I am soooo "old school" and not asahmed of it.

Last night I attended a book launch at the London Business School. Apparently it is the third produced in partnership with a publisher aimed at bringing their academics' work to a wider audience.

The topic was an interesting one ie After America, exploring a new world order and the book was "Era of global transition: crisis and opportunities in a new world" by Dr Robert Davies. It questions if the western model for economic growth is the right one and suggesting that the old world order shaped by the US is fading and a new untested multipolar one awaits; one involving not only nation states and the financial system, but also social movements and interest groups ( I think I got that right?)

The format was a short presentation by the author and then a panel discussion including Q&As.

The theory sounded fine and it was contended that democracy if it does exist is often quite readily sacrificed, but to my mind the proposition(s) failed the "so what?" test. In the questions I asked where they thought the leaders for this new world, given that many of the issues seem to be big for a single brain, that the tenure of leaders is ever shorter and mismatched to the problems and that many of the leaders political and business are so wealthy that it is hard to see how their decisions will not be biased to protecting their position.

I half expected the answer that it was the intelligentsia and academics that were best suited to leading this new world. Instead I was shot down in flames, damned as being caught in an old paradigm and that the new world would not seek leaders, but that they would emerge for the socila networks and interest groups. A comfortable academic on the panel stated that she thought governments were irrelevant as they had no impact on her personal life.

I did feel there was a touch of hypocrisy there as she looked to be persoanlly comfortable, in an academic post that would not exist without the government she obviously reviled.

A number of members of the audience picked up the leadership angle while others challenged her dismissal of government. She was resolute and even supportive of the idea thatr anarchy was preferable to government.

I left the event slightly stimulated, but largely disappointed. I think the most disturbing thought was rendered by an old friend who suggested that history shows that leaders appear at times of crisis so IF and I mean IF these academics are right and we are heading to a new world of interest groups, social networks and green economics, we will have to wait for and face another crisis before we find our new leaders.

Personally I would prefer to be proactive and strive to avoid the crisis, for my own sake and that of those I love, but that is a thought not shared by everyone. Now that is a scarey thought!!!