Who sits at the high table?
Is the financial crisis too serious a matter for the poor to be even consulted?
From the World Economic Forum that brought together experts in Dubai for a summit coolly entitled “Post-crisis,” to the G8 Summit extended to G20 that has been held in Washington, it seems that the rich feel they are the only ones concerned and the only ones entitled to have their say.
Up to the very last moment, the clearly stated qualification criteria for a seat at this table, was either to be a global economic power or a newly rich player.
At some point in the future, within a still to be defined structure – probably the said “United” Nations – poor countries, or simply the poor, will merely be requested to endorse the decisions taken by rich countries in a time of crisis, or to pick up the remaining crumbs.
Thus, the UN “Financing for Development” conference taking place in Doha will most probably see budgets reduced because of the expenses now incurred elsewhere…
Where is the “balance” of powers
We have long known that the five powers that decide on war and peace within the UN Security Council are the five biggest arms dealers of the planet (China, USA, Russian Federation, France and the UK). In the same paradoxical manner, we would continue to see the countries that are the predators of most of the resources of our planet come up with the solutions to a financial crisis; decisions taken alone, but that would have far-reaching economic and social consequences for everyone. Rich countries would also be the sole decision-makers in the reform of the very Bretton Woods institutions (World Bank and International Monetary Fund) that they have so unscrupulously dominated until now, at the expense of poor and indebted countries.
Questioning the model
With the main aim of “restructuring global capitalism,” the European Union, which remains under the French presidency for a few more weeks, has missed the boat. It is one thing to force George W. Bush to denounce some of the shortcomings of financial regulation. But it is quite another to take on the multiple crises as a whole and to undermine the neo-liberal economic model.
This is a model which clearly appears now to have been putting profit before people and before the survival of a livable planet.
In theory, one will never know whether the ideology of the “free” market, if it had been applied with some fairness, would have led to a virtuous circle of democracy and alleviation of poverty, as its partisans say. But in practice, it was really used as a mask to maintain and accentuate the domination of the rich.
In the case of socialism, it might have been the quest for absolute political power which killed the model. In the case of neo-liberalism, it seems to have been the greed for absolute economic power…
Obama's helpful no-show
The surge of symbolic hope brought about by Barack Obama’s election is now combining with a feeling of injustice caused by the provision of sudden and massive aid to banks while lacking funds to meet other emergencies. But all is not lost. The shadow cast by the president-elect, remarkably absent from the special Washington summit, did significantly undermine its outcomes, and left time for other absentee voices to be heard.
Among those missing are the governments of poor countries. We often hear it is not “feasible” to have all countries around the table. Why not have the 8 or the 20 poorest nations join as well for the next “G20”planned in April 2009? Just as a try. And eventually to set a precedent for de facto reform of the current international system.
But at a time when states and governments are reappropriating a true political and regulatory role, other actors of global or local governance should also be empowered to step onto the centre stage.
This financial crisis stands for the victory of civil society's forgotten alternatives to globalisation, sad and belated though it may be. These actors have been the source of alarm signals and propositions for many years, and they were often disregarded as though the media and governments were still practicing Margaret Thatcher’s famous TINA (There Is No Alternative). Well, now we can all say that There Must be an Alternative.
The climate, energy, food and financial crisis have successively led governments and institutions to consider approaches put forward by civil society: debt cancellation, fair trade, family farming, global taxation schemes, responses to global warming, re-evaluation of growth criteria… But one can not fail to take into account that each crisis in its own way points to the same dead-end: that of the neo-liberal model; and that numerous governments will choose to remain blind to this evidence for as long as possible.
The Fourth Estate and a Fifth Crisis
And a Fifth Crisis which is facing what’s known as the Fourth Estate might not help the unfolding of the truth about the model we still live in. Like the Financial System, the Public Sphere is currently existing with very little regulations, allowing even fewer corporations around the old and new media (the Telcos and the Internet Giants-Google, Yahoo, Microsoft…-) to generate and circulate content. As of now, those entities don’t seem to have to refer to any ethical guideline or positive obligation concerning their role in society. While they seem to impress many other stakeholders, there is no guarantee that their evolution will strengthen both representative and participatory democracy. If we want to make sure the Public Sphere (as the ultimate Public Good) itself does not get polluted by the search for profit, does not treat citizens mainly as consumers, and that people’s voices can be heard, we might want to apply to them a new concept of “mental and social responsibility”.
The four crises of Climate, Poverty, Resources and Credit will not be solved without us also averting the crisis of the Fourth estate. In its ideals, neo-liberalism sought freedom and decentralisation while socialism, in its ideals, sought equality and legitimacy. The only possible reconciliation is through an inclusive public realm.
Multipolar/Multistakeholder?
The multilateral, global, and multipolar drive being led by Obama will in no way suffice to change the course of things. A truly multi-stakeholder – in other words, more open - world would be necessary. The number of organized actors – NGOs, associations, trade unions, private sector, local authorities – that are knocking on the door of the system is rapidly increasing. In many ways, they are mobilizing around this misguided G20 process, for the time being discreetly. The timid G20 summit will have served more than anything else to amplify the scandal and crystallise the symbols of the end of an era, thus permitting non-state actors to come together as stakeholders of a new phase of globalisation…
The World Social Forum's Moment?
As of now, we are not seeing such a dynamic emerging from the different components of civil society. Between the moderates and the radicals, the grassroots organizations and the “gatekeepers”, the thematic global coalitions and the national platforms, between the remains of the “political left” and the spontaneous youth, it is not yet clear what type of unity is possible.
Looking at a calendar of events, the World Social Forum could provide a momentum and a space, if it does not get lost from public sight in Amazonia (where it’s going to be held at the end of January 2009).
But the key question is a strategic one. There will, of course, be a need to agree to disagree on tactics; to accept that some will put pressure or even “lobby” with the Washington process, with the new American administration or with institutions and governments while others will focus on exerting external pressure or even on designing an autonomous way more in tune with people’s hopes, demands and needs.
Hopefully, this will happen fast and be highly visible, so that all the real or potential victims of the crises can have new symbols in which they can believe, and most importantly so that they can participate actively in processes in which everyone – up to Gandhi’s “last man” - will have a say.
Links
- -600 civil society organisations have signed a joint text (http://www.choike.org/bw2/index.html) in protest against the Washington Summit process.
- GCAP (Global Call for Action Against Poverty), which mobilised 116 million people in 131 countries on October 17th, has just brought together 25 NGO national platforms.
- Trade Union leaders from the G20 countries presented a global plan to boost the world economy at meetings with G20 leaders in Washington on November 14th.
- Bridge Initiative International has launched a facilitation effort on: http://o-change.org/nov15
