What about the little fish?

For several decades, I have closely observed the behaviours and rhetoric of people in leadership roles. And, in light of recent geopolitical developments, I chose – this week – to follow some of the discussions flowing from the World Economic Forum in Davos. My aim was to identify statements—regardless of their source—that might contribute to restoring my confidence in humanity’s future. I am pleased to note that, at least to some extent, I found a few such remarks.

I want to address possible incoming adverse critique upfront: readers familiar with my opinions should know I’m not fond of people in high government, business, or academic positions, especially where any of those incumbents have abused their power at society’s expense. Throughout history there have been too many of them. But now, given recent world events, I feel that we are witnessing these types of people in the ascendant. It’s clearly becoming a growth industry, and mostly (not entirely) due to the psyche prominent within American business models, which appear to thrive on aggressive take-overs. As the English historian, John Dalberg-Acton, once famously observed… “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

I’m not a democrat or a republican, I’m not a conservative or a socialist, I don’t subscribe to the populism of polarity; I’m a centrist and humanist. Someone who is concerned that we are witnessing a resurgence of those insidious types of people, the ones who were abundant during the ancient times of serfdom and vassalage. And some of them are positively revelling in this renaissance, as they continually thrust their individualistic traits upon others, in a show of what they believe to be valued strength for personal gain. However, it should probably be noted that these sinister behaviours have never declined in totality. Indeed, they likely never will – whilst grotesque amounts of money drive the inherent avarice of people’s desire to amass wealth, as an indicator of their success and importance. Yet those types of people will always need to be called out and at every opportunity, because these are also the types of people who will continually feed off the vulnerability and subordination of anyone who might stand in their way, or be fearful of offering any challenge. But the ‘little’ people will always have the ultimate power, when it’s harnessed together and used appropriately. History shows this in the freedoms of people who once lived under powerful but eventually toppled Emperors.

Many who know me will attest to the fact; I’ve never been a shrinking violet type when it comes to pushing back against authority. Especially when that power is acting in a manner that is detrimental to the overall wellbeing of the common good. My life’s work has always been about standing up for and supporting the rights and wellbeing of others; sometimes with resulting negative impacts upon my own personal ‘progression’ in the work environment. But I’m OK with that, because being guided by a moral compass makes for a far happier and more stress-free life. I have never held any desire to be in constant pursuit of fancy job titles, or their increasing levels of remuneration, unlike most Americans. But this piece didn’t set out to be about me, I’ve digressed.

So yes, this week, perhaps more than ever before in recent times – with the unpredictability and increasingly volatile nature of unpredictable people in positions of power – I found it immediately promising when I read – “A Spirit of Dialogue” – in the Davos 2026 marketing blurb. Whether or not those words can actually result in tangible change, for the better and for all of us, will obviously remain to be seen. Even if positive change does come – and I hold that hope – it’s not going to be realised any time soon. It won’t be tomorrow, or even in the near future, and possibly not even within the remainder of my lifetime; the Davos forum is only a strategic think-tank.

Changes of this magnitude – which are clearly and undoubtedly required – will take decades to implement fully. They always do, but time is not on the side of change and is looking increasingly sparser. World leaders have always had a responsibility for addressing the issues which have adverse impacts upon humanity, and to be fair, some of them take that responsibility very seriously. However, for every single leader with a strong humanitarian moral compass, who does take their job seriously, there always be a multitude of power-hungry sharks circling in the ponds of governance who are focused purely upon attainment of power to secure personal monetary wealth. And that, in short order, has sadly been the fateful result of predominantly American business models and systems, where the pursuit of the dollar is de rigueur.

I’m not sure that we will ever totally reverse all of the adverse impacts for humanity, unless we can go some way towards unravelling the damage that continues to be caused by bad actors, wreaking havoc across world order systems with limited and now decreasing guardrails. But I’m still clutching at my hope charm.

But back to the Davos forum which is (supposedly) convened to… “connect leaders to make sense of global challenges and move the world forward together” – I have a tad more hope emerging. Whilst seeking to “engage in forward-looking discussions to address global issues and set priorities.” All’s looking good so far, most of that makes sense, at least to me. Especially now that we are living within a “volatile and unpredictable environment” and one that is of dictatorial proportions.

Today, the world is a place where traditional ‘growth’ engines – like trade – are unadventurously expected to expand by far less than 10%, in the foreseeable future. And we are now seeing the debt-to-GDP ratios skyrocketing towards 100%. With the many arguably poor metrics currently, many countries within the forum, have “increasingly limited space for leaders to make drastic policy and operational changes” – to realise any continued growth. But, from my simplistic and humanitarian viewpoint, regardless of my limited understanding about world economics (O-Level GCE), I often find myself asking – is this really such a bad thing? After all, that constant pursuit of growth, by many of those ‘bad actors’ mentioned above, often relates to doing little more than lining their own pockets. Rather than actually investing in the secure and healthy futures of the people within the societies they are charged with leading. Yes I’m aware that many people view cynicism puerile, but it’s also often relevant.

