Dear friends,
I’m sure I’m not alone when I say that I’ve been grappling to make sense of my news feed since the year began. There have been so many dramatic events surfing the headlines. The polarisation pendulum is swinging wildly. At the same time, I’ve noticed people withdrawing into a cautious silence, even—or especially—when it comes to the biggest stories of the day. Talking about polarised subjects feels so tense and sensitive, understandably so. But rather than avoiding these subjects, I’d like to name them, and to offer—for what it’s worth—a few reflections from a peacemaker’s perspective.
2025 begins with a ceasefire deal in the Middle East, delivered on the eve of the new US president’s inauguration, amidst reports that his influence was a decisive factor in securing the agreement. What form this influence took is unclear, and how the recent paradigm re-set of US politics will impact on conflict in the global arena is impossible to predict. The new US administration has already withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, amongst many other executive orders delivered on the first day in office. Trump’s return to the White House is a part of a broader shift towards national conservative politics, already well underway elsewhere, in Europe and now in Canada. The pendulum is swinging against relaxed border policies, the perceived overreach of postmodern identity politics, and economic strategies (such as net zero) that are seen as failing to prioritise national interest. In this trend the UK’s Labour leadership stands out as the anomaly. Here, deep anxieties about institutional failure have been playing out in response to the grooming gangs scandal, which saw many in positions of power fail in their duty of care to the victims, for fear of reputational risk to themselves or their institutions. Similar anxieties swirl around the police’s handling of information about the Southport murders. Many fear that the police bowed to external pressures, to withhold information that should have been in the public domain.
Fears about institutional incompetence or ideological capture are not new. Nor are they limited to one or the other side of the political spectrum. All sides have their worries, but their worries are different. The Brexit vote, for example, was inspired by deep unease about the overreach of pan-national institutions, and a wish to withdraw within and to strengthen national ones. On the left there is perhaps a greater optimism about, and sense of the pragmatic necessity for, global institutions. But the left critiques domestic institutions in the West, which are seen through the lens of historic failures and legacies of colonialism. The left’s fears about institutional capture will not be eased with a Trump victory, with the memory of his conduct post-election 2020 seared into the collective memory.
What, then, is the future trajectory of the peace agenda at a time when global and national institutions are in a state of flux, and when mistrust in institutions is at a record high? John F. Kennedy’s famed remarks on peace in a nuclear age—later quoted by Obama in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech—have been going around in my head:
I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and goodwill of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal. Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace–based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions–on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned.
This vision of global peace secured through institutions obviously has roots in the Cold War. It reflects the post-Second World War settlement, and the set of interlocking institutions created to secure a lasting peace amongst the European Nations. The UN, European Union, World Bank, IMF, NATO: all arose out of the desire to prevent a return to the horrors of the First and Second World Wars. The optimistic mood of Kennedy’s speech was wearing thin by Obama’s time. Kennedy spoke with conviction. Obama repeated the same phrase decades later in a modulated tone, almost with a note of apology. Now, in 2025, the new US administration has given the strongest signal yet that it wants to leave behind the paradigm of Pax Americana, to focus instead on its own national security interests. Just because populists are sceptical of global institutions is not to say that others on the political spectrum don’t also see an urgent need for renewal. Designed to address a different set of problems in a different time, institutional structures like the UN, World Bank, IMF, and others, are critiqued by many people now as being outmoded, in need of reform, or even, as being part of the problem.
Surely, though, the basic idea that peace rests on the efficacy of our institutions is as true now as it was when Obama said it, and when Kennedy said it. International institutions secure peace between nations. National institutions secure social cohesion at home. Institutional health is a shared common good, in which we all bear some responsibility, and in which we all have a stake. This is precisely why the fear of weakened or ideologically captured institutions is a source of such angst for so many.
With the pendulum of polarisation swinging more strongly than ever before, it’s tempting for those on the losing end of the current picture to swear off engaging with institutions they see as irrevocably corrupt. I see this sentiment expressed on all sides of the pendulum, wherever a political loss gives rise to disappointment. People feel hopeless and walk away. Either that, or they double down on concerted efforts to pull institutions closer to their own position. What we’ve seen with the new US president’s many executive orders is an example of this. It’s the symptomatic expression of highly polarised politics: a total resetting of the paradigm, the pendulum swinging at breakneck speed.
I can’t speak to what might help heal divides in the US context. But here in the UK, politics hasn’t yet reached the fever pitch of polarisation that the US now sees. Here, I could see real value in a body that could host a national conversation on how to renew shared trust in institutions across divides. For example, could a coordinated campaign–not to secure institutional power for one’s own ideological camp–but to ensure institutional integrity for all, offer some light in the darkness?
What might a campaign for institutional integrity look like? Such a project could help resilience leaders to resist the increasingly intense pressures they face to serve one set of vested interests over another. It could seek to protect vital institutions–such as policing, social services and education–from becoming battle grounds for proxy wars over deeper societal issues that are beyond their remit to address or resolve. It could link up with others who are at the forefront of renewal, particularly those seeking to re-envisage institutions that are fit for purpose in the digital and AI age. It could convene conversations across divides to explore what building trust means for diverse groups. It could provide context and analysis to help us understand what the key challenges to institutional integrity are. And it could celebrate best practice examples, uplifting case studies and success stories, to combat the pervasive malaise. Such a campaign might go some way to restoring trust in institutions across the political spectrum, calm the swing of the polarisation pendulum, and return us to a zone of pragmatism and possibility.
The whole point of a democracy is that power is meant to inhere in institutions rather than individuals. This should give reason to hope, even when the winds of power are blowing against you, that the institutions are a place where real work can still be done, and that this work can contribute to stabilising a fracturing public space. This kind of work often goes unsung. It happens far away from headlines and hashtags. It’s a place where the messy, wholesome labour of collaborating with people across divides to build a common good is happening in real life and in real time.
What do you think? Wherever you’re situated, whatever institution most concerns you, what would it look like to shore up that institution’s essential integrity? What can inspire trust across polarised divides? And can you do something, not to win points for your political side, but to slow the furious swing of the pendulum?
Explore our upcoming training opportunities, including Conflict Coaching on 28 February, Dialogue for Peaceful Change from 10 to 14 March, and Facilitation Training on 26 March. we also warmly invite you to join us for our monthly Soul Space and Contemplative Practice.
Our new season of ‘Listen to the World’ concerts features a stunning line-up of artists. Opening the programme on 4th February, the fantastic Awale Jant Band will bring the vibrant rhythms of West Africa to life. In March, we are delighted to welcome Serbian-born Jovana Backović, who will explore themes of the sacred, womanhood, tradition, and modernity. Finally, don’t miss ‘Songs We Carry’, a captivating evening of Judeo-Spanish and Arabic music performed by the extraordinary Ana Silvera and Saied Silbak.
With warmest wishes,
Clare Martin and the St Ethelburga’s team