A Thumos-Led World Order: Reimagining Global Governance

Nation-states, much like individuals, are born unequal. No society has ever evolved into a purely egalitarian version of itself; likewise, the global geopolitical order remains decidedly hierarchical. The post–World War II internationalist framework—later shaped by the Washington Consensus—brought countries to the table, yet too often, those seated find themselves on the menu.

This should come as no surprise. The postwar “rules-based multilateral order” was always driven by two forces: a small group of winners who defined the rules and a broad expectation that everyone else would comply. Different iterations of the system have offered varying degrees of consultation, but real power has always resided with a handful of dominant states.

The United Nations remains emblematic of this dynamic. While it offers universal participation in principle, the five permanent members of the Security Council hold veto power that cements their primacy. Far from embodying the high ideals of 1945, the UN effectively functions as an instrument for these powers’ self-interest.

In the aftermath of the 2007–08 global financial crisis, the world had a rare opportunity to rethink the international order. This led to the emergence of the G20, with a mandate for greater transparency and collaboration in an interconnected world. Yet the G20 often operates in a manner more technocratic than many UN agencies, falling short of a truly inclusive, visionary agenda.

Today’s polycrisis—the confluence of economic, environmental, and social challenges—presents another chance for global leaders to accept that the world order was never meant to be truly equitable, and then to act decisively in reimagining the multilateral framework. A meaningful path forward would leverage the successes of the few societies driving much of the world’s economic, technological, and cultural dynamism. Their challenge is to channel their “felicity and prowess” in ways that help narrow the gap between those at the forefront of innovation and those who aspire to be.

A new design must shift from a system where a few wield power to keep others in check, to one in which a few with demonstrated capabilities catalyze the potential of everyone else. Call it a merit-based system: one that acknowledges not all nation-states genuinely seek to transform their destinies—but those that do should have a fair shot, without obstruction, at pursuing technological, economic, and social advancement.

Enter Thumos

This Greek term—loosely translated as “spiritedness”—captures today’s world. In his work The Political Soul, Josh Wilburn explains how Plato saw thumos as the driver of motivation, aspiration, desire, and emotion in both individuals and societies. On a national scale, it manifests as the collective spirit that spurs innovation, political engagement, and cultural dynamism.

Surprisingly few countries exhibit this quality. Many simply want to preserve the status quo, content with their accumulated wealth and grandeur. Others, drained by exploitative histories, lack the appetite for bold ambitions. Still more have citizens whose highest aspiration is to leave, voting with their feet.

By mapping where each country stands—who has thumos and who does not—we see a chasm between dynamic, forward-leaning nations and those without such vitality.

Thumos-Nations: A Framework for Assessment

To gauge whether a country is thumos-worthy of a special international role, five key vectors stand out:

1. Nationalism: How does the country conceive of its national identity, and does it foster a unifying sense of pride and purpose?

2. Entrepreneurship: Is there a culture that consistently spawns new businesses and ideas, even in the face of repeated failures?

3. Research: Does the country conduct or aspire to conduct robust, multi-domain research, overcoming financial and structural constraints?

4. Futurism: If surveyed, would a majority of citizens express optimism that tomorrow will surpass today?

5. Connections: Does the country proactively forge strategic international ties, balancing its values with its interests?

These criteria are non-negotiable if a nation is to be considered a thumos-nation: it must possess a self-confidence that drives its people and leaders to imagine—and enact—new possibilities for itself and the wider world.

Who Qualifies?

Drawing up any list is fraught with subjectivity, but based on the above vectors, the following countries arguably qualify as thumos-nations: Australia, Brazil, China, France, Greece, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Morocco, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Switzerland, Türkiye, the United Arab Emirates, the United States, and Qatar.

These countries vary in political and economic alignment, and some do not see eye to eye. Yet if the world is to navigate the next phase of social evolution—driven by technology but requiring compassion for humanity—they must find avenues for genuine collaboration.

This is not about reinforcing traditional power centers. Indeed, the list includes nations often overlooked by conventional clubs like the G7 or G20. Nor is it static; countries may step in or out as their thumos rises or falls.

A Global Board of Directors

Despite divergent histories, interests, and ideologies, the thumos-nations could serve as a de facto “Board of Directors” for the world. Their collective responsibility would be ensuring orderly global functioning—fueling innovation at home and championing equitable advancement internationally. The first step in demanding excellence for the world is to cultivate it within their own borders.

This thumos-driven vision holds that power is best deployed not to dominate, but to elevate. For all the world’s inequalities, it is these spirited countries that can steer us toward a more dynamic, inclusive, and sustainable global order—an order in which aspiration, innovation, and constructive engagement guide humanity’s future.