The trading floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York City.As Syria seeks to rebuild its economy and reconnect with global markets, its future will be shaped not only by domestic decisions, but also by access to capital, investment, and the wider forces governing the global economy.
For most of modern history, political power was understood through governments, parliaments, presidents, and elected representatives. Citizens in democratic systems voted, legislatures debated, and national leaders made decisions that shaped the direction of their countries.
But the twenty-first century has brought a quieter and far more complicated transformation. Power has increasingly extended beyond traditional political institutions to financial institutions, corporations, and global markets.
Today, banks and large financial entities can move enormous amounts of capital across borders, influence markets, affect currencies, determine access to credit, and shape the economic future of entire countries. Their decisions can affect millions of people who have never voted for them, never elected their leaders, and have limited direct means of holding them accountable.
This is not simply a political slogan. It reflects a structural feature of the modern global economy.
The question, therefore, is no longer only: Who governs our countries? It is also:
Who governs the financial system that increasingly governs our lives?
From Governments to Financial Institutions
Over the past century, the relationship between governments and financial institutions has changed dramatically.
Governments still possess enormous political authority, but they operate within an increasingly interconnected financial system. Capital moves across borders in seconds. Investors can shift billions of dollars from one country to another with a few decisions. Financial markets react immediately to political developments, economic data, interest-rate decisions, and geopolitical events.
Central banks, often viewed largely as technical institutions, make decisions that directly affect the daily lives of billions of people.
A change in interest rates in Washington, Frankfurt, London, or Tokyo can influence mortgage payments, business investment, employment, currencies, government borrowing costs, and household finances around the world.
Commercial and investment banks have also become enormous global institutions. Banks such as JPMorgan, HSBC, BNP Paribas, and Citigroup operate across multiple jurisdictions and manage vast financial resources.
Yet there is a fundamental difference between a government and a global financial institution.
In democratic systems, governments are ultimately accountable to citizens through elections and political institutions.
Global banks are accountable primarily to shareholders, boards, regulators, and market forces.
There is no global election in which citizens can vote on the leadership or policies of the world’s largest banks.
That is where the question of democratic accountability begins.
Why Financial Power Can Move Faster Than Political Power
Several structural forces give financial institutions extraordinary influence.
Money is global, while political authority remains largely national.
Capital can move across borders almost instantly, while governments remain constrained by national jurisdictions.
Financial markets can respond rapidly, while governments operate through political processes.
Markets can react in milliseconds. Governments may require weeks, months, or years to negotiate and implement policies.
Financial institutions can make many decisions without direct voter approval.
Central banks often have legally protected operational independence within public mandates and accountability frameworks, while commercial banks are governed primarily through corporate structures, regulatory requirements, and shareholder interests.
Capital can reward or punish governments.
When investors move money out of a country, borrowing costs can rise, currencies can weaken, and economic pressure can increase. Governments therefore often have to consider not only what voters want, but also how financial markets will respond.
The result is a striking imbalance:
Financial institutions operate globally, while democratic accountability remains largely national.
“Financial institutions operate globally, while democratic accountability remains largely national.”
Souad Ajjan
When Financial Power Fails, Society Pays the Price
The history of financial crises demonstrates what happens when enormous financial power is combined with weak governance or inadequate risk management.
The global financial crisis of 2008 showed that decisions made inside financial institutions could ultimately threaten entire economies. Millions of people lost homes, jobs, savings, and economic security even though they had no role in the decisions that contributed to the crisis.
The banking turmoil of 2023 provided another reminder that weaknesses inside individual financial institutions can quickly become concerns for the broader financial system.
Financial leaders themselves have repeatedly emphasized the importance of institutional culture, governance, risk management, and accountability.
The lesson is simple but profound:
When a major financial institution fails, the consequences rarely remain inside the institution. Society can absorb much of the damage.
The people who bear those consequences, however, are rarely the people who made the original decisions.
A family losing its home does not sit on the bank’s board.
A worker losing a job does not approve the bank’s risk strategy.
A taxpayer facing higher public borrowing costs does not determine an investment bank’s balance-sheet decisions.
This is one of the central contradictions of modern capitalism: private decisions can produce public consequences.
“This is one of the central contradictions of modern capitalism: private decisions can produce public consequences.”
Souad Ajjan
Regulation Has Improved the System, But the Democratic Question Remains
The world did not simply ignore the lessons of the financial crisis.
Since 2008, international regulators have introduced major reforms designed to strengthen bank capital, liquidity, risk management, supervision, and resilience. These reforms have made the banking system better prepared to absorb many forms of financial stress.
International bodies such as the Basel Committee, the Financial Stability Board, and the Bank for International Settlements play important roles in coordinating financial standards and promoting stability. Their standards and recommendations generally rely on implementation by national or regional authorities.
These institutions are necessary in a global financial system.
But they also highlight a deeper problem.
The global economy has become increasingly integrated, while democratic institutions have not developed at the same pace.
The people affected by international financial rules generally do not directly elect the officials who develop them, although those officials may be accountable through national institutions.
There is no global parliament debating the rules of international banking.
There is no worldwide electorate capable of directly rewarding or removing the people who shape the architecture of global finance.
This does not mean that these institutions are illegitimate or that their work lacks public value. It means that global economic power and democratic accountability have not evolved together.
The Missing Piece: A Global Voice
Consider the scale of the issue.
Interest-rate decisions affect homeowners and businesses.
Banking regulations affect access to credit.
Capital flows affect employment and investment.
Currency movements affect the price of imported goods.
Investment decisions help determine which industries receive financing and which struggle to survive.
