The annual gathering in Davos continues to present itself as a meeting of minds seeking answers to global crises, yet the irony remains difficult to ignore. Many of the individuals and institutions seated in conference halls are directly linked to the economic models, policy choices and power arrangements that shape inequality, climate distress, supply chains issues and social instability. Davos, in this regard, operates as both a mirror and a paradox. It convenes those most responsible for current disorder and asks them to design responses to the very conditions from which they benefit.
This contradiction does not automatically invalidate the forum. History often shows that uncomfortable truths emerge from unlikely places. Insight does not only arrive from moral clarity, but sometimes from self-interest laid bare. The challenge lies not in rejecting the source but in interrogating the substance.
Davos becomes useful only when analysis focuses on what is said, not who says it. Pragmatism demands attention to outcomes, and not necessarily pedigree.
Global capitalism, as shaped over recent decades, concentrates wealth, influence and decision-making in limited hands. Corporations, financial institutions and political actors from wealthy economies design rules that govern trade, finance, technology and labour. These structures extract resources, data and value from less developed regions, while returning limited agency. Davos discussions frequently acknowledge inequality, still the architecture that sustains it continues largely intact. That tension defines the gathering.
Artificial intelligence (AI) offers a clear case study of this imbalance. Much of the data that trains AI systems originates in the global South through language patterns, images, behavioural data and labour intensive moderation work.
Ownership, infrastructure and profit, however, largely sit in the North. This relationship mirrors older extractive systems, where raw materials flow outward and value flows inward. Davos panels on ethical AI development and safety often recognise these disparities, but recognition alone does not alter power relations.
A recalibration, then, becomes unavoidable. The South cannot remain a passive input provider, while the North defines governance standards, commercial terms and cultural norms. Co-creation offers an alternative framework. Shared authorship in system design, shared control over datasets and shared benefit from economic returns introduce a different order. That order requires political courage, regulatory change and a willingness to redistribute authority.
In the kingdom, AI use is increasingly promoted as part of digital transformation and public sector reform. Government departments and members of Parliament speak of AI-supported systems to improve service delivery.
Still, these ambitions operate within the same global structure where systems are imported, platforms are owned elsewhere and data governance remains externally shaped.
Against this backdrop, remarks from Mark Carney stand out. His call for major powers to stop appeasement and seek new alliances sends a sharp message, especially coming from a figure rooted in Northern financial leadership.
The statement suggests recognition that existing arrangements no longer deliver stability. It also implies that continued reliance on narrow power blocs carries serious consequences. That intervention unsettles because it challenges comfort zones, long protected by consensus politics.
The Davos space thrives on managed disagreement. Statements often balance critique with reassurance. Carney’s intervention disrupts that balance. It acknowledges that accommodation of destructive behaviour, whether economic, environmental or geopolitical, carries costs. It also hints that alignment must be value-based, and not purely transactional.
This line of thinking, if pursued seriously, would alter trade relations, security frameworks and technology governance.
Nonetheless, Davos also reveals the limits of elite for self-correction. While panels debate fairness, sustainability and inclusion, capital continues to chase short-term returns. Political leaders speak of reform, while defending domestic interests.
The presence of political leaders further complicates the picture. Many attend as validators, not disruptors. Speeches often recycle language of cooperation, growth and resilience without confronting policy failures at home. Domestic governance choices drive global instability through debt dependence, weakened public services and regulatory capture. Davos offers visibility but not enforcement.
Still, dismissing Davos entirely misses an opportunity. It is still one of the few spaces where finance, politics, technology and civil society transect openly.
Power does not dissolve by ignoring it. Engagement allows interrogation and pressure. The task lies in shifting the centre of gravity from performance to consequence.
That shift requires redefining legitimacy. Expertise cannot rest solely on wealth or office. Knowledge production must decentralise. Solutions cannot be pre-packaged in boardrooms and exported elsewhere.
Whether those gathered are capable of acting as part of the solution depends less on intent and more on willingness to relinquish control. Truth does not lose value because it emerges from compromised actors. What matters is whether that truth alters behaviour. Davos continues to talk. The world continues to test whether talk converts into change. Comments: bongwebagcinile@gmail.com/7927 8210
The annual gathering in Davos continues to present itself as a meeting of minds seeking answers to global crises, yet the irony remains difficult to ignore.