For months, the global health crisis and its consequences have swallowed up our lives. Directly and indirectly, COVID-19 is defining our daily routines and challenges, and it is shaping our fears and hopes for the future. Concurrently, and seemingly independent of the pandemic, the killing of George Floyd sparked outrage in all 50 states of the US and the world. Hundreds of thousands of people joined protests against police brutality and structural racism. A closer inspection of the developing crises, specifically in relation to which persons, groups, and regions are the hardest hit, quickly lead us to recognize common denominators, namely injustice and structural inequality. We must also admit that these events are the consequence of pre-existing global trends as they are simultaneously shaping the emerging economic, political, social, and humanitarian crises. The roots of our individual, collective and regional problems lie much deeper and will remain with us well beyond the pandemic. Indeed, we find ourselves at a fork in the road. We cannot remain where we are, there is no way back, and whichever path we take will have different but significant consequences not only for our lives and well-being, but especially for future generations. No nation will be spared – not Uganda, not the US, not Switzerland, not India, not any.
The trends defining the shape and experience of our current and emerging crises are pervasive, omnipresent, and interdependent: We have privatized and monetized public goods and services. We have socialized risk and privatized profits. We continue to degrade and destroy the environment while depleting finite resources. Our economic and political arrangements drive mass migration, climate change, and water and food insecurity. We are witnessing a rise in populism, regionalism, and nationalism, and we have started to favor unilateralism and bilateral-ism at the expense of multilateral-ism. We seem unable to fight increasing corruption, abuse of power, elite failures, and erosion of public trust. In short, we are at the tipping point of major economic, political, social, and cultural transitions. Yet, could the pandemic be the “rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, re-imagine, and reset our world”, as Klaus Schwab, the founder, and chairman of the World Economic Forum recently proposed?
In Chinese, the word crisis decomposes into two characters, 危机, which signify danger at a juncture or a point where things change. What would a new world look like, AC (After COVID-19)? What kind of capitals, materials, and tools do we have to re-imagine and reset the world? Currently, I see four competing imaginaries that could reset societies:
- Econo-centric societies: In this scenario, societies seek to return to BC (Before COVID-19) in that they anchor their destiny to a narrow selection and reinterpretation of tenets derived from the liberal market paradigm. In trying to prevent market or business failures deemed system-relevant, this imaginary inevitably includes the state as the referee and politicized interests as economic guiding principles. The latter will aim to stimulate, bail out, or impose tariffs on specific industries, goods, and services. As governments are co-opted to further narrow and selected interests of the private sector to bolster short-term stability and employment, this imaginary will exacerbate the distortion of the already flawed assumption of trickle-down wealth generation. National deficits will continue to balloon, inevitably leading to an increase in the concentration of wealth and a worsening of conditions for the poor and the middle classes. In socializing risks and costs while privatizing profits, this econo-centric imaginary, AC, is likely to be associated with corporate tax reductions and the deregulation of labour and environmental laws. In the race to the bottom, social development and environmental protection will be sacrificed for short-term economic stability and long-term private wealth creation and protection for the very few.
- Enviro-centric societies: In this scenario, the pandemic is used to initiate an ambitious sustainable development agenda based on environmental policies. The ‘Green New Deal’ sponsored by US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or its British counterpart under Jeremy Corbyn are prominent examples. It is modelled somewhat after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal that countered the effects of the Great Depression of the 1930s. This imaginary would structurally reallocate human and financial resources to develop green technologies and infrastructure to primarily mitigate economic inequality and the effects of climate change. While there are clearly many advantages from a narrow sustainability perspective, two significant drawbacks stand out: On the one hand, the enviro-centric imaginary places the state at the helm of business, society, and the environment. On the other, and perhaps more concerning, this top-down strategy will most likely impose restrictions on goods and services that may contradict current business models and practices, consumer choices, and voter preferences.
- Socio-centric societie: Central to a socio-centric imaginary is social development and collective prosperity, which would require a reorientation of national policies to prioritise and, to some extent nationalize, public goods and services in the interest of justice, equality, and stakeholder capitalism. Restoring the social contract and providing generous social safety nets AC would need a strong state and nationalisation of essential public goods, services, and infrastructure associated with health, education, energy, and others. A socio-centric imaginary would require significant wealth redistributions and tax reforms, state intervention across most sectors, and a degree of populism that may not be in the interest of efficiency and environmental protection. In the long run, a strong socio-centric variant may indeed hamper exactly that which it aims to foster: social development and collective prosperity.
