Je suis seul

Je suis seul. I am alone.

Je pourrais être pauvre. I might be poor.

Je pourrais sentir mauvais. I might smell.

Je pourrais être inculte. I might be uneducated.

Mais je suis toujours humain. But I am still human.

Are we leaving people behind? I fear that we are and that we are doing so in more ways than one.

Is the current political conversation too complicated for the people? In the 2016 US Presidential elections, this might have been manifested by Clinton's over-reliance on metrics as opposed to Trump's evolved ground-game that strategically utilized social media to engage with the masses. Here, I introduce several conflicts in politics:

First, is politics a complex or simple matter? There probably is no definitive answer to this question. However, that assumes and concludes that politics is complicated which I am not sure it truly is. Populist movements capitalize on simplicity, boiling politics down into a Manichaean struggle--black or white, good or bad showing that for better (increased engagement of the people) or worse (all the negatives of populism) politics can be simple. The question of what is politics suffers from the added dimension that how I see politics differs from how another would.

Second, if politics is simple, should it be complicated? And if it is complicated, should it be simplified? Politics seem to be the luxury of the rich. Society has erected barriers of entry for politics. Indeed it seems meritocracy has evolved into elitism, the very entity populists on both sides of the aisle seek to tear down. Should politics be reserved for the elites? Is elitism bad? Do elites see themselves as elites? The answer to this last question is an easy no. In my first Econ 110 class, the professor asked the room of 500+ to raise their hands if they thought they were part of the upper class, upper middle, lower middle, or lower class. Few identified as upper and upper middle class. Whether this was modesty or sheepishness I do not know. The professors point? By virtue of sitting in a university class, we were at least upper middle class. In other words, the elite.

Last week, I got the amazing opportunity to attend the International Economic Forum of the Americas hosted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Just to give you an idea of what it was like. Within the first few hours, the Secretary General of the OECD, , Head of International, Morgan Stanley, ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan, ex-Prime Minister of Italy, Mister of Democratic Republic of the Congo, CEO and Managing General Partner of Michelin, and the Chairman of Bain & Company France spoke, just to name a few. Now multiply that over 2 days and you have a sense of the intellectual feast at the event. Absolutely incredible. Opportunities like this are the exact reason why I came to Sciences Po.

The conference focused on the need to reshaping globalisation and how to do so. First, some learning points. Quite a lot of irrefutable statistics were highlighted during the conference. It was wisely stated that "if you cannot measure it; you cannot manage it”. More importantly, it was also said how interest rates and exchange rates change by the minute and you cannot design economic policy solely based on these market indicators. What is important is to look at trends and underlying fundamentals and that includes ideology. It was also highlighted that globalisation does not equal to trade (perhaps just as how terrorism does not equate to Islam). Globalisation does not have a form or figure so trade is used as the scapegoat and blamed. The issue is about leaving people behind, something that is dependent on national policy. The OECD also reports that "about 14% of workers are at a high risk of having most of their existing tasks automated over the next 15 years. Another 30% will face major changes in the tasks required in their job and, consequently, the skills required. About half of all workers will confront the need to significantly adapt to the new workplace environment" thus necessitating a need for inclusive policies. More telling perhaps, "the average disposable income of the richest 10% of the population is now around nine and a half times that of the poorest 10% across the OECD, up from seven times 25 years ago. Wealth inequality is even more pronounced, with the top 10% holding half of total wealth, while the bottom 40% holds only 3%".

Other great takeaways were how it has been falsely assumed that that economics is the core demand of voters and the main driver of politics. The Head of International, Morgan Stanley noted with interest that the health of the political and economic system has tended to alternate over the past decades. More controversial arguments included how the League of Nations and other International Organisations/reforms were often designed to be implemented before crises but always ended up being implemented after. There was also harsh criticism of Bretton Woods Institutions (since it was an economic forum) being obsolete and ineffective, especially because of the politics of regional executive director.

But here is my criticism of the event. Word on the street is that others paid 300 euros a head to attend the conference. Make no mistake, the line-up and quality more than covered the cost. But between the price and the people, the event screamed elite. One of the very first speakers was the Mayor of Paris, a remarkable and intelligent woman whom I find inspiring. However, in her speech focussed on inclusive development, she started off by spending significant time boasting about Paris's electric car program as an effort of inclusive growth. Now I get that climate change is important and a needed investment. I call for such investment that was, in reality, needed years ago. I appreciate the Mayor blazing the trail in this regard. Yet, my heart sank. I looked around at the army of servers waiting on those in attendance at the seminar. Pouring champagne and wine while we talked about the world. Who are we fooling to say that these individuals, probably on minimum wage, have electric cars at the top of their governmental wish list. Who are we kidding if we think that these same individuals, and many more, care about how many more electric terminals you have installed to combat climate change. What are we thinking if this is our first idea of what inclusive development means or needs.

Again, I emphasize that I wholeheartedly support this, and other programs, and the political strength to push such policies. But to begin a conference on inclusive globalisation with a sermon on electric cars might mean several things. First, we have completely misdiagnosed what the people want, or even what they need. Because I guarantee you that for those on minimum wage, the number of electric cars or charging terminals that you have revolutionarily installed in the city does not even make the top 10 on their list of what they care about. If this is the problem, we need to get our head out of the sand, put our fingers on the pulse, and really listen to what the people are calling for.

Second, if we have not misdiagnosed the people, then perhaps we are either incapable or unwilling to communicate well. Here I raise my previous questions. Is politics, by nature, exclusive to the elites? Have we consciously made it a realm only for the elite? Or has it organically evolved to be as such? I recognise that even now, my post will hardly be accessible to the mass. This is partially because it seems the only way to conduct a political conversation is through such rhetoric but also partly because (being anti-populist) I do believe in the value of an elite and its ability to affect change and am trying to engage with such elites. I also do detest the categorisation of individuals into perhaps arbitrary categories. But it seems like the vernacular and epistemology of politics requires a degree of sophistication. This needs to change. What populists have done is make politics accessible to the people again.

Throughout the 2 days, not once were the people acknowledged. The servers. The ushers. The receptionists. The guards. Not a shoutout, not a glance. Glaring given these are the very people we are talking about helping. Perhaps the rhetoric just hasn't evolved to match the ideas. Perhaps the intellectual are incapable of such connective rhetoric. Perhaps it is just never at the forefront of their mind. But there lies the problem of today.

What is the nature of politics and how to change it? That is a discovery debate I hope to engage in with you. But politicians can and need to engage with the people, especially those who feel invisible, on a deeper and more sensible level. They need to do it now.