Over the next few weeks, as the elites of global politics, capitalism and civil society head for Davos for the 2026 edition of the World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting, the parallels between the forum and the world at large will be most glaring.
Since its founding by Klaus Schwab in 1971, the WEF has served as a gathering of elites whose deep pockets and interactions with politicians and policymakers create a proxy global governance universe with great clout and limited accountability.
The attraction of the forum in a world of globalisation and convergence of ideas is clear enough. Rather than leaving politicians as the lone rangers in global governance discussions, the WEF enables non-political actors to contribute to key debates.
Consequently, under the guise of the WEF agendas can be formed and ideas canvassed without the need to obtain consensus and concurrence from citizens. Rather than grassroots opinions and sentiments becoming the basis for action plans, leaders from across the globe can simply latch on to the set agenda and cascade it back to their own countries.
When so many business and political leaders, who presumably know a bit more than citizens, endorse ideas, the tendency to elevate them to binding national and regional agendas is evident.
The WEF’s flagship publication, the Global Competitiveness Report, has become a benchmark that countries use to check their progress against peers. Its focus area enables participating countries to measure their progress, and if they decide something is lagging they can formulate responses to address the issue.
Donald Trump’s re-election, and the trade wars he has unleashed since then, call into question the viability of the global consensus the WEF has always sought to mirror in its engagements.
The question of whether the identified pillars are appropriate for each country is a matter of continuous debate. What has made the WEF relevant for such a long time is that it existed in a world where the prevailing consensus was that multilateralism and all its relatives — globalisation, convergence and democracy — would continue to bind the world at large, or at least those who actively participate in the WEF.
In recent years, as that consensus has frayed and geopolitical and trade tensions have upended the playbook, the WEF’s role and relevance have come under scrutiny and scepticism.
The one country that has the conflicting role of being the legacy participant, key funder and host of many multilateral institutions, and happens to be undergoing a political shift that is committed to retreating from global forums and multilateral institutions, the US, has dialled up its retreat and repurpose mission since the most recent WEF gathering.
Donald Trump’s re-election, and the trade wars he has unleashed since then, call into question the viability of the global consensus the WEF has always sought to mirror in its engagements.
In a world where much of what binds nations has been undermined and dismantled, it is difficult to imagine that the WEF can proceed in its usual manner and ignore the elephant in the room.
Trump’s mooted attendance at the upcoming forum will dominate the discourse, and given how the US administration sought to undermine last year’s G20 summit it is not inconceivable that at this WEF he will focus on disrupting its pillars of consensus and emphasise the American approach to all things multilateral.
The WEF’s own internal chaos (Schwab has been forced out amid accusations of running the organisation as a personal fiefdom where everyone ultimately bends to his will, just like Trump) means WEF 2026 promises to be a forced reckoning.
It applies as much to its own stability as an institution as to the more complicated external world, where for more than 50 years it has played an amplified role and capitalised on the foundations of a consensus that now seems dead.
• Sithole is an accountant, academic and activist.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.