Battle of the Clocks – Brown Political Review

In 1947, members of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created the notorious “Doomsday Clock,” a symbolic representation of humanity’s impending doom. The clock inches forward when climate change accelerates and turns back when wars end; midnight represents catastrophe. The clock is not an empirical tool, but rather a measurement of societal urgency — how desperately a change of course is needed. Perceptions of how urgent societal ills are differ greatly, exemplified by the competing temporal frameworks adopted by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the World Social Forum (WSF) in their attempts to address pressing social issues — namely, the climate crisis. The forums’ ability to alter perceptions of urgency on the global stage represents a form of temporal power that enables them to negotiate the pacing of political change. 

In the 21st century, power continues to operate through the geopolitical coordination of military strength, material extraction, and territorial gain. The institutions that dictate the pace of this coordination control what global issues require urgency, who must take action, and how swift the change must be. The WEF maintains that change must be gradual, long-term, and negotiated, whereas the WSF deems gradualism reductive and irresponsible to those suffering without intervention. 

“The institutions that dictate the pace of this coordination control what global issues require urgency, who must take action, and how swift the change must be.”

The WSF was designed as an alternative to the hierarchical neoliberal order upheld by the WEF, which works to “improve the state of the world through public-private cooperation.” In Davos, Switzerland, where the WEF meets annually, heads of state, CEOs, and technocrats convene to discuss technological innovations, smart cities, and the transformation of the global workforce. The WSF, on the other hand, brings together grassroots organizers, human-rights activists, and marginalized voices who engage in global politics outside of elite-centric discussion spaces. The 2026 edition, which will be hosted in Cotonou, Benin, is organized around themes like resource governance, the climate crisis, migration, and food sovereignty.

Davos panels have mastered the ability to present social and political problems as business opportunities instead of structural issues in an effort to protect profits and preserve WEF power. Artificial intelligence reshapes work, but through “reskilling” initiatives; climate change demands change, but through “new procurement guides” to support their “net-zero agenda.” Economic volatility requires action, but through a “Manufacturing and Supply Chain Readiness” digital tool. Because broader reforms like labor protection programs and reparative climate policies that actively reduce emissions would hurt elites’ bottom lines, these programs set a slow, technocratic tempo to reward the economic elite in the short term at the expense of long-term climate health. 

The WEF’s intent to protect the neoliberal social order is most visible in its approach to climate change. Here, the WEF reframes climate emergencies as economic opportunities. Rather than confronting the structural drivers of ecological degradation, the WEF suggests a compromise: green capitalism, a market-managed transition that would allow for the appearance of progress without disrupting the underlying economic order. At Davos 2026, business leaders declared that “business-smart is climate-smart,” characterizing profitability and sustainability as naturally aligned forces despite evidence demonstrating their incompatibility. The WEF’s preferred horizon by which greenhouse gas emissions must fall sharply to avoid catastrophic global warming is 2050, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report claims this must happen by 2030 at the latest. Net-zero by 2050 gives corporations three decades of continued fossil fuel dependence disguised as climate leadership while the atmospheric deadline for avoiding 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming continues approaching. This stretching of time is not coincidental. Targets placed in the distant future allow corporations and governments to maintain the appearance of addressing worldly issues without completely upheaving the economic status quo. The WEF’s adjustments to the existing market order disregard societal demands for structural change.

“The WEF’s intent to protect the neoliberal social order is most visible in its approach to climate change. Here, the WEF reframes climate emergencies as economic opportunities.”

Modern climate politics are structured around the relationship between what can be called “the space of experience” and the “horizon of expectation” — that is, what societies have lived through versus what they are permitted to expect from those in positions of power. When the “horizon of expectation” for climate responses narrows, visions for democratic possibilities narrow in response, forcing achievable climate targets to be repeatedly pushed back. The original Paris Agreement’s ambition to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius has given way to more flexible, long-term commitments that weaken as each year goes by. 

While Davos upholds the status quo, the World Social Forum advocates for radical change. The WSF exhorts the failures of neoliberal capitalism and brings together representatives from diverse communities to present structural alternatives. Isabel Ortiz, Director of the Global Social Justice Program at Columbia University, explained that “[w]hile Davos is the meeting for the 1%, the wealthiest people in the planet, Kathmandu [location of the 2024 WSF] is the meeting for the rest of us.” A diverse collective will participate in the 2026 gathering: COMCAUSA from Mexico, Focus on the Global South from the Philippines and India, and Afrique-Europe Interact from Europe and West Africa, among others. These organizations — whose members represent communities displaced by climate crises, workers exploited by global supply chains, and whole nations juggling debts imposed upon them by imperial extraction — congregate at the WSF.

Davos approaches the intersection of these issues — for instance, climate displacement, racial injustice, and imperialistic resource extraction — with insufficient, incremental “reform.” The WSF, in contrast, brings together Indigenous leaders to speak alongside climate activists and migrant-justice advocates who engage with small-scale farmers; issues are presented as constantly intersecting and evolving. In other words, the WSF posits that those most affected by the crisis should determine its timeline. 

This redistribution of power set by the WSF destabilizes the neoliberal continuity Davos establishes. The very pacing of politics becomes urgent, participatory, decentralized, and bottom-up. While technocrat and trillionaire critics may dismiss the WSF’s ideals as utopian and too fragmented to scale, the forum is nonetheless an important symbolic refusal of the neoliberal continuity Davos suggests. 

“This redistribution of power set by the WSF destabilizes the neoliberal continuity Davos establishes. The very pacing of politics becomes urgent, participatory, decentralized, and bottom-up.”

The German philosopher Walter Benjamin pushes back against notions of linear progress, describing historical progression as peppered with moments of resistance and interruption. Crises — even when supposedly inevitable — can be ruptured. The rising momentum of alternative temporalities are one such example of resistance, as movements such as the World Social Forum extol that some crises cannot be addressed in the next policy cycle. They must be addressed now. 

It would be naive to claim that the WSF has displaced the socioeconomic authority of the WEF, as the structure of global governance remains persistently neoliberal. However, the WSF demonstrates that control over political time, now and into the future, is never absolute. Rather, it is contested again and again in order to actualize change. Hope for a better future should not rest on the optimistic wish for a new order, but on the fact that organizations in the present continue to negotiate a closer horizon for change and challenge who dictates the urgency of the 21st century’s most pressing issues.