Faruk Eczacıbaşı is President of the Turkish Informatics Foundation.

Ussal Şahbaz is Managing Partner at Ussal Consultancy, a government affairs firm specializing in business diplomacy and technology. You may follow him on X @ussalEN.
 

Imagine an airplane boarding its passengers, closing its doors, and beginning its journey. As it accelerates rapidly down the runway, it lifts its nose skyward and ascends. At that moment, traditional traffic rules become irrelevant, and aviation rules take over. This shift symbolizes the transformation of our era: from rigid, outdated governance frameworks designed for stable, ground-level realities to dynamic, adaptive structures suited for the complexity and speed of a connected, high-altitude world. Yet many institutions remain grounded, following traffic rules in a sky that now demands aviation logic. Institutions of all kinds—from legal systems to industrial conglomerates, from pharmacies to educational structures, and even the concept of nation-states—are built on a pre-internet paradigm.

 

In this article, we first explore how traditional institutional structures struggle under current global conditions: a world characterized by rapid technological advancement and complex interconnectedness. We then examine the core crisis facing hierarchical governance models and highlight emerging governance innovations such as minilateral alliances, regulatory sandboxes, and deliberative democratic practices that offer more agile and participatory alternatives. Finally, we propose actionable pathways to transition from rigid and outdated systems toward governance models that effectively navigate today’s dynamic global landscape.

“We must relinquish outdated traffic logic and commit fully to aviation governance”  | Source: Shutterstock

 

Institutional Inertia: Why Old Structures Fail

The public release of the internet in the early 1990s was a moment of enormous significance. Networks have become the fundamental pillar of the paradigm shift in our social structures. However, they remain under-researched when it comes to their full societal impact. From smoke signals to telephones, “one-to-one” communication has shaped human history. Books and newspapers created “one-to-many” models, but the internet introduced “many-to-many” dynamics, transforming people from mere consumers into producers of content and innovation.

 

More than 150,000 devices connect to the internet every minute. Smartphones have become tools not only for calling and messaging but also for capturing, creating, and sharing. Yet we still do not fully understand the systemic implications of these networked realities. The concept of the “attention economy,” influenced by Herbert A. Simon’s work on information overload in the late 1960s, highlights how abundant information shifts the balance toward demand, leading to an oversupply of content competing for limited attention. While this decentralized structure now drives social, economic, and political change, institutional structures remain attuned to analog-age hierarchies.

 

Over three decades have passed since the internet began reshaping everyday life. Babies born into the internet era are now parents. These digital natives demand transparency, decentralization, and agility from institutions designed for slower, analog times. While the average global age is 30, the average age of world leaders is 62, and that of parliamentarians is 53. The generation steering global governance is rooted in an era of traffic rules unprepared for the complexities of aviation. This generational mismatch has created a dangerous governance gap: a rules-based system in the hands of a generation educated in pre-internet times, confused by the accelerating speed of disruption, while the other half of the world, born into a new paradigm, is left without a voice. Their innovative potential is suppressed, as their proposals threaten existing, predominantly economic, interests.

 

In 2024, as many as 64 nation-states held elections, with over 70 percent resulting in significant power shifts. Even where leadership remained, governments weakened. Regardless of age, voters expressed disillusionment with the future and sought alternatives to outdated systems. This wave of political disruption reveals a more profound, systemic loss of trust—much like the shift from aristocratic rule to democratic governance during the Industrial Revolution. Then, as now, legitimacy is eroding, institutions are wobbling, and people are searching for new platforms of authority. The Westphalian model of nation-states gave us borders and sovereignty, structures that served the industrial age well. But the internet, AI, and global crises have rendered them increasingly obsolete. Their traffic rules cannot handle the complexity of today’s wars, where data, identity, and decision-making transcend geography.

 

Supranational organizations are also unable to manage the metaphorical air traffic. President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen’s powerful statement—“The West as we knew it no longer exists”—formally acknowledges the end of a historical epoch and a turning point in the global order. The cracks in current systems are global. Traditional governance, anchored in stability, hierarchy, and predictability, fails to regulate a world characterized by volatility, decentralization, and speed.

 

We live under aviation conditions but are governed by traffic laws. Without institutional redesign grounded in the dynamics of fluid, interconnected realities, the turbulence will only intensify. The question “What will happen to this country?”—asked in evening conversations across the globe—may differ in surface expression due to cultural, geographical, and political contexts, but the root problems are universal. Concerns about democracy and governance transcend borders. When similar issues arise across nations, addressing their root causes becomes crucial. Traditional governance systems, designed for stability and predictability, are ill-equipped to manage the new era’s rapid changes and dynamic challenges.