Techno-centric societies
The fourth imaginary, heralded as the bright new future among higher income countries, is closely associated with the 4th Industrial Revolution. It promises prosperity through socio-technical advancement, notably artificial intelligence, robotics, and automation. For example, the Green Deal proposed by the EU embraces many core ideas of the 4th Industrial Revolution for an AC world. While our access to information and technology continues to improve the quality of our lives, many difficulties lie ahead as these socio-technological advances challenge prevailing social norms, ethical sensitivities, as well as technological and economic boundaries. Unchecked, this imaginary risks creating much greater inequalities, mass unemployment, and public control within and between countries.
Of course, these four scenaria are abstractions, ideal types that would not be found in a lived environment. They are mutually exclusive only in theory. Whichever our lived AC reality will look like, it will integrate different aspects from different imaginaries. Each has its major shortcomings, incur different costs, and create different opportunities. Each will be costly and painful, create winners and losers. And it will not be possible to avoid hardship by somehow combining all of them into a holistic imaginary.
Whether we choose one of the four scenaria, develop a fifth, or construct a hybrid, there are seven conditions that will or ought to define our path: First, whether we like it or not, the state will play an increasing role in the private sector, formulating or reformulating a new and dominant business-society nexus. Consequently, we need to find better ways to deal with the increased interdependence between the public and private sectors. This will require rethinking and expanding contemporary debates on regulation, transparency, stakeholder engagement, and governance. Second, any long-term future must include care for the health, education, and prosperity of the world population. Despite the current tendency toward unilateral and bilateral problem solving, and despite talk about deglobalization, the globalized world will no longer permit the accumulation of wealth of some nations at the expense of others. Third, any imaginary aiming for sustainability must include the interests of businesses, consumers, and voters. Fourth, any solution must make these stakeholders not only accountable but also willing participants in the pursuit of long-term stability and prosperity. Fifth, the sooner we realize that each region and nation is in the middle of a paradigm shift that requires system-wide long-term solutions well beyond quarterly earnings spreadsheets and election cycles, the more sustainable a solution may be. Sixth, whichever road we take forward, rebuilding AC will be a difficult, costly journey. Seventh, geopolitical and geoeconomic shifts must be accompanied by context-specific and culture-sensitive solutions. Generic debates on sustainability and climate change mitigation must give way to nuanced debates on capabilities and adaptation of sectors, regions, and communities.
So where does this leave Africa?
Most global economic and political arrangements do not adequately take into account the interests, opportunities, and challenges of the continent, its nations, and its peoples. While debates on geopolitical and geoeconomic power shifts tend to focus on Asia – specifically on China and, to a lesser extent, India – Africa is well positioned to capitalize on the AC world. A young population, extensive natural resources, and considerable domestic markets for goods and services provide the rare and enviable potential for self-reliance and socioeconomic development, while simultaneously offering attractive opportunities for foreign direct investment and international partnerships. Prospects of regional economic integration, global diversification of supply chains, and exciting movements in the direction of an African Union, such as the Continental Free Trade Area project, could contribute significantly to long-term, sustainable prosperity. The diverse and multicultural youth remains the continents most underutilized resource, while many notions associated with a wider interpretation of sustainability are much closer in spirit and practice in Africa, compared to most high-income countries. Finally, while higher income countries are profoundly underprepared to deal with large-scale shocks and scarcity, most countries in Africa are far more practiced, adaptable, and resilient; able to identify, develop, and implement innovative, low-cost solutions. In our time of the great reset, Africa has many building blocks to construct prosperous and inclusive societies under conditions dictated by the massive, global consequences of COVID-19. What is needed is a shared vision, confidence, and determination to place peoples and societies at the centre of the emerging African imaginary. COVID-19 not only represents a crisis, but Africa with its nations can now reflect, reimagine, and reset its destiny for the benefit of its peoples.
Further reading:
Prof Manfred Max Bergman
Chair of Social Research and Methodology,
Head of the Social Transitions Research Group,
University of Basel, Switzerland
