Metta Spencer and Alexander Likhotal, who expressed somewhat differing views about the future of democracy and pressing environmental issues. After the Soviet Union ended, he moved to Geneva to serve as the CEO of Gorbachev’s environmental project, Green Cross International. Now he is a professor of international relations in Geneva.
Metta Spencer opened the conversation by expressing her pessimism about the political future, particularly in the United States, where she expected Donald Trump to be re-elected four days later, signaling a regression in democratic values. She challenged Likhotal to cheer her up.
He denied having any expertise about US politics, but did disclose a more optimistic outlook, noting with apparent approval that about one-third of the votes had already been cast early.
Likhotal pointed out that the polarization of the U.S. electorate, now remarkably evenly divided in support for the two major parties, inevitably has international effects. Furthermore, he sees both sides of the political spectrum as not only polarized but even radicalized.
While Spencer agreed that this was true of the right, she considered the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris quite moderate. Likhotal argued that the radicalization he observed is more about constituencies than individual politicians.
Recalling his own work on in sustainability during the early post-Cold War period, Likhotal described that period as one of optimism, for there seemed to be a real prospect for greater cooperation among nations and for global governance to solve pressing issues. He contrasted that optimism with the current state of affairs – a "dark valley" in the journey toward peace and stability. The conversation took a sobering turn in considering the geopolitical implications of the many right-wing governments around the world.
There was agreement that the surge in authoritarianism is weakening nations’ capacities to tackle existential threats. In addition, however, Metta Spencer complained that politicians hardly even mention the three worst global threats that are looming today: global warming, nuclear rearmament, and the impacts of artificial intelligence.
Nor is any major institution of international governance preparing for these imminent crises. The United Nations is an organization of states, not persons. Likhotal nodded, noting that the UN Charter begins: “We the peoples of the United Nations…” but then he asked her, “Have you ever seen a representative of people there?”
Spencer mentioned movements like C40 Cities, which could perhaps be leveraged to work together on climate action and other issues, supplementing the UN in governing internationally.
Likhotal attributed the degradation of politics to digital communication. He reminisced about the time he arrived in Switzerland thirty years ago and relied on paper maps to find his way around, since the internet was still in its infancy. Today, digital companies hold immense power as gatekeepers of information, influencing how people engage with politics and society. But this shift has also reduced meaningful face-to-face interactions. So, sometimes he goes to his clubhouse just to engage in harsh discussions. “That’s what I want!” he said.
The Sources of Public Opinion
Metta expressed her frustration that it is nearly impossible to influence public opinion rationally. She alluded to psychological research showing that political beliefs are shaped, not by rational argument, but by each person’s identity and desire to conform to a community or “tribe.” This human trait eliminates the impact of critical information about climate change, artificial intelligence, and the renewed nuclear arms race—issues that Metta views as especially dangerous.
Likhotal agreed but also emphasized the importance of prioritizing various global threats. He noted that while climate change is crucial, it should be considered alongside other pressing issues facing humanity.
Metta disagreed, asserting that all these issues are inter-connected and that each one is potentially catastrophic for humanity. She said that it is no longer possible to prioritize and handle them one at a time, for any single “existential” threat can require immediate action. The world is not preparing for them but continues a slower, methodical approach that is inadequate.
Likhotal was not quite so pessimistic, even about the current rise of right-wing governments around the globe, which he described as sources of ‘uncertainty,’ but perhaps only temporarily, during what he calls a “transitional” period, as the recent global order moves toward a new “plurilateral” regime.
Despite their differing views on how to prioritize these challenges, both he and Metta want a global governance structure that allows people to have a voice. They agreed on the value of movements like the C40 cities initiative, which transcends traditional nation-state boundaries and empowers local governments to address climate change. Likhotal predicted that even the United Nations may, at some later point, welcome the participation of such organizations as C-40 in addition to the states. That could begin as an advisory position, and it might come about naturally because, for example, in about five years New Delhi in India will have a population of 40 million people. Whatever impacts the lives of 40 million people is important, not only for India but for the whole world.
Likhotal said he is witnessing the initial transformation of relations among countries like Russia, China, and the United States. He believes the post-Cold War power structures will change, with emerging nations already asserting their influence globally. He noted that the international organizations, such as the G20 and BRICS, are shifting toward a more multipolar world. More countries are beginning to engage on their own terms, rather than strictly adhering to Western agendas.
Putin had recently hosted a BRICS meeting in Kazan, Russia to demonstrate that Russia is not isolated. However, those countries are going to meet again in Brazil without him present, and they will show that “they have absolutely no intention of picking a fight with anyone, and that it’s not a matter of taking sides, either with Russia and China or with the United States and the West.”
Will States Always Rule the World?
Metta Spencer said she doesn’t have an opinion about multilateralism. It all depends on what the multilateral states stand for, what kind of future they are aiming for. And besides, the globe should not be governed mainly by states anyway, but by people. Elected officials don’t necessarily share the concerns of their constituents. Instead, Spencer wants a global parliament, selected by sortition and working together on Zoom instead of traveling to the UN personally, though she doubts that the UN would ever enable such a challenge to the dominance of nations.
Likhotal, on the other hand, anticipates the inexorable advance of plurilateralism, while concurring with her concern about a world of rising nationalism and populism. The mechanisms of diplomacy are not coping with the complexities of modern geopolitics.
Likhotal foresees a future where global governance incorporates the voices of citizens, but he does not expect this transformation to happen quickly. It requires a fundamental shift in how political power is exercised. But he denied being much discouraged by the current ascendancy of the right wing globally, for he considers it temporary, eventually to be ended by a “tsunami” of geopolitical change.
The conversation pivoted toward the efficacy of UN summits, which typically are inadequate in addressing the rapidly approaching threats to the biosphere and humanity. Can public opinion change enough, soon enough? Perhaps. Although rapid shifts in public opinion are unpredictable, Metta recalled that they are possible, citing the dramatic transformations when communist regimes collapsed in Eastern Europe in 1989 and later when even the Soviet Union ended.
Anticipating extreme technological advancements in artificial intelligence and shocking climate catastrophes, Metta worries that people are not preparing for the immanent disruptions in our daily lives. She expects the oceans to rise ten feet and, even sooner, driverless electric taxis and trucks to alter economies, displacing millions from their jobs. Moreover, even professionals such as lawyers and accountants may be unemployed, though they do not even recognize that possibility yet.
Likhotal acknowledged the prospect of these shifts, noting that a significant portion of the electorate feels disenfranchised and is turning to right-wing politics as a means of reclaiming agency. This sentiment resonates across various nations, not just in America, suggesting a broader trend of seeking change through alternative political avenues. Metta lamented that none of the new global political leaders have articulated a convincing image of any effective world order that they are trying to create.
Winding up the conversation, Metta jokingly complained that Likhotal had not dispelled her pessimism. Likhotal replied by pointing out that it was too heavy a lift for a single conversation. They genially agreed to talk again, giving Likhotal another opportunity to rehabilitate his old friend’s sagging outlook.
Share this post