Amidst artificial intelligence, war and climate change, a new form of strategic sovereignty is emerging: time sovereignty. Systems must be capable of rapidly restoring stability in a crisis-prone present day whilst generating long-term progress towards an uncertain future. Those who can act more swiftly and shape events over longer time horizons possess a strategic advantage in being able to influence key geopolitical dynamics to serve their own interests. Time is becoming a strategic resource. Time sovereignty secures sovereignty over action, understanding and development.
Today, we largely refer to the new world order in territorial terms; in terms of who controls trade routes and raw material deposits; where new spheres of influence are emerging; who controls data centres, ports, satellites and military bases. Geopolitics is making a comeback, and with it the old notion that power is control over territory. Yet the question of power in the 21st century may well be decided by the time factor which, in the competition between geopolitical systems, could be China’s greatest strength – and Europe’s greatest weakness.
The Asynchrony of the Simultaneous
Several fundamental changes are currently taking place simultaneously but along completely different timelines. Artificial intelligence is developing exponentially. Financial markets react in seconds. Military conflicts can escalate within hours. Energy and transport infrastructure takes years to develop. Demographic changes unfold over decades, and climate change alters living conditions over generations. In Russia’s war against Ukraine, too, the time factor is key: how long can a society bear the immense pressure of being under attack? How long can supporting states keep providing aid? How long can the aggressor absorb the economic costs of the war? And can territorial gains ever be translated into stable political control in the long term?
The significance of events can change completely depending on the timing and sequence of their occurrence which may suddenly trigger self-reinforcing and non-linear developments. This is especially true in unstable conditions and situations of multiple equilibria, where even minor changes and random events can have significant long-term consequences. A global financial crisis, for example, could potentially have a major impact on the further course of the war in Ukraine or the development of artificial intelligence.
The time factor as a systemic issue
Geopolitical realignment and simultaneous technological upheavals have resulted in a competition between systems that is characterised by a huge incentive for expansion. In this competition, asymmetries in the respective reaction and development times of the systems are open to strategic exploitation. The apparent strength of authoritarian systems lies in their power to centralise political decision-making, concentrate resources and absorb social costs for longer periods. Thus, Russia is banking on the patience of Western societies running out sooner than its own, and China is able to formulate industrial and technological policy objectives over longer timeframes. Yet this is no guarantee of long-term superiority. Centralisation can speed up decision-making, but it can also magnify mistakes. Supressing dissent simultaneously reduces a system’s ability to recognise and correct wrong decisions in a timely fashion.
Democracies, on the other hand, are increasingly facing their own problems. They have become more socially impatient, institutionally slower and politically more opportunistic. Reforms must take effect within a single parliamentary term. News cycles are getting shorter. Social media turns almost every problem into an immediate expectation of political action. Anger and envy are changing political preferences. Meanwhile, the timeframe for action is getting longer. Planning procedures take years; infrastructure projects take decades. Responsibilities are spread across countless levels, until no decision is ever taken. This is the paradox of modern democracies: they expect results faster than ever yet take longer than ever to achieve them. Ageing and polarised societies, in particular, tend to focus their conflicts on the present day. Democracies find themselves trapped in a kind of ‘Groundhog Day’ in which major reforms are now virtually impossible, politically and structurally. The visible risk of change is postponed only to become the invisible loss of future viability.
Four capabilities of time sovereignty
In the temporal dimension, strategic sovereignty means not being forced into action by time pressure, but being in a position to act autonomously at all times. This requires four capabilities. The first is speed: how quickly can a system react when action becomes necessary? The second is patience: how long can a system stick to a strategy without abandoning its course under external pressure? The third is timing: does a system recognise the window of opportunity for strategic action? The fourth is optionality: how many courses of action does a system still have available if developments unfold differently than expected? A resilient system is one that will not be forced into a specific course of action by a shock but will actually be prompted to develop new capacity for action.
This, in turn, changes our perception of institutions. They are not there merely to enforce rules in a static sense but are, above all, a form of intertemporal governance. A constitution links generations together. A capital market translates expectations about the future into present-day decisions. Regulation balances conflicting objectives over time. An education system invests today in skills that may be relevant decades later. Research transforms present-day resources into future knowledge.
Above all, therefore, good institutions extend a society’s horizon for action. They prevent every crisis from immediately turning into an existential one. They create reserves, options and trust. Furthermore, institutions play a key role in determining how a system deals with the future and its opportunities and risks. In the case of exponential technologies, in particular, it is important not only to scale up more quickly, but also to shift the search away from incremental innovations to those that are disruptive. One reason Europe has lost technological sovereignty is that it has shied away from disruptive innovations and the associated structural risk.
Freedom to determine the future
In today’s world, sovereignty belongs to those who can act quickly without having to act all the time; those who can wait and see without falling behind; those who can think long-term without becoming paralysed in the short term; and those who make decisions today that create new options tomorrow. Such a society can deal more proactively with risk and uncertainty, withstand greater change, and shape the future more boldly. Such a society has more freedom to determine its future.
Time sovereignty must be seen as a strategic dimension in its own right, but it requires certain capabilities. Policy should be geared towards increasing societal resilience, driving institutional change, accelerating technological innovation and developing positive narratives about the future, thereby strengthening that most important resource of open and free societies – confidence; confidence both in the short-term capacity for action and in long-term sustainability. All of this will help to ensure that Europe and democracy once again have the strategic factor of time on their side.
Prior to that, he was Senior Economist at the HWWI, where he was responsible for the research areas of business cycles and the global economy. His research focuses on business cycle analysis, monetary policy, financial markets and the digital economy.
Copyright Header Picture: ChatGPT/Own prompt