Obviously there are several days left to go before the forum closes (23^rd Jan), when all the words of the week will undoubtedly be fully dissected, finely manipulated and, in some cases, probably weaponised, and by people who are far wiser than me. However, I did find some inspiring oratory which – at face-value – appeared to be honest, was based upon facts, and suggested there were actually some underlying common social desires in the content. Words that actually sounded like they were being delivered by individuals with personal beliefs about working for the common good, which always but always makes a refreshing change.

In light of the almost constant and continually emerging world challenges – not least the ones presented by American isolationism, and Trump’s imperialistic aspirations for the USA – Ursula von der Leyen (EU Commission President) gave a ‘Special Address’ speech[i] at the forum, where she highlighted the growing “necessity to build a new form of European independence”, to try and combat the various ‘Trumpism Factors’ that we’re now facing. She didn’t actually use those words, but I’m convinced that nobody (not even the Dumpster) should be in any doubt about her implications.

Von der Leyen went on to express the current level of urgency and said; “Europe must speed up its push for independence – from security to economy, from defence to democracy. The point is that the world has changed permanently. We need to change with it.”

Like many others with an opinion on the matters at hand, both at the forum and outside of it, I would argue that the world will never again be what it was before Trump. He has undoubtedly and successfully taken a wrecking ball to almost every part of any previous ‘rules-based’ world order. However, there are activists that are against any form of globalisation strategies, and who would probably welcome changes to those drivers, and argue that this was a good thing.

I can partly subscribe to this belief, whilst also seeing how some ‘globalisation’ thinking can also present incidental causes majeures factors, which come into play and can have negative impacts upon some humanitarian issues. But nationalism, isolationism and self-interest don’t preclude from the fact that we will always need to fully understand that we are all but small parts in a far bigger world. One that is increasingly connected and often reliant upon other constituent entities. Whether we embrace that – or not – we are generally better when we work together (as human beings) than when we’re fighting each other… for personal or national gain.

Another forum voice that resonated with me, and filled my tank with more feelings of hope, was that of Mark Carney, the Prime minister of Canada. Ever since his election to that office he (and his country) have been a vanguard at the forefront of trying to combat aggressive Trumpism. Many have observed – me included – that (so far) he seems to have been doing a fairly sterling job for his country, and arguably the wider world. He has undoubtedly been facing up to the playground bully tactics and challenging the behaviours of his ‘difficult’ neighbour.

In Carney’s speech[ii] to the forum, he spoke of how we are all now witnessing “the end of a nice story and the beginning of a brutal reality where geopolitics among the great powers is not subject to any constraints.” Something that factors into the increasing ire of many people who, despite being a tad despondent also retain a level of positivity in the face of that challenge and adversity.

Carney went on to submit that “countries, particularly middle powers like Canada, are not powerless” and they “have the capacity to build a new order that embodies our values” and, just like all individuals, we can all believe in “respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.” But “the power of the less powerful begins with honesty.” However, despite the daily reminders that “we live in an era of great power rivalry. That the rules-based order is fading. That the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must” there is still agency and advocacy available for the ‘little’ people, in ‘little’ countries. A place where the ‘middle-ground’ is often won over by the “Power of The Powerless”. Which was something succinctly alluded to within an essay written by the Czech dissident Václav Havel in 1978, who later became his country’s president.

I haven’t read the essay but it’s on my list however, Havel was apparently posing the simple question: How did the communist system sustain itself? His answer apparently began with a greengrocer who, every morning placed a sign in his window which proclaimed: “Workers of the world, unite!” Which was a communist trope of that time, which he didn’t believe. No one did. But he continued to place that sign in his window anyway; to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along with his neighbours. And, because every shopkeeper on every street was doing the same, the system persisted. Communism didn’t survive and grow through violence alone, but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals or beliefs that they privately knew to be false or didn’t truly subscribe to on a personal basis. Havel called that “living within a lie.” But regardless of communism being at the polar opposite to many authoritarian regimes endured today, as Carney pointed out: “Friends, it is time for companies and countries to take their signs down.” He succinctly alluded to a fact that should probably be more widely understood: “the international rules-based order was partially false” and being delivered with a narrative where “the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient” and where “trade rules were enforced asymmetrically”. A world where the aspirations of the powerful were always endorsed or constrained by a system where “international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.”

