In many countries of the world, we witness the climb of anti-establishment politicians. Many are the parties and movements that, in Europe, are gathering high acclaim inveighing on the status quo, on institutions and on traditional parties. The big parties of the past, which make reference to the popular and socialist traditions, are in serious crisis and often succeed in governing only by uniting forces – in the past, opposed and antithetical.

In the historically anglo-saxon countries, such as Great Britain and the United States, there are certain changes being put in place that are, in few words, ‘traumatic’. If Great Britain has decided - after many years - to abandon the ‘European family’, the United States is headed towards a definite perspective defined by many observers as ‘populist’.
Even outside the Eastern confines, the people are in confusion: coups, civil wars, terrorist attacks and revolutions of all sorts are shaking the whole world. The old constituted order is often experienced with intolerance and frustration.
Stability and balance, once absolute values and parameters for the population, are now experienced as unbearably oppressive and suppressive elements. The authoritativeness of leadership is under heavy discussion, whether in Europe or many parts of the world.

Many current governments and leaders are reacting by branding this ‘anti-establishment’ phenomenon as the ‘protest of the ignorant’. Regardless of the enormous popular success of this phenomenon, they despise it, considering it ‘callous and primitive activism’.

History teaches us that it is dangerous not to take seriously the discontent, frustration and agitation expressed by a great part of the population. If they then arrive at contempt, the level of alarm is at its highest.
The establishment or old order has to find a balanced path to reforming itself, to adopt changes in its own system. It needs to know how to take the discomfort – often expressed in an aggressive manner – of large sections of the population, and elaborate responses in a timely and effective manner. It is necessary to take the citizen seriously.
The establishment has to know how to recognize the errors in the system and know how to adapt to the needs of the historical moment and avoid any type of self-referentiality.

The current governments and leaderships have to realize the emergency and adopt a strategy for ‘crisis management’. We are not in a context of normality and thus cannot adopt ‘normal’ instruments and times.
The threat of chaos should not bring an oppressive and suffocating control, but rather a direct and open communication between the establishment and the population. We need to avoid every fracture between the social classes of society. Only in this way will the system once again be fluid and harmonious.

Certainly it is necessary to have a firm hand when dealing with brutal acts, violence and irrational behaviours, but it must be done with the necessary authoritativeness. After careful reflection, it is necessary that the leadership –which manages the institutions – reappropriates its own authoritativeness, which derives from a moral and conscientious attitude.

It is not necessary to elaborate on the strategies for building a new world order. It is enough to work on a new moral order, which comes from an internal rebirth linked to the reawakening of consciousness.