Financial incentives influence energy, technology, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, infrastructure, and even national development strategies.
In other words, financial decisions are not merely about money.
They help determine what gets built, what gets funded, what gets abandoned, and ultimately what kind of economy society lives in.
Yet ordinary citizens have very limited direct influence over many of these decisions.
This creates several consequences.
- Billions of people are affected by decisions they cannot directly influence.
A central-bank decision made thousands of miles away can affect a family’s borrowing costs or a small business owner’s ability to obtain financing.
- Global corporations can have enormous reach without equivalent global accountability.
A corporation headquartered in one country can make decisions with consequences in dozens of others, while accountability remains divided among national regulators.
- Financial incentives can shape social priorities.
Capital tends to flow toward activities offering attractive returns. That does not necessarily mean those activities always correspond with society’s broader needs.
- Global capital can deepen inequality.
Those with significant financial assets can move capital across borders and take advantage of global opportunities. Workers, by contrast, are generally far less mobile and remain tied to local labor markets and national institutions.
- Financial crises can move faster than governments.
A financial shock can spread across markets within hours, while political institutions may take considerably longer to understand the problem and respond.
The central issue is therefore not whether financial markets should exist. They remain essential to the global economy.
The issue is whether financial power should continue expanding without a corresponding expansion of accountability.
The Next Challenge: AI, Digital Money, and the Future of Banking
Another transformation is already underway, one that could fundamentally change the financial system itself.
Artificial intelligence, blockchain technology, stablecoins, tokenized assets, central bank digital currencies, and other forms of digital money are beginning to reshape some of the traditional functions of banks.
AI can increasingly support credit analysis, risk assessment, fraud detection, investment analysis, customer service, and other functions that once depended heavily on human bankers and large institutional infrastructures.
At the same time, alternative forms of digital money are challenging aspects of the traditional role of banks as intermediaries between individuals, businesses, and the monetary system.
If these technologies continue to develop, banks may become less central to some flows of money, information, and financial transactions.
This does not necessarily mean that banks will disappear.
It may mean something more important:
Their role could fundamentally change.
For centuries, banks have occupied a central position because they sit between savers and borrowers, individuals and businesses, customers and payment systems, and governments and financial markets.
Technology is beginning to challenge that position.
The institutions that once derived enormous power from controlling financial intermediation may increasingly have to compete with technology companies, digital platforms, automated financial systems, and decentralized networks.
And here lies a remarkable paradox.
Just as the world is questioning the enormous power accumulated by traditional financial institutions, technological change may create a new generation of financial actors whose reach is even greater.
An AI-driven financial platform could potentially make decisions affecting millions of people without a traditional bank standing between the individual and the system.
Some forms of digital money can move across borders without passing through traditional banking infrastructure.
A tokenized financial asset can potentially be traded through digital networks operating around the clock.
The question, therefore, is becoming even more urgent:
If today’s banks are difficult to hold democratically accountable across borders, who will hold tomorrow’s financial technologies accountable?
The future of banking may not be a battle between banks and technology.
It may be a transformation in which the definition of a “bank” itself becomes difficult to recognize.
And if financial power moves from banks to technology platforms, artificial intelligence systems, and digital networks, society must make sure that the problem of accountability does not simply move with it.
“If today’s banks are difficult to hold democratically accountable across borders, who will hold tomorrow’s financial technologies accountable?”
Souad Ajjan
What Should the World Do?
The answer is not to dismantle banks, reject financial markets, or stop technological progress.
The global economy needs banks, markets, investment, innovation, and technological development.
But it also needs rules that ensure that financial power serves society and remains subject to meaningful accountability.
Several possibilities deserve serious discussion:
- International standards for corporate governance and transparency
- Stronger accountability for systemically important financial institutions
- Greater public representation in international financial institutions
- Global standards for responsible investment and sustainable finance
- International cooperation on AI and digital financial systems
- Clear rules governing stablecoins, digital assets, and emerging forms of money
- Greater transparency when automated or AI-driven systems make financial decisions
- Mechanisms that allow citizens and civil society to participate more meaningfully in discussions about global financial governance
These are difficult questions, and there are no simple solutions.
But avoiding the questions will not make them disappear.
Conclusion:
Who Will Govern the Economy of Tomorrow?
The world has entered an era in which political power is no longer the only form of power that matters.
Presidents and parliaments still make laws. Governments still control taxation, public spending, and national policy.
But financial institutions influence the movement of capital. Markets influence government borrowing. Central banks influence economic conditions. Corporations influence investment and employment. And technology is now beginning to challenge the institutions that have traditionally managed money and payments.
The great question of the twenty-first century may therefore be larger than whether banks have become too powerful.
It is whether any institution should be allowed to exercise global economic power without a corresponding system of accountability.
The next transformation may be even more profound. Artificial intelligence and digital money could weaken the traditional dominance of banks and create entirely new forms of financial power.
That could bring greater efficiency, greater access, and new opportunities.
But it could also create a financial system that is even more difficult for ordinary citizens and governments to understand, influence, or control.
The world therefore faces a choice—not between technology and banks, or between markets and governments—but between financial power with insufficient accountability and financial power governed by principles that recognize its consequences for society.
The institutions may change.
The technology will certainly change.
The money itself may change.
But one question will remain:
Who should govern the forces that govern our economic lives?
If the answer continues to be determined primarily by those who already possess financial or technological power, then the gap between economic power and democratic accountability will only grow.
If the twenty-first century is to deliver not only innovation and wealth, but also stability, fairness, and shared prosperity, the world will need to build something that it has never fully created before:
a system in which global economic power is matched by global responsibility.