 

The Crisis of Traditional Governance

Social systems resemble living organisms. When threatened, they don’t retreat quietly but defend themselves fiercely. Bureaucracy is no exception. The more deeply rooted these systems are, the more resistant they become to meaningful transformation. Faced with pressure from technological disruption, economic uncertainty, and public disillusionment, bureaucratic institutions often respond in two ways: some present plausible reform narratives to maintain legitimacy, while most entrench themselves further, layering complexity as a form of self-preservation.

 

The mother of all bureaucracies is, of course, the EU bureaucracy. Since the Rome Agreement in 1957, Brussels has steadily centralized power from member states. Now, it is not only former bureaucrats like ex-European Central Bank governor Mario Draghi in his 2024 report, or leaders of allied nations like U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance at his 2025 Munich Security Conference speech, who are warning the EU against overregulation; the member states have also begun to voice their concerns in more pragmatic and measured tones. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, for example, has candidly acknowledged that for the EU to remain agile and relevant, its vast bureaucratic apparatus must be streamlined—not merely for efficiency, but to ensure its survival in a rapidly changing global landscape.

 

In other jurisdictions, the reaction against bureaucracies is harsher. In Argentina, President Javier Milei has adopted a radical “chainsaw” approach, pledging to dismantle entrenched state structures in a bold experiment in libertarian governance. In the corporate realm, Elon Musk—though outside formal politics—embodies a similar mindset, stripping away traditional hierarchies at companies like Twitter (now X) in favor of rapid, decentralized decision-making, often at the expense of long-term stability. Whether his experiment to impose the same lean startup mindset on the U.S. government bureaucracy through his “Department of Government Efficiency” will succeed remains to be seen.

 

But pruning the branches is insufficient. We need to rethink the roots. Today’s bureaucracy was designed for the industrial age: slow, methodical, and rooted in predictability. Today’s challenges—AI, climate change, mass migration, and decentralized networks—demand adaptive, transparent, participatory, and deliberative institutions, both at national and global scales. What’s needed now is not just a leaner machine but a new architecture altogether, one that replaces rigidity with responsiveness and control with trust.

 

Imminent technological disruptions further intensify the urgency to overhaul our governance structures. New tsunamis of disruption are waiting their turn. Artificial general intelligence is expected within a decade, promising breakthroughs in everything from automated scientific discovery to truly autonomous robotics. Almost in lockstep, quantum computing—pioneered today by companies like IBM, Google, and emerging startups—will unleash another wave of transformation, shattering classical limits in materials design, cryptography, and complex system simulation. At the same time, advances in synthetic biology and gene editing (think CRISPR-based therapies), brain-computer interfaces, and nanotechnology are converging with AI to create capabilities once confined to science fiction. Meanwhile, the proliferation of distributed ledger technologies and edge computing networks redefines how we extract, verify, and share knowledge, marrying vertical integration (specialized AI models for niche domains) with horizontal scalability (ubiquitous connectivity across billions of devices).

 

Antonio Gramsci once wrote, “The old is dying, and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum, all morbid symptoms appear.” Overcoming this “ice age” demands global collaboration and bold innovation. Our current ideas, institutions, and governance models are obsolete or desperately need reinvention. Long-term risks need long-term resilient models. Turkish analyst Bekir Ağırdır refers to this as the “global ice age.” We have moved beyond the industrial era, but we have yet to establish a new rulebook for taking flight. Without innovative solutions and adaptive policies, outdated, conservative, and reactionary mindsets will persist in future elections.

 

History has been shaped by revolutionary innovations, each followed by societal upheaval. Most ended in serious wars that changed the course of history. From the printing press to semiconductors, technological disruptions have rewritten human civilization. The steam engine was not merely a technological tool but one that thrived on the fertile ground of the Peace of Westphalia, which had established the idea of nation-states a century earlier. This synergy between technology and political context accelerated societal transformation. While the class of “aristocracy” diminished in two centuries, new nation-states valued a flourishing “middle class,” while the “bourgeoisie” became the central pillar of the economic structure.