In many ways we have arrived at where we are today because we have failed to understand that “The power of the less powerful begins with honesty” (Caney). This fact was also clarified by Gavin Newsom, the Governor of California, when he was questioned by journalist on his arrival at the forum. Newsom is a long-time combatant within the political ‘war’ against big ‘C’ Conservatism in America, and like him or loath him politically, he has been consistent in calling out Trumpism and the MAGA cult in particular. It’s probably fair to say that Newsom, who is now a Democratic frontrunner to take  Trump’s crown, has attained folk-hero status amongst those Americans who are fighting on the battlefields against the current administration. Although Newsom, remaining true to form, was a little blunter than Carney. He called out any attempts at ‘diplomacy’ with Trump – which are being used to mitigate against evident and rising hard-right authoritarianism – as Bullshit. Honest, clear, succinct and profound.

Newsom’s comments quickly dominated the immediate news cycle. Headlines like; “Newsom urges leaders at WEF to stand up to Trump” suggesting that “this is not diplomacy, this is lunacy” and went on by “ripping” into “pathetic Europeans” who he viewed their current stance woefully wanting, because of their apparent “rolling over” to Trump’s demands about Greenland, amongst other things. Quote; “I can’t take this complicity. People rolling over. I should have bought a bunch of knee pads for all the world leaders” and he went on, “I hope people understand how pathetic they look on the world stage, at least from an American perspective. It’s embarrassing.”

Many people, particularly across America – from the opposite side of the political spectrum debates – might suggest that Newsom’s raison d’être has more to do with his own political aspirations, rather than really being a simple bulwark against Trumpism or authoritarianism; just another example to evidence the rampant TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) that abounds in American politics (in the eyes and minds of the MAGA faithful). However, regardless of how Newsom chose to put his point across, or the actual words he decided to use in public, I would argue against any such assumptions.

Yes, Newsom might well be working towards toppling Trump but, from my observations, I feel like his vigour genuinely comes from a broader understanding about the needs of disadvantaged American people, as opposed to him following any contrived roadmap towards the Whitehouse. I could be wrong but, having followed him for some time now, Newsom nurtures a strong belief in many (me included) that the current shitstorm doesn’t always have to be what it currently is.

He undoubtedly holds the “thoughts and prayers” of many Americans who are now desperate to see something different for their country (and the world). And I can happily coalesce with that particular vision. I would also argue that perhaps we can benefit from way more people – like Newsom – in powerful positions. The types of people who cut back on the clever wording and political rhetoric, to hopefully display more basic levels of simplicity (and ideally honesty) that most people can understand when listening to the discourse that is employed to talk about simple realities. Most people don’t want or need any more ‘clever marketing spiel’ to help them better engage with what it is they want to vote for. The unproductive angst around populist authoritarians (like Trump) comes from failures in party-political oppositions. The rise in any populist success comes from politicians who can manipulate the things that people feel and believe. And that all starts with the simplicity of any prevailing narratives, which are then reinforced and compounded as truths, regardless of where or not that transpires to be the end reality.

So, just like Newsom, I also feel that the time for blowing warm platitudes up Trump’s rectum has long passed. I’m also unconvinced that – in reality – all such perceived advantages probably didn’t exist in the first place. Additionally, any overt display of rhetorical subserviency, and complicit actions nurtured in Trumps colon, will ultimately present long-term consequences for his sycophants and admirers. And that’s all before we even start to consider the longevity of those adverse impacts on America and the rest of the world, which will ultimately be a challenge for some considerable time going forwards.

It has always been clear to me that, we are all little fish in a gigantic ocean full of voracious pelagic predators, where none of us really want to be the next neighbour’s meal. We just want to live our life, regardless of how insignificant we might appear to be in the eyes of some hungry shark. However, as with the “sardine runs” common in the southern seas, when individuals come together in mass numbers, they can often mitigate or possibly stave off some of the probable outcomes resulting from any attack. Just like the sardines in that shoal we are often more vulnerable than we care to admit, but with that coming together we also help to prevent us all being eaten at the same time.

Let’s all try to be a little more sardine like in our world full of sharks!

Postcript (21st Jan 26): Following Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s erudite speech in Davos yesterday (20-01-2026) in which he eulogized the liberal world order and painted Trump as the major cause for its death, the American president took to the world stage at Davos today and lashed out at Canada, in a wholey expected petulant incoherant attack.

(Editorial Note: the content of this piece was prepared prior to any word-salad words, egotistic puerile tantrum strategic economic guidance or hot air & bluster business knowledge shared by the President of the USA, be those words prove to be untrue, salacious, disparaging, hateful, incoherent or otherwise, in any way. Note to self: perhaps curb the sarcasm a bit. What do you think?).

---

[i] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_26_150

[ii] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-carney-speech-davos-rules-based-order-9.7053350