For centuries, conspiracy theorists have searched for traces of a secret mechanism for managing the world. And they are searching to this day. Back in 2012, a distinguished PiS MP (Mrs. Gabriela Masłowska) asked Marek Belka, the then president of the National Bank of Poland, in the Sejm: “Is it true that the Bilderberg Group performs the function of an informal world government?”

Once, the Great Sanhedrin, the Order of the Illuminati, Freemasonry, and the Rothschilds were accused of ruling the world. In the 20th century, suspicion was directed at Opus Dei, the Rockefellers and big American companies. The concept of banana republics was coined for states controlled by foreign conglomerates. Later, the attention of researchers of conspiracy circles was focused on the Trilateral Commission and the aforementioned Bilderberg Group. Today, Gates, Murdoch, Soros, and Elon Musk are accused of manipulatively pulling the strings. Nb. Paul Krugman based his theory of the syndrome of “a petulant oligarch” on Elon Musk. Krugman described how the accumulation of wealth leads to the accumulation of power, including “power for childish actions.” But at the same time, these petulant oligarchs can no longer afford to live away from the prying eye of the public. Including pulling any strings.

Anyone who has witnessed meetings of elite politicians, businessmen and intellectuals, such as those practiced by the World Economic Forum in Davos, knows perfectly well that such bodies are by no means capable of generating any directives that would help anyone to manage the world. Interesting ideas do appear there, but they are not refined, let alone operationalized, by discussions on these forums.
The impression of causative powerlessness, which is often imposed from these debates, can only deepen the diagnosis of the crisis of the elites, including the global elites.

But seriously, the crisis of Western elites has serious international consequences.

There is no doubt that in the strategic dimension, the Western elites have been determining the political course of the entire world for the last three or four hundred years. For at least two decades, however, we have been repeating the mantra of the twilight of Western leadership, of the West’s loss of the capacity (in terms of resources if not of moral title) to manage world affairs. The West is unable to control the course of things. The chaos at the Kabul airport in 2021 became a pictorial symbol of the West’s inability to instill its order in the world. And if the West allowed Russia to do what it wanted to do with Ukraine, and China to take Taiwan without consequences, the perception of the total anomie of the Western order would be complete.

The West proved incapable of acting as a guarantor of order. An apparition of a “many-headed beast” emerged, which in schizophrenic spasms would fight with itself and argue cacophonically about the political future of the world. When, after the end of the Cold War, President George Bush (Senior) envisioned a new world order and made it clear that America was ready to become its “enoforcer,” many felt that the world’s good future was a foregone conclusion.

But the world entered the new millennium trembling, shaken by crises and violence (not only provoked by terrorists).

The camp traditionally perceived as the “Third World” or the „global South” has emancipated itself as an independent global force.

In this context, Mark Mazower some time ago allowed himself to make quite a bold observation: “The world no longer listens to the deaf prophets of the West. This shifting configuration of forces may provide some much needed intellectual reinvigorration, and end perhaps not only centuries of the West’s global dominance but perhaps too the mental laziness that accompanied it. Cold War fossilized habits of thought. The end of the West’s prepondrance should inspire not fear but curiosity”.

The breath of intellectual freshness, however, has not yet occurred (apart from small exceptions without any influence on politics). The Third World by no means offered any interesting alternative visions of the new order. Maybe apart from the theory of the new “Great Convergence”. In a strategic sense, what the conceptualists of China or India propose is a return to the principles of the policy of “non-alignment” (“pancha sila”), the world of sovereign nations, the primacy of the paradigm of interests.

I must admit that when I was working on the Polish UN reform initiative in 2002-2004, I really hoped that we would find many allies in the camp of developing countries for the postulate of radical change. Nothing of that happened. China did not so much want to change the system of world management invented and practiced in the times of absolute domination of the West, but thought how to use it for its own purposes. Even the most revisionist countries in the assessment of the existing system of states saw the whole meaning of the changes in depriving the Western powers of their privileges (the right of veto in the UN Security Council), joining representatives of the South to decision-making bodies with equal rights. Some, out of old habit, frown when the West pushes the notions of a “rules-based order” or “effective multilateralism,” but they have no intention of presenting an alternative.

Intellectual and political powerlessness creates a vacuum.

