A Leap of Faith: The Case for the Global Ideas Initiative
An argument for civil society as the primary driver of transformative change in an era of institutional failure and democratic retreat.
Published on January 15, 2024
Our obligation to the world is, primarily, an obligation to our own future.
Eleanor Roosevelt, The Autobiography of Eleanor Roosevelt (1961)
These words, spoken over sixty years ago by one of the greatest leaders to have lived, are more instructive than ever. Guided by a similarly progressive vision, we founded the Global Ideas Initiative, GII, at a moment when it would have been easier not to.
Yet to understand why, it is necessary to step back and examine how progress has historically been realised. The notion of 'progress', which broadly refers to the complete realisation of human potential, has long served as an important premise of intellectual inquiry and public debate. In theory, the pursuit of this ideal has been contingent on two key forces. The first force is, in large part, determined by the distribution of power within the international system, as it directly shapes domestic policy. Until the collapse of the Soviet Union, power maximisation, nuclear deterrence, and ideological supremacy were, for example, the ordering principles or, more colloquially, the dominant 'currencies' that guided foreign policy and how statecraft was traditionally pursued.
The second force, standing in clear opposition to the above conflictual and self-seeking vision of global politics, is 'civil society'. Civil society, in essence, refers to a loose coalition of associations, institutions, and citizen activity focused on propelling change. Existing between the state, the market, and the community, civil society as a societal unit has demonstrated remarkable leadership, which, at various junctures, has helped expand the boundaries of human progress.
In fact, civil society influence and impact have been well documented: from learned societies established as early as the seventeenth century, which laid the foundations of modern scientific knowledge production, to contemporary open-source ecosystems that develop and maintain critical software infrastructure. Furthermore, the very bedrock of the UN-based system established after the Second World War—namely the prohibition on the use of force as enshrined in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter—was the result of sustained advocacy by the global anti-war movement, which organised marches and disseminated pamphlets across the United States and beyond.
As a result of their citizen-led activity, the legality of force, unless exercised in self-defence or authorised by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, has been confined within far stricter parameters of acceptable state behaviour. This achievement illustrates how enduring transformations do not emerge in a vacuum. They are, at their core, participatory: catalysed, shaped, and sustained by individuals.
These individuals may be motivated by self-interest or their own personal convictions, but they nonetheless exercise leadership by taking a 'leap of faith': the belief that, by assuming the mantle, they can build institutions that embody and reflect the ideals of their time.
We, too, are taking a leap of faith by establishing GII, an independent, non-partisan think tank dedicated to advancing dialogue, research, and analysis on the world's greatest challenges.
Notes
For a comprehensive overview of civil society's role in shaping international norms, see Keck and Sikkink's seminal work on transnational advocacy networks.
Roosevelt, Eleanor. The Autobiography of Eleanor Roosevelt. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961.
United Nations. Charter of the United Nations. San Francisco, 1945. Chapter VII, Article 2(4).
Ikenberry, G. John. "The End of Liberal International Order?" International Affairs 94, no. 1 (2018): 7–23.
Keck, Margaret E., and Kathryn Sikkink. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998.
The Global Ideas Initiative does not take institutional positions on public policy issues. The views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of GII, its staff, or its advisory network.