 

If the disruptive power of the last 600 years is now compressed into just 30, how can we ignore the urgent call for systemic reinvention? Even global institutions like those born out of Bretton Woods or the European Union—once paragons of coordination—are crumbling under domestic, democratic stress within member states. The political discord of our time is not just about leaders or ideologies. It is about structure: a failure to upgrade governance for the aviation age. Navigating out of this interregnum demands foundational shifts toward adaptive institutions capable of embracing these disruptions.

 

Toward Adaptive Institutions: Principles for the Aviation Age

Technological progress is inherently political. Without a unifying vision—one that reshapes curricula from primary schools to PhD programs, embeds ethical guardrails into corporate R&D, updates legal frameworks for liability and digital rights, and forges new multilateral treaties—we risk letting each leap outpace our capacity to govern it responsibly. Yet short-term geopolitical rivalries—from the U.S.-China AI arms race to debates over digital sovereignty in the EU and data localization in India—are blocking the long-term coordination we desperately need. If we don’t recalibrate our collective compass now, tomorrow’s revolutionary tools will arrive faster than our institutions can adapt.

 

In the words of Edward O. Wilson, “The real problem of humanity is that we have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and God-like technology.” For the sake of the future, humankind needs to get its act together and update its institutions globally to control its emotions. The hope lies in networks—in the shared narrative of civil society, academia, and innovators. Even the education system needs to be restructured to meet the needs of the future amid the abundance of information flow. As William Butler Yeats expressed over a century ago, “Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.” That fire spreads through the synapses—the connections between brain cells—which resemble networks. Similarly, societies thrive not on isolated nodes but on the strength and intelligence of their connections. These intellectual ecosystems are stronger than any one government—if they align. If we are serious about protecting this “pale blue dot,” we must relinquish outdated traffic logic and commit fully to aviation governance.

 

The World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report has consistently failed to predict the most significant risks in recent years. A global pandemic like COVID-19, the Russia-Ukraine War, and the new tariff war initiated by U.S. President Donald Trump were not listed among the top five global risks in the respective year’s analysis by the WEF. This exemplifies how groupthink and hierarchical structures hinder proper risk identification in our turbulent era. Nevertheless, in 2025, the WEF identified that four of the top five mid-term global risks are environmental. Climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource scarcity cannot be addressed with reactive politics or outdated economics.

 

A sound long-term vision for the planet’s survival isn’t embedded in the unsettled pages of history. The future of the next generations must be redefined according to the expected challenges: income gaps, climate change, pollution, and shortages of energy and natural resources. But we also have new toolsets built on ever-increasing intelligence networks that diminish the natural boundaries of every physical and disciplinary limitation. Each lost day drifts us further away from the search for a plausible future. We need new models designed for altitude, speed, and sustainability. This green transition will require reimagined governance frameworks that are proactive, not reactive; systemic, not siloed.

 

Since autocratic governments often prioritize the short-term interests of their ecosystems, and democratic political leaders rarely plan beyond four or five years, it is unsurprising that long-term risks are consistently neglected within the political spectrum. It’s natural that long-term risks are always on the losing side of the political range.

 

Road Ahead: Minilateralism, Sandboxes, and Grassroots Networks

Today, we’re navigating aviation conditions with governance models designed for predictable road traffic—structured, siloed, and slow. Our global systems remain hindered by institutional divisions, political polarization, and bureaucratic rigidity. Universities tightly cling to disciplinary boundaries, government ministries operate independently, and corporations resist external innovation. These rigid silos severely limit our ability to tackle interconnected global challenges, from climate crises to rapid technological advancements.

 

Promising alternatives emerge through agile governance experiments, particularly from proactive middle powers. Some of these nations leverage minilateral alliances to focus on issues that global multilateralism fails to resolve. For example, signed in November 2020 by seven nations—Canada, Denmark, Italy, Japan, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom—and including the OECD and WEF as observers, the Agile Nations Charter addresses the challenges of rapid technological advancements and the need for agile governance. Unlike traditional, legally binding multilateral agreements, the Charter encourages voluntary participation, iterative policy experimentation, and flexible regulatory frameworks. It emphasizes innovation areas such as digital technologies, green economy solutions, and healthcare advancements, enabling rapid scaling and adoption of new technologies across borders.

 

Minilateralism works even more effectively when it merges with regulatory sandboxes. A regulatory sandbox is a controlled testing environment where businesses can experiment with innovative products, services, or technologies under regulatory supervision, enabling real-world trials while mitigating risks through close monitoring and temporary exemptions. A good example of minilateralism and regulatory sandbox innovation is Project mBridge, a Central Bank Digital Currency initiative involving Hong Kong, Thailand, the UAE, and China. Project mBridge leverages a shared distributed ledger technology platform to facilitate rapid, cost-effective cross-border payments. This approach streamlines coordination and focuses on critical regional economic integration issues, demonstrating significant improvements in payment efficiency, cost, and transparency.

