'Global' thinking won't necessarily solve the world's problems

There'll be nowhere to run from the new world government

'Global' thinking won't necessarily solve the world's problems, says Janet Daley
By Janet Daley Published: 7:24PM GMT 19 Dec 2009


There is scope for debate – and innumerable newspaper quizzes – about who was the most influential public figure of the year, or which the most significant event. But there can be little doubt which word won the prize for most important adjective. 2009 was the year in which "global" swept the rest of the political lexicon into obscurity. There were "global crises" and "global challenges", the only possible resolution to which lay in "global solutions" necessitating "global agreements". Gordon Brown actually suggested something called a "global alliance" in response to climate change. (Would this be an alliance against the Axis of Extra-Terrestrials?)
Some of this was sheer hokum: when uttered by Gordon Brown, the word "global", as in "global economic crisis", meant: "It's not my fault". To the extent that the word had intelligible meaning, it also had political ramifications that were scarcely examined by those who bandied it about with such ponderous self-importance. The mere utterance of it was assumed to sweep away any consideration of what was once assumed to be the most basic principle of modern democracy: that elected national governments are responsible to their own people – that the right to govern derives from the consent of the electorate.

Related Articles
This brave new world we live in needs leaders based in reality (/finance/comment/liamhalligan/5105721 /This-brave-new-world-we-live-in-needs-leaders-based-in-reality.html)
FSA slams stable door, but policy-making on the hoof won't solve crisis (/finance/comment/damianreece /2985356/FSA-slams-stable-door-but-policy-making-on-the-hoof-wont-solve-crisis.html)
Afghanistan election: Would you risk your life to cast a vote? (/comment/columnists/janetdaley/6072915