When it comes to international development and our existing structures of governance, those of us working closely with the United Nations are frequently asked to articulate our “theory of change”. And with the convergence of the 75th anniversary of the United Nations and a global pandemic, theories of change regarding the global order reverberate throughout the virtual world.

Conversations about how to meet the present needs of humanity play out on at least four different, but interconnected levels. Each, to varying degrees, recognizes that the United Nations, in its current composition, is limited in its ability to solve the many challenges before us. Taken in isolation, these conversations are incomplete, yet each has something important to offer. 

At the most superficial level is a discussion of the various actors—governments, corporations, and leaders—who are engaged in different spheres of policy. Some are committed to the good of their people and humanity. Others appear to be bending the rules of the global order to suit a narrower objective. In some cases, the distinction is not so clear. At this first level of conversation, it is assumed that a change in these actors would suffice to achieve the necessary results.

Yet the forces of the current order are ultimately stronger than any individual actor. While political will is critical, for example, even a leader characterized by integrity will fall short of meeting a community’s needs if the system in place rewards corruption, encourages the pursuit of material profits at the expense of well-being, and treats truth as a negotiable commodity. In the context of the United Nations, a host of proposals for new structures, commissions, policies, and mandates are thus offered as a balm to this sore.

Yet there are limits to the depth of change that can come from structural reform when these institutions are expressions of an incomplete conceptual framework. While the UN, among many other institutions, may need to change its makeup in order to better address the challenges of today, it will always conform to the mould in which it was cast, one that reflected the realities fit for a different time. As such, a third conversation is emerging, with many calling for a re-evaluation of the underlying assumptions upon which our systems are based: that development can be defined in terms of material profit alone, that missteps in a path of learning are a sign of weakness, that self-interest is the surest route to progress, and that competition produces better results than cooperation. Unless and until these narratives are shifted in the collective psyche, it will be very difficult for any new institution to reflect the realities necessary for today’s world.

The question of changing humanity’s conceptual framework can seem both daunting and reminiscent of the imposition of a dominant worldview. Yet, there are certain fundamental truths which, as they increasingly find expression, benefit the other levels. These include, among others, trustworthiness, generosity, humility, rectitude of conduct, dignity, and our collective destiny on a shared planet—as individuals increasingly recognize the importance of qualities such as these, the narratives, and thus our conceptual framework, will have to change. And it is to this fourth level where discussions are increasingly turning¹. Vital questions are being asked: how can we restore trust? How can we strengthen social cohesion? How can we ensure that we are taking into consideration the needs of all?

In this I feel a great sense of optimism. For though the momentum of a given narrative is strong, it is no stronger than the human spirit and the values that inform its expression. It is no match for the knowledge that increasing numbers are committing themselves to meaningful change. As we adhere more closely to the underlying values articulated in this fourth level, we will see the full expression of the truths found in the other conversations. Individuals in positions of influence will reject contradictions that they can no longer abide. Unjust structures will come to be inconsistent with the values of those who operate within them, leading to mounting pressure for meaningful change. And current notions of progress, though they served an important role in their own time, will give way to new and deeper understandings of the true story of humanity.

The theory of change being proposed here is one of “yes, and”. The hope is that by centering our discussions around a variety of approaches, while staying true to the most fundamental of principles, we can and will find the solutions necessary for both today’s challenges, and those to come.

Daniel Perell is a Representative of the Bahá’í International Community to the United Nations

1. See, for instance, the UN75 dialogue cosponsored by UN2020 titled “UN75 & the UN International Day of Peace: Pathways for Transformation at the United Nations”, where various actors explored vital questions related to the conceptual framework and the underlying values needed to respond to today’s challenges.