 

Institutional design is more critical than ever. The more experimental it is, the more effective it becomes in providing solutions. Charles Sabel’s experimentalist governance framework reinforces this adaptive approach in the context of different multilateral climate change accords. Sabel highlights the Montreal Protocol as an example of practical cross-disciplinary and industry-wide cooperation, sharply contrasting it with the failures of the Kyoto Protocol. The Montreal Protocol’s iterative design, dynamic accountability mechanisms, and distributed problem-solving enabled continual adaptation based on evolving scientific data. This adaptability facilitated a 98 percent reduction in ozone-depleting substances, significantly contributing to environmental protection. Conversely, Kyoto’s rigid hierarchical model, characterized by fixed targets and minimal compliance incentives, failed to achieve its emissions goals, underscoring the pitfalls of inflexible governance structures. Unfortunately, this failure persists in the COP negotiations after the Paris Agreement due to institutional design issues.

 

Private, grassroots initiatives driven initially by visionary individuals, such as Voyagers and Exponential View, further illustrate successful agile networks. Voyagers, founded by David Rowan, former editor of Wired UK, emphasizes deep trust-building, curated engagement, and collaborative innovation. It has directly supported impactful ventures such as Epoch Biodesign’s sustainable materials, Climate X’s risk assessment platforms, and Hide Biotech’s sustainable leather alternatives. Voyagers also facilitated cross-sector innovations, like Hanx’s compostable condom packaging and Five Lives’ neurotech developments. Meanwhile, Exponential View, initiated by Azeem Azhar, who curates a widely read newsletter on exponential technologies, successfully turned this media outlet into a community, starting from a Slack experiment during COVID-19. It has now significantly influenced regulatory frameworks, notably shaping amendments to the EU’s AI Act through curated discussions and community-driven inputs. Unlike hierarchical platforms such as the World Economic Forum, these agile networks foster inclusive, dynamic environments where emerging leaders proactively shape the future rather than passively responding to established institutional agendas.

 

Experimentation now also targets the taboo of representative democracy. The pioneering work of Claudia Chwalisz offers a powerful alternative to traditional hierarchical governance models by advocating deliberative democracy. In this innovative approach, randomly selected citizens deliberate complex policy issues through structured discussions informed by expert input. Initiatives such as the Ostbelgien Citizens’ Council and permanent Citizens’ Assemblies in Paris and Brussels demonstrate that democracy can evolve beyond electoral cycles and top-down decision-making. Rather than relying solely on elected officials, deliberative processes engage diverse groups of citizens to collaboratively learn, debate, and build consensus. This non-hierarchical, participatory method effectively counters the short-termism and polarization inherent in traditional political structures, promoting anticipatory governance, inclusivity, and collective intelligence—crucial attributes for navigating today’s complex and rapidly evolving global challenges.

 

To effectively bridge the governance gap, we must now prioritize:

 

• Strengthening Minilateral Alliances: Developing responsive, targeted coalitions such as Agile Nations and Project mBridge, which are capable of swiftly addressing specific regulatory challenges without the extensive procedural constraints typical of broader multilateral settings.

 

• Enhancing Cross-Sector Collaboration: Expanding agile platforms that integrate diverse stakeholders—including academia, governments, industries, and civil society—into dynamic policy experiments.

 

• Adopting Adaptive Regulatory Frameworks: Crafting flexible governance structures that quickly integrate iterative feedback and evolve alongside technological and societal advancements, exemplified by experimentalist principles from the Montreal Protocol and Agile Nations Charter.

 

The transition from hierarchical governance to adaptive, collaborative networks represents a pivotal shift: moving from outdated traffic rules to governance better suited for today’s complex and interconnected world. We can confidently navigate these new conditions by fostering trust-driven communities, flexible regulatory environments, and proactive innovation grounded in experimentalist governance. Waiting for universal consensus is impractical in a rapidly evolving landscape. Policymakers, entrepreneurs, academics, and civil society must collectively embrace agile governance to ensure resilience and prosperity for future generations. Encouraging individual initiatives and cultivating robust, networked ecosystems will empower communities to move beyond the rigidity of outdated models and proactively address the global challenges we now face.

Back to Table of Contents