely underutilised means of communication that could greatly help engage the general public. For example, a so-called Padget (a portmanteau coined from ‘Policy Gadget’) toolset can be used to gather feedback and promote the debate.

We outlined above the major elements of the model. This is its visual representation:

Beside the three main components outlined above, this system of global governance would also include the Secretariat, although its role would be somewhat different to that of the UN’s equivalent. Its principal functions would be to:

• coordinate the workings of the other three bodies
• be responsible for their daily practical operations
• oversee the implementation of decisions
• be the ‘face’ of the whole organisation
• gather information and periodically report on the state of the world
• present to all three bodies issues for consideration
• suggest increases or decreases in the budget.

In exceptional cases of great urgency, the Secretariat and the General Secretary would be able to make decisions (with as much consultation with the representatives from all three chambers as time permits). This is necessary as a swift response could sometimes be needed. It would at the discretion of the Secretariat and the General Secretary to decide if it is necessary to exercise this option, following strict guidelines approved by all three chambers. Any decision made in a breach of the guidance would be considered void. If such a decision involved the rapid deployment of a military force, it should only be for a strictly limited time period during which the three chambers could debate the wisdom of the initial deployment and either terminate or continue with it.

The members of the Secretariat and the General Secretary could be nominated by any of the four bodies (including the Secretariat itself), but for a nominee to be appointed, at least two other bodies would need to give their approval. The Secretariat would also have a team of civil servants worldwide. Their role would be to provide studies and information on the one hand, as is the case in the UN now, and collect and select grass-roots proposals (from NGOs, interest groups such as students, or the general public) on the other. Most existing commissions and specialised agencies could be retained, as well as the International Criminal Court, which would have the role of investigating and sentencing those who have committed crimes against humanity, war crimes, crimes with global consequences (such as endangering the global environment) or violations of international space, property or personnel. The Secretariat would also liaise with international organisations such as the World Health Organization, the International Labour Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization, providing there is still a need for such organisations and that they are sufficiently reformed in line with more democratic and cooperative principles.

The states are one of the fundamental political entities and it makes sense that they are represented in any global governing body. So, we propose to retain the UN General Assembly but in a somewhat modified form (hence the change of name to the House of States). This chamber would consist of member states, as is now the case, but would not be based on the one-country, one-vote principle. Such a principle may be right where people are concerned, but countries are different – they vary greatly in size and population, as well as in economic, military and other powers. There is little hope that any resolution from an assembly in which, for example, the US and Nauru have an equal vote can be accepted as binding. In his book Transforming the United Nations System, Joseph E. Schwartzberg rightly pointed out that “until such time as the United Nations adopts a system of weighted voting that realistically reflects the actual global distribution of power, it seems doubtful that any major state will willingly grant the GA, the most representative organ within the UN system, the authority to make binding decisions.” (2013, p.17).  And yet, global governance needs to move in that direction if it is to make a real impact. But, if not one-state, one-vote, how can we ensure a meaningful distribution of votes? Geographical size would be too crude and population size would lead to an unhealthy overlap with the House of Representatives. Instead, we suggest that states could be represented in proportion to their financial contributions. This may raise a few eyebrows, but we need to recognise that such contributions matter and have to be taken into account. To make that point, let’s compare first of all possible options for financing the global institutions: self-financing, voluntary contributions, financing by corporations and financing by nation states.

Self-financing is not a viable option, as it would distract the organisation from its primary tasks as well as possibly compromise its presumed impartiality. Contributions by individuals would, of course, be welcome but would never be nearly sufficient. The main responsibility of corporations is to make profit for their shareholders, so even if some of them may see the value of such an organisation, their contributions are unlikely to be adequate and can negatively affect the perception of neutrality, to say the least (it is hard to imagine that private companies would make donations without wanting something in return). Thus, funding by nation states remains the best option. However, considering that their primary concern is their own national interest, it would be naïve to expect that a disparity between voting power and financial contributions would ever be fully accepted. Furthermore, states would be likely to fulfil their financial obligations more regularly than they do now if their voting power in the House of States was linked to their contributions. Consider the current funding arrangements for the UN: each country is allocated a proportion of contribution based on their GDP and population (in principle, this practice could be retained as the most affordable and equitable option for all members, but in somewhat simplified form – the present calculations are unnecessarily complicated). Under the current system, the US is supposed to pay 22%, much more than any other country. But the US has either not paid or paid only around 20% of what it should, undermining the UN and more or less ignoring its resolutions (except those initiated by itself). If its voting power were linked to its contributions, the US and other member states may be more willing to pay their share. That would, in turn, allow more effective responses to crises and other events (e.g. distributing humanitarian aid, dealing with pandemics, peace keeping, and even, if necessary, military interventions and subsequent regeneration). Weighted voting according to contributions would also make sense considering that the House of States’ main role would be approving various proposals and the associated costs – essentially, deciding how their contributions are spent. This is not dissimilar to how companies with shareholders operate, but with one important difference. While shareholders are often remote (not a part of the company in any other way), the member states are part of the world – so it would be more accurate to describe the above system as a cooperative in which those who have stakes in it also work (and live) there. Something along these lines was already on the cards in the UN in the mid-eighties (although if realised, it would have had a quite different flavour without the other two chambers).

If you are also interested in personal development that can help you make some evolutionary changes in your own life please visit personalsynthesis.com

Just to make it clear, states would not pay separately for each action, as that could open the door to manipulation, but annually according to the agreed budget. If actions taken require going over the budget for that year, the budget would be increased the following year to balance the books (this may require issuing short-term bonds that can be bought by states themselves or by private investors and banks, but there could be other options too). A state that did not pay its due in full would not be excluded, but its voting power would be proportionally reduced (e.g. if they pay only 20%, their voting power is reduced to 20%) until the bill is repaid. It should be also possible for one state to ‘buy off’ a part of another state’s contribution (and thereby increase its voting power) but only in one direction. A state with less voting power could take over a part of the contribution from another state with more voting power, but not the other way around, and only as much as makes them equal – it could not buy so much that it overtook the other state. This would be another way for small countries to increase their influence if they wish to do so.

As national governments control their fiscal policy and therefore financial contributions, the members of the House of States would be government delegates (as is the case now with the General Assembly). A state may choose to have one delegate who would have the whole percentage of the vote, or more than one, with the vote split between them (coalition governments, for example, may prefer the latter option).

The House of States would have several roles:

• To approve, with the House of Representatives, proposals from the Council of Global Affairs (if approved, these proposals become a part of the general guiding framework, but they do not have to lead to any immediate action).
• In conjunction with the Council, to sanction, reject or make a conditional approval of a proposal coming from the House of Representatives (approving these proposals may lead to immediate action).
• To consider suggestions from the Secretariat to be debated (see below).
• To initiate proposals (but not act upon these if both other chambers object).