I’ve recently learned a new word that I wish we hadn’t needed: polycrisis, first offered by Edgar Morin and Anne Brigitte Kern in their 1999 book Terre-Patrie (Homeland). It describes the complex enmeshment of large scale problems that must be understood and tackled as interconnected parts of a whole rather than separate and independent issues. Unsurprisingly, it’s gained traction in recent years. Last week’s World Economic Forum pushed it squarely into 2023 buzzword territory.
Relatedly, Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister of New Zealand, shook people up by announcing that she will not seek re-election in the fall, and furthermore that she will step down in just a few weeks. Like all world leaders, Ardern has been swept into the chaos of the polycrisis as it has ricocheted around the globe. She distinguished herself and won admiration with swift, compassionate, and decisive responses to multiple major crises, including the Christchurch mosque shootings, which were the first ideologically-motivated mass killings and by far the deadliest attack in New Zealand’s history.
At the helm of an island nation with over 3,000 melting glaciers, she’s confronted the escalating climate emergency. She focused her government’s attention on reducing child poverty, including food and housing insecurity. There’s also been the small matter of protecting New Zealanders from a global pandemic—interwoven with a vitriolic, sometimes violent backlash from those who apparently resented living in one of the only places in the world where life expectancy actually increased from 2020 to 2022.
New Zealand is also part of the larger global community, so in addition to the above, Ardern has led through multiple other intertwined crises, including the war in Ukraine, wobbly democracies around the world, an unpredictable global economy, high energy costs, supply chain disruptions, global food shortages, and refugee and human rights crises.
Announcing her resignation, Ardern said “I know there will be much discussion in the aftermath of this decision as to what the so-called “real” reason was. I can tell you that what I am sharing today is it. The only interesting angle that you will find is that after going on six years of some big challenges, I am human.”
She was correct about the widespread discussion; much initial speculation centered around her falling approval ratings. Mere moments after the news broke, talking heads theorized with knowing smirks that, waning in popularity, she was reluctant to face an uncertain re-election effort. I believe the Prime Minister’s explanation, which is simpler yet more complex. Her ‘surprise’ announcement wasn’t surprising to anyone paying attention to leaders of all kinds and at all levels—especially women—in recent years. She joins a strikingly high number of CEOs, college presidents, hospital executives, school principals, elected officials, and business owners who have made similar decisions. Their specific roles and stressors, and the scale and nature of the pressures upon them vary, but for many people in positions of responsibility, the equation of resources versus demands has become impossible to balance. For a lot of accomplished and ambitious people, the expectation to carry on with business as usual is no longer viable, or simply no longer worth the cost.
Such is the nature of the polycrisis: too immersive to perceive clearly; too entangled to unravel one thread at a time; too fast-paced and widespread for standard problem-solving methods. Danny Ralph, Professor of Operations Research at Cambridge University, notes “If you don’t have this word in your vocabulary you might think ‘Don’t worry, we’ll fix this problem and get back to normal.’” Normal was reasonably predictable seasonal patterns, an upward trend in average human life expectancy, and democratic leaders reliably staying in power as long as, but not longer than, their electorally-secured terms in office.
The polycrisis resonates from the highest geopolitical and global business stratosphere to the grassrootsiest levels of community, family, and individual. The effect is burnout and exhaustion and a level of social and market dysfunction that the world is reluctant to acknowledge, much less fix.
It sounds serious because it is. When a shooting star at the pinnacle of her career like Jacinda Ardern needs a timeout, something has to change. But there was a lot about normal that was never optimal, and change can bring improvement, if we let it. Just as the polycrisis has begun to scare us into using energy more responsibly, it could begin to encourage systems and institutions to use human capital with a little more care.
We haven’t yet discovered how this might look. Preventing the demands of leadership from destroying our leaders’ ability to lead may be even more complex than saving the planet for future generations while protecting and supporting today’s population with today’s technology and resources.
We can’t answer these questions on an individual level. What we can do is accept the complexity, recognize the needs directly in front of us, and offer grace and compassion to each other. We can believe that, in Jacinda Ardern’s words, “you can be kind but strong, empathetic but decisive, optimistic but focused. And that you can be your own kind of leader – one who knows when it’s time to go.”
Reed Fawell 3 says
Here is a different, and quite detailed, view on why Jacinda failed, stating in conclusion:
“… This, then, will be the legacy of Jacinda Ardern: a missed opportunity. Ardern recognised the need to address the socio-economic disadvantage brought by 40 years of neoliberalism, and made bold promises of state action to do so. Yet when it came down to it, neither she, nor her government were able to break free of the Blairite Third Way mentality.
