In ten or so years’ time, the question that business leaders, some politicians and policymakers, not to mention the public at large in the Western world, will likely have on their minds is ‘Is a Restoration Possible?’
This thought was prompted by a visit through some of the older parts in England -Salisbury and Dorset, followed by a trip to New York for the McKinsey Global Strategy Summit. There are parallels between the two worlds.
In the middle of 17th century England, the arrest (in 1646) and subsequent death of King Charles I, led to a historic experiment with democracy (in which the Levellers were prominent),., which took a wrong turn (Cromwell positioned himself as Lord Protector). This period was known as the Interregnum – a bit like the current German concept of Zeitenwende – and came to an end after the death of Cromwell and the return of monarchy with the installation of Charles II as king in 1660 (The Restoration).
In many parts of England, notably Dorset, the Restoration was problematic because of lingering political and religious divides owing to the rivalries that were bred by the civil war. The overturning of Puritan laws and social restrictions was also controversial in parts, though the Restoration also produced a mini cultural renaissance.
The story of the transition from the uncertainty and experimentation of the Interregnum to the old order of the Restoration might appear interesting but obscure to some readers, but as a template, it doesn’t fit badly on the new, evolving world order. We have left the thirty-year-old ‘regime’ of globalisation and are moving into the Interregnum – which will see the old order unravel and may not provide many clear indications as to what kind of equilibrium the world settles into.
The transition through the Interregnum will have many wondering if a return to the many boons and benefits of globalisation is possible (‘a Restoration’), whilst others may believe that the vandalization of globalisation produces changes that are so profound that they are irreversible (A Restoration is not possible).
A Restoration would see a rebound in the health of democracy, civil public life, a trade outlook characterised by a reversal of tariffs, greater freedom of labour and better policing of trade conflicts. Two of the great bonuses of globalization, low, stable inflation and the absence of major wars, would return.
At this point, some seven months into the second Trump administration, we are accelerating away from the rosy Restoration scenario. If anything, there is an emerging sense of an ideological consistency across the administration (some people still mention Project 2025 for instance), and an accompanying desire to reshape America permanently.
An extrapolation of the events of the past few weeks might see the following trends – a breakdown of NATO, the IMF and World Trade Organisation, an open conflict between Europe and Russia, the emergence of a regional consensus between China and the larger countries across Asia, huge currency volatility (around the generally weaker dollar), the arrival of a major African power (Nigeria?), the collapse in late 2026 of the AI Bubble, the existence of the most extreme levels of wealth inequality (mostly in the US and India) ever recorded and the attendant socio-political consequences of this, and finally, to maintain the cheery tone, the undermining of the notion of the international rule of law and corporate contract law. I am very likely erring on the pessimistic side for dramatic effect, but few of these trends lead to a ‘Restoration’.
A less dramatic outlook, is that the path towards a ‘new world order’ (we have sketched this path out in a previous note ‘Are We There Yet?’) could still shift towards a ‘Restoration’ but it will first be strewn with several mountain like obstacles (a friend invoked James Martin’s similar idea of a canyon – from Martin’s book ‘The Meaning of the 21st Century’).
These obstacles are, in my view, a climate crisis, a debt crisis and a crisis of democracy or governance. The way in which the international community tackles these crises will determine whether we get to a Restoration or not, and the key policy characteristic will be collaboration across the major regions. In this context, one of the early confirmations that globalization was dead, was the absence of cooperation between the US, China and to a less extent Europe, during the COVID crisis.
To take the example of a debt crisis, the absence of a ‘committee to save the world’ would likely see far greater market volatility, far greater damage to asset prices and a post crisis environment where banking systems and economies take longer to recover, do so unevenly and adopt more localised corporate governance regimes in the post-crisis period (China is the critical country here). Alternatively, collaboration across central banks, an internationally adjudicated resolution to a (government debt crisis) would lessen the financial damage, and potentially provide the context for a more global financial system, post the crisis.
I have only started to mull the concept of a Restoration, but my fear is that a full, coherent Restoration will only occur after various crises, and all of the bad options have first been exhausted.
Have a great week ahead,
Mike