Where decades and eras used to be marked by one or two global crises, the 2020s have seen several in less than one decade. Further, the duration of each conflict has been, on average, two times as long in the 2020s as compared to the 1990s. This trend is unusually accelerated compared to past trends and is emergingly referred to as a polycrisis. In the past, political and humanitarian movements aimed at alleviating global crises faced many obstacles. However, this era of multi-crisis presents unique exacerbating factors. First, the global political environment is in disarray and chaos, leading to disjointed efforts at best, and isolationism at worst. Second, the compound effect where each additional crisis worsens the previous one, further straining efforts to help. How can genuine humanitarian movements move forward in this era, and what are some possible mechanisms to reverse these accelerated crisis trends?
A global crisis is defined as an unexpected event that poses severe, widespread danger, affecting global communities, economies, and environments. The 2020s have seen a lot of them:
2019 –Starting in 2019 and ending in 2023, the COVID-19 pandemic had disastrous effects on global economies, supply chains, health standards, travel, culture, and political life, not to mention the more than 7 million people who died.
2022 – Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, resulting in massive military contributions from the EU, the revival of US-Russia tensions, and over 13,000 lives lost. Also in 2022, Yemen experienced the end of a brutal civil war that today has resulted in mass starvation, 4.5 million internally displaced, and 21.6 million people in need of aid.
2023 – In October of 2023, Hamas launched attacks against Israel that resulted in a retaliatory total-war and then genocide in Gaza, resulting in 75,200 deaths and the forcible displacement of tens of thousands of people. 2023 and 2024 both broke record global temperatures, a trend that has been steadily continuing.
2024 – In 2024, the Assad regime in Syria was toppled by rebel forces, who have since struggled to consolidate political power through attacks on Kurdish and Alawi communities. In 2025, a conflict broke out in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) that has devastated the region, seen brutal war practices, and resulted in over one million people being displaced and 21 million in need of aid.
2026 – The US bombed Nigeria, kidnapped the Venezuelan president, and partnered with Israel to launch an attack on Iran, all within three months.
Throughout these events, political unrest has increased, changing the outcome of these crises. In 2020, following the murder of George Floyd, the Black Lives Matter and systemic racism movement became a salient topic in American politics. Alongside the pandemic and growing domestic social tensions, American governance has increasingly begun democratic backsliding and has continued to do so today, exacerbating global geopolitical chaos due to the US’s historic disproportionate impact on global politics. This backsliding trend has been tracked in a quarter of countries in 2026. According to one study, 6/10 of the new autocrizing countries are in Europe and North America. Whereas in the past, democratic backsliding in less powerful states has gone widely unnoticed by the international community, today backsliding has become a critical factor of global politics as key global players such as the US and the UK have experienced significant backsliding. In Asia, similar discontent with elite power consolidation and resource hoarding has led to the Asian Spring, a series of Gen Z protests that have toppled repressive regimes, such as in Nepal. Another study found that 54% of countries dropped in at least one key indicator of democratic performance in 2024. That is to say – many, many fires are burning everywhere at once.
Several factors explain why this decade has experienced so much instability. First, political instability has weakened international institutions. Democratic backsliding has produced states unwilling to participate in humanitarian efforts, and has increased economic protectionism as a method of isolation and insulation from perceived attacks. The United States’ retreat from humanitarianism and global collaboration towards “Peace through Strength” initiatives is re-branded as brute force tactics. This shift towards authoritarianism domestically and abroad has resounding effects, as US hegemony has shaped global institutions and ethos since WWII. The collapse of the US into authoritarianism signals a complete reshuffling of the power structure of international politics and the return to every-man-for-himself mindsets regarding global crises. This mentality diffuses norms that discourage collaboration, the rule of law, and global balance. This norm change weakens key peacekeeping institutions such as the UN and international law. These key institutions are often working in tandem to end crises and reestablish order. This dangerous norm trend is exemplified by how conflict termination rates have declined by 25%, and recursion rates have increased by 44%. This illustrates how, in recent years, it has become increasingly difficult to end crises once they start.
Second, and perhaps most explanatory to the rise of polycrises, is the compound effect. Essentially, each additional crisis compounds the severity of the previous one and decreases humanitarian aid networks’ ability to assist. These interacting crises are a complex layering of “antagonisms, crises, uncontrollable processes, and the general crisis of the planet,” which “significantly degrade humanity’s prospects”. The crisis model depicts when “one or more slow-moving stresses interact with one or more fast-moving trigger events”, throwing the system off equilibrium. Stresses are “slow-moving processes” such as democratic backsliding, systemic racism, and increasing industry. Trigger events are “fast-moving” processes such as the rioters invading the US Capitol building, George Floyd’s murder, or the Keystone pipeline being built. These trigger events punctuate the slow process or stresses and generate massive attention and global repercussions. Unlike the classic crisis model, the compounding-crisis model depicts how, when “multiple systems align at this phase of the cycle,” one crisis can trigger another. It’s not as simple as a chain of events, though. Compounding crises are unique in that “a crisis in one system may affect the stresses and/or the trigger events that push another system into crisis”, resulting in multicausal networks. This model might serve to explain why we have observed so many cascading crises globally. The weakening US hegemony and subsequent military actions, such as in Iran, might be exacerbating existing global stresses and compounding other smaller crises globally.
What is so concerning about this model is that the simultaneous and compounding nature of it creates severe obstacles. Unlike during previous crises, such as the Yugoslav war or AIDS, the international community cannot assist because it is spread too thin across new crises. Resources, attention, and cooperation become incredibly difficult to manage, resulting in a breakdown in crisis-solving. This poses serious concerns moving forward. Can the international community simultaneously solve global crises? If so, will it require prioritizing some over others? And, finally, what are the ethical implications of doing so?
Edited by Jamie Silverman
Disclaimer: This is an article written by a Staff Writer. Catalyst is a student-led platform that fosters engagement with global issues from a learning perspective. The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication.
Sonia Oulamine is a second-year student at McGill University, currently pursuing a B.A. in International Development Studies with minors in Political Science and Arabic Language. She serves as a writer for Catalyst and has a particular interest in international relations, law, and human rights.