As institutions are a link between past and future, and as they grow in complexity, there is a necessary concern for how the institution relates to what's next, the future. The concern is how does the institution react to the new, noting how the new conditions also mean that some old assumptions are changed (at leas in the society at large). So the necessary future orientation means some shifting of the old and known which in a defensive or polarized culture will look like defection, aka a "drift leftward."
Second, it might be useful to bring into consideration the questions of anarchy and order that dominate international relations thinking. Complexity breeds order which is then overturned or otherwise broken (this 'anarchy'). The Old Testament is filled with narratives of this dance of order and anarchy (e.g. think the battle of succession post Solomon).
Two comments: first the drift leftward.
As institutions are a link between past and future, and as they grow in complexity, there is a necessary concern for how the institution relates to what's next, the future. The concern is how does the institution react to the new, noting how the new conditions also mean that some old assumptions are changed (at leas in the society at large). So the necessary future orientation means some shifting of the old and known which in a defensive or polarized culture will look like defection, aka a "drift leftward."
Second, it might be useful to bring into consideration the questions of anarchy and order that dominate international relations thinking. Complexity breeds order which is then overturned or otherwise broken (this 'anarchy'). The Old Testament is filled with narratives of this dance of order and anarchy (e.g. think the battle of succession post Solomon).