Despite talking a big game where the “days of thinking that the state can be a passive bystander and the market will provide…are over”, her government relied on short-term fixes, deferred to the private sector, advanced the interests of the asset class, and tinkered around the edges of child poverty or homelessness. Ardern leaves her country facing a cost of living crisis, and her party with no clear successor with fresh ideas how to address it, or the other social ills crippling it. Despite being hailed as the harbinger of a new, progressive Left, Ardern simply turned out to be more of the same.”
See:
https://unherd.com/2023/01/what-was-the-point-of-jacinda-ardern
Wilson Dean says
With due respect, Mr. Falwell’s citation of the “Unherd” article reflects the garden variety right-wing view of Prime Minister Ardern. On the contrary, the record abundantly shows that PM Ardern thoughtfully guided New Zealand through the pandemic (unlike in the U.S. where the right wing’s perception it was a “hoax” led to unacceptable death rates), responded forcefully to the gun violence in her country (unlike in the US where right wing “thoughts and prayers” lead to unprecedented high death rates compared to other developed countries), and exhibited enormous commitment to improving the lives of all New Zealand’s citizens. PM Ardern, along with Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, provided an invaluable counterbalance to the 2017-2020 chaos of Trumpworld.
Reed Fawell 3 says
Let’s will deal with Mr. Dean’s comments immediately above.
Mr. Dean says: “With due respect, Mr. Falwell’s citation of the “Unherd” article reflects the garden variety right-wing view of Prime Minister Ardern.”
First, my name is not Falwell, its Fawell.
Second, The “Unherd” article is NOT “the garden variety right wing view of Prime Minister Arden” as Mr Dean claims. In fact, it is the polar opposite of his claim. This is as made crystal clear in the article. It’s author, a NZ professor, is long time supporter of Ms. Ardern, and he is long time opponent of conservative governance in NZ.
Hence the professor was dearly disappointed that PM Arden could not right the wrongs wrought in New Zealand by conservatives over the past “40 years” in his view, saying:
“This, then, will be the legacy of Jacinda Ardern: a missed opportunity. Ardern recognised the need to address the socio-economic disadvantage brought by 40 years of neoliberalism, and made bold promises of state action to do so. Yet when it came down to it, neither she, nor her government were able to break free of the Blairite Third Way mentality.”
The professor’s views deserve respect. He lives in NZ. He is a citizen there. He has devoted his professional life to studying for decades the clash of left wing movements with conservative (Neoliberal) movements world wide. In addition, his article earns its conclusion, with facts supported by citations, including those from left side of political spectrum.
Hence, we should listen, and try to learn, when the Professor concludes his article with:
“Despite talking a big game where the “days of thinking that the state can be a passive bystander and the market will provide … are over”, her government relied on short-term fixes, deferred to the private sector, advanced the interests of the asset class, and tinkered around the edges of child poverty or homelessness. Ardern leaves her country facing a cost of living crisis, and her party with no clear successor with fresh ideas how to address it, or the other social ills crippling it. Despite being hailed as the harbinger of a new, progressive Left, Ardern simply turned out to be more of the same.”
Finally, this article deserves to be considered alongside Maria Wood’s article. Both articles are better off for the contrasts, and important points and insights that each make, in good faith. And because of that fact, we can have a far better and more reasoned and informed discussion.
Wilson Dean says
First, and most important, let me apologize to Mr Fawell for misspelling his name. I hope he recognizes that was not intentional.
I do, however, stand by my earlier comments. I understood where the professor, a former supporter of Ardern, was coming from in his disappointment that she did not succeed in all she attempted to do. Nonetheless, I would argue her inability to achieve his unrealistic expectations led him to fall into the trap of supporting the garden variety right wing arguments I referenced. Given the enormous opposition she encountered after the 40 years of neoliberalism mentioned in the article, her accomplishments I identified in my earlier comments have not been challenged and reflect her true success.
Reed Fawell 3 says
I would suggest that her accomplishments were ultimately quite minor, and her failures obvious to her citizens who suffered the consequences, so, out of energy, support and ideas, she resigned in disfavor, as did Angela Merkel, amid an electorate who was out patience. Regarding Arden this was was clear from Unherd article, and it is the growing consensus regarding last years of Merkel.
Reed Fawell 3 says
She lost the confidence of the voters she had pledged to unite so after six years of trying she stepped down. I respect her for that.