A few years ago, Roger Cohen allowed himself to draw far-reaching conclusions from the crisis of elites in the national backyard for global processes. He wrote: “Global culture is increasingly defined by rich, cynical elites – as in Russia, China, USA – while those excluded from this wealth veer towards angry, xenophobic nationalism”. He put it succinctly as a “crazy rich Asians versus Hillbilly elegy” confrontation. The result of these processes is the retreat of democracy, the flourishing of dictatorships, the increase in repressiveness of the state, bandit corruption, the death of values in politics.

The global plutocracy, which Chrystia Freeland once wrote about in the hope of promoting globalization, under the influence of growing social anger, has either succumbed to political degeneration or has gone into hiding somewhere and is quietly doing its business. It does not aspire to lead world integration. The great hope of world democracy and cosmopolitan order, i.e. the so-called the middle class has become reclusive, withdrawn, thinking more about the well-being of their own children and grandchildren than about the future of the world.

Likewise, officials of international organizations, international managers, visiting academic teachers, international students, expats who, by various fates, have found a professional haven outside the borders of their own country, nation, culture do not aspire to become the conscience of the world. After all, they should have a natural, even personal interest in building an open, tolerant, empathetic, cooperative world, a world worthy of Kant’s garden of harmonious coexistence. But there are so few of them, maybe hundreds of thousands, which on a global scale means nothing. And, as a rule, they sit quietly, and they will never create a real community of world meritocracy. Politicians or diplomats without much charisma have long been placed at the helm of international organizations. Member states are afraid of strong but unpredictable leaders of international institutions. And politicians without charisma will never be able to captivate ordinary citizens with their visions.

No wonder that the debate on the world order is dominated by populists, nationalistic troglodytes, and ignorant people of all kinds. Because the world, including the world of ideas, knows no vacuum.
So the discourse on international politics is filled with so much gibberish. Also in Poland. In particular, uttered during the rule of PiS by people in state and government positions, directly related to foreign policy. Sometimes it was hard to believe that so much ignorance could be behind this gibberish. Or probably it was the result of cynicism, the result of a deliberate act of shamelessly pushing ordinary crap on people, producing lies in order to fool the electorate so that the politicians could do whatever they wanted.

Jonan Ganesh once pointedly remarked, “In our golden age of data this one area (foreign policy) that remains resiliently unmeasurable. So anyone can say anything as long as they say it sonorously and use the word “strategy” a lot. At its best diplomacy is politics at its most civilized. At its worst, it is a world made predominantly of smoke.”

The ordinary citizen perceives the world as permanently engulfed in smoke, fog, and an impenetrable veil. And he loses the will to do anything.

It was hard for me to disagree with Roger Cohen when he claimed that the hope of the 21st century lies not in nations but in people and networks. Is this assumption realistic?

I asked some time ago (in English) the Bing AI how I, as an ordinary citizen, could influence world politics.

Here is the answer I got:
„The ordinary citizen can influence world politics in different ways, depending on the level of involvement and motivation. Here are some possible ways:

• Voting for candidates or parties that share their views on global issues such as human rights, climate change, trade, security, etc. Voting can give citizens something to say about how their government works and what policies it pursues.
• Online activism, using the internet and social media to organize protests, sign petitions, raise awareness or boycott products related to global issues. Online activism can put pressure on governments or corporations to change their behavior or policies.
• Joining a pressure group or non-governmental organization (NGO) that advocates a particular cause or interest in world politics, such as environmental protection, humanitarian aid, peacebuilding, etc. Pressure groups and NGOs can lobby governments, influence public opinion or provide services and support those in need.
• Participating in public consultations or dialogues with government officials or representatives of international organizations such as the United Nations, European Union, World Bank, etc. Public consultations or public dialogues can provide opportunities for citizens to express their views, ask questions or suggest global issues.
• Educating yourself and others about world politics and its challenges and opportunities. Education can increase one’s knowledge, awareness and critical thinking skills, and inspire others to get involved or take action.
  These are just a few examples of how an ordinary citizen can influence world politics. Of course, the impact of each action can vary depending on the context, the problem and the reaction of the target group. But every action can make a difference and contribute to a more democratic and inclusive world.”

All this we know already and practice as citizens. And yet our voice is so faintly heard.
Is there, after all, any systemic solution that will introduce a new quality to the relationship between a citizen and a politician? More on that next time.