International historians and social scientists agree that the world is in the midst of a polycrisis and this has probably been the case for quite a number of years now. Some trace it back to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, others believe that the slide started some time before.
The word polycrisis was coined around the early 1970s and refers to the convolution of multiple crises in a way that causes their compound effects to appear to hit all at once. In local parlance, it is the sort of calamity that is described as “ol’ house ‘pon ol’ house”. Accordingly, we can acknowledge that this sort of effect is overwhelming on the individual level and try to imagine it universally. Unless you’re living under a rock somewhere, or on a different planet, you are part of this collective experience.
The vagaries of global warming are unleashing extreme weather that affects the various regions of the world very harshly. From excessive rainfall and flooding in some places, to none at all in others; from destructive wildfires to raging storms, the effect of human degradation of the environment has impacted every aspect of life and continues to do so.
In 2020 came the Covid-19 pandemic and the world as we knew it changed, for most of us, irrevocably. The lengthy periods of isolation necessary to curb the spread of the virus, hitherto unknown and unheard of, caused profound collective mental health crises, particularly among younger people, that are ongoing for many to date.
In this part of the world, we are aware of the seemingly unending armed conflicts, including those in Syria, Yemen, Ethiopia, Sudan, the Congo, Nigeria, Somalia, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Philippines, Mexico and Colombia which impact geopolitics and global finances. However, for the average person they appear to be on the periphery.
The invasion of Ukraine by Russia surely changed that perspective as it has affected global trade and food security in such a way that a trickle-down effect was inevitable. As horrific as the siege of Ukraine was and still is, it has been eclipsed by the newest atrocity; the war in Gaza. Perhaps this conflict does not threaten the international economy to the extent that others did and do, but it profoundly dishonours the tenets of humanitarian law and questions the very basis of our morality.
Piled on top of and interspersed with all this are the direct and indirect resulting cost-of-living and energy crises that not only amplify hunger and poverty among the vulnerable, but are jerking away the safety nets that many others thought would keep them protected. Unlike combat action, these adversities are universal and in most instances appear impervious to being address-ed by way of the tried and true solutions of yore.
Of course, the maxim of teaching a man to fish rather than giving him a fish still holds true. However, in today’s world, both literally and figuratively, that man can still starve because the area where he is allowed to cast his net has already been overexploited. On the other side of that same coin exist the ordinary people who till the soil but never earn enough from their labours to keep their heads above water.
The world appears to have ratcheted from plight to quandary with scarce a break as it has become enveloped in this polycrisis, and there is no gainsaying the deepened inequality and widened chasm between the haves (the top ten percent) and the have-nots (the other 90 percent). For the most part, unfortunately, those charged with the stewardship of our patrimony visibly kowtow to the former. It would appear that they and all the rest of us have lost sight of the fact that it is the latter, the larger group, which actually holds the cards. Indeed, it is the other 90 percent who have the ability to really effect change.
Before the entire ship sinks, there must be a new social contract that upends the status quo. As stated above, previously proven methods of engagement seem to no longer fit the purpose. Therefore, any new agreements between governments and people have to be driven by the latter and not the former as in erstwhile formulations. Using discernment and research to guard against misinformation, disinformation and propaganda, people can speak more effectively with their keyboards, votes and wallets than with placards and burning tyres. The reality is that in this technological era, the revolution will not be physical.
The new social contract must include a future where the decisions that shape our lives are arrived at after consultation involving all of the people; the voices of women, minorities, indigenous, and youth must be heard. No person, group or party should approach governance henceforth expecting to lead sheeple. That has to become a thing of the past. The future is riding on our actions today and posterity will surely judge us if we choose to continue to take the path of least resistance.
