The Tech Elites and the Quiet Revolution of Power

Professor Klaus Schwab
Founder, World Economic Forum

We are no longer witnessing a normal phase of technological development. We are witnessing a shift in power - subtle, yet profound. Away from politics and institutions, toward those who control innovation. This new elite rarely articulates its doctrine openly. Yet its logic is unmistakable. Thinkers and entrepreneurs like Peter Thiel express it clearly: the world is driven by innovation. Those who control innovation control the future. And those who control the future cannot a ord to be slowed down by the cumbersome, contradictory processes of democracy.

This is no longer a fringe view. It is becoming the new orthodoxy.

The facts seem to support it. We are in the midst of an exponential technological revolution. Arti cial intelligence, biotechnology, digital platforms are reshaping economies and societies faster than political systems can respond. Innovation is no longer linear. It is explosive. And in this dynamic, democracy begins to look slow. Too many voices. Too many objections. Too much delay.

Here is where the real shift begins. Democracy is no longer seen as a prerequisite for progress, but as an obstacle. Diversity is no longer a strength, but friction. Consensus is no longer legitimacy, but delay. This is the moment when technological dynamism turns into ideology.

I have dedicated my life to the idea of stakeholder capitalism, the conviction that economic success and social responsibility are inseparable. Today, this model is under pressure because it runs counter to the logic of the tech elites. While stakeholder capitalism is based on long-term value creation, trust, and legitimacy, tech-elite capitalism places innovation, speed, and scale at the center. The decisive question is no longer what is socially sustainable, but what is possible and how quickly it can be implemented.

In doing so, tech-elite capitalism is increasingly overtaking traditional shareholder capitalism. It is no longer primarily about returns for capital providers, but about control over technologies, platforms, and future markets. Capital follows innovation, not the other way around. Power shifts from owners of capital to the architects of technological systems.

And yet, this is where the blind spot lies. Progress without legitimacy is not progress. It is risk. Innovation that detaches itself from society will sooner or later provoke resistance. And in a networked world, resistance can spread just as rapidly as innovation itself.

The tech elites respond to this in a remarkable way. The more radically they seek to transform the future, the more they reach for stability in the past. Tradition, order, conservative values are experiencing a quiet resurgence. This may seem paradoxical, but it is logical. Those who unleash disruption need stability. Those who maximize speed need orientation. Yet here, too, lies a tension. Tradition can stabilize, or it can legitimize concentration of power. It can provide direction or become an ideological instrument.

And what about the state ?

It is under pressure as never before. If it remains slow, it becomes irrelevant. If it becomes an instrument of technological interests, it loses its credibility. Its only option is a radical rede nition: innovation-friendly, shaping and faster. A state in the Intelligent Age can no longer a ord to react when it is too late. It must shape developments as they emerge. It must enable without being captured.

Because technological power today is no longer exercised primarily through ownership or capital, but through system dependencies, through platforms, data ecosystems, and digital infrastructures on which entire economies depend. Precisely for this reason, it is the task of the state to avoid such dependencies wherever possible. Not to slow down innovation, but to secure strategic autonomy, competition, and societal agency.

If this fails, we risk an order that appears e cient but is inherently unstable: power concentrated in the hands of a few, without su cient societal anchoring.

In the end, the decisive question is not who innovates faster. It is who has the capacity to embed innovation within a viable and legitimate order. Who is willing to acknowledge reality: that tech-elite capitalism and the shaping force of technological developments have become the de ning forces of our time.

We cannot deny them. We must take them seriously.

But taking them seriously does not mean submitting to them. It means shaping them. Giving them direction. Embedding them in an order that is supported by society.

Because the real question is not economic. It is civilizational.
If we fail to strike this balance, we risk the gradual erosion of what holds our societies together: democracy and human dignity.

If we succeed, the exponential revolution of technology can become what it ought to be: progress - anchored, legitimized, and in the service of society.

Read the original article

The article was also published in Aftenposten, Caixin (Chinese), El Pais, Le Temps, Maeil Business, Weltwoche and Yomiuri Shimbun.