Voices for Global Democracy

Those who see Globalisation as a potential force for good, have been for some time being turning their attentions as to how best to shape it and more importantly how to democratise it in order to make it fairer and more accountable. These include voices who have in the past been either instrumental in working for some of the institutions most closely associated with it as well as those who are against the process of Globalisation entirely.

Professor Joseph Stiglitz left academia to join the US Administration under Bill Clinton before joining the World Bank and becoming it's Chief Economist. A pragmatist and supporter of what he thinks globalisation can achieve for the World’s poor, Professor Stiglitz is however acutely aware of globalisations misuse and its often undemocratic methods. In is latest book ‘Making Globalization Work’, Stiglitz argues for the fundamental reform of Globalisation. He writes that unlike capitalism we have yet to learn how to temper Globalisation and as such though it has seen successes in reducing global poverty, the picture is often one of where one actor gains at the others lose.

His book proposes that the World should begin to democratise globalisation. In his arguement for this Stiglitz draws the reader’s attention to the vast unfairness of the current global trade apparatus. He argues that the system is virtually entirely based around the United States and that’s where the principle problem lies.

As the World becomes more interconnected we need more interconnected solutions to its problems, and now according to Professor Stiglitz more and more people within the US are seeing that this is the case. They are able to see that essentially going it alone, as they did in the recent example of Iraq with the cost of countless lives and an estimated bill at the end of it exceeding an astonishing $3 Trillion is not in the end to the US national benefit. Partly funding this was meant the US last year borrowed an astonishing $850 Billion, much of this coming ironically from their nearest rival the Chinese.

Stiglitz points out that supporters of Globalisation look towards China, where 300,000 people have been lifted from extreme poverty. He though weighs that against Africa, where arguably globalisation and the influence of China has had a very negative effect. China’s growth wouldn’t have been possible without globalisation; its exports to the Developed World have enabled it to grow at a fast rate. India too is largely benefiting from its status as a vast labour and manufacturing pool. Latin America on the other hand has suffered. This is largely due to the adoption thus far by those who promote globalisation of a set of policies known as the ‘Washington Consensus’.

The ‘Washington Consensus’ is so called because the US Treasury, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are located only a few blocks away from one another in central Washington DC. It is recognised that successive US administrations wield a high degree of influence over the policies of the World Bank and the IMF putting the US into an unassailable group that Professor Stiglitz refers to as the ‘G1’. The controversial appointment of Paul Wolfowitz in 2005 as head of the World Bank showed the continuing control Washington has over the Institution. Widely seen as one of the architects of the Iraq War, Wolfowitz was not seen as sufficiently independent of the US administration and not capable of understanding all the changes facing the institution.

One of the main principles as practiced by the Washington Consensus is that of fiscal austerity. Stiglitz argues that adherence to the policies of this ‘cartel’ controlling global economic practice in the American Capital has set back many developing economies for many years. This has given rise to mistrust of the US throughout much of the developing world, especially in Latin America. Stiglitz recognises that though he thinks the intentions of the IMF and others were good, there was a fundamental misunderstanding whilst dealing with these economies. He points in his book to the example of Ethiopia, where the IMF on getting involved claimed that the country’s financial books were basically not balanced. This was due to the IMF not including Foreign Aid received by the Ethiopian government in its estimations. Stiglitz on seeing this himself knew that this didn’t make sense, after all foreign aid was given to spend and Ethiopia spent the money accordingly. The austerity imposed by the IMF resulted in no money being available and therefore no expenditure on schools and improving other basic services.

The IMF’s belief in trade barriers comes into criticism too. The institution according to Stiglitz had little idea of how to create jobs once many had been lost due to the bringing down of trade barriers. It focused on the negative of opening up to subsidised goods. Farmers for example in the Developing World could of competed against farmers in the West but not against the rules coming from Brussels and Washington. The irony being that many of the countries in the West were able to develop to the extent they had by exploiting trade barriers. The IMF was now saying to countries, regardless of your state of Development that the liberalisation of trade was paramount. It is, as Stiglitz points out in the book far easier to destroy jobs than to create them.

The crux of globalisation today is that money, products and information are able to flow around the globe with a rapidity not witnessed before in history. Likewise nation states and peoples of the world are more interdependent and reliant on each other like never before. This includes the US, where because of ventures like the war in Iraq the US, but more importantly its people are realising that it will be wiser in the future to delegate to Institutions such as the United Nations in order to succeed. The UN particularly cannot afford to be undermined in the way that it was before the Iraq war. It may have come to the right conclusion but the political workings of it meant that in effect it was overruled by the United States.

A more powerful UN with an effective global law making branch would, Stiglitz argues lead to a more democratic development process around the world. Though people still identify most strongly with the nation state, there is increasing empathy with people from across borders. This is down to globalisation and a gradual coming together of people in many circumstances, business, travel and broader and faster communications. The shock of the Boxing Day Tsunami in 2004 was an example of the World coming together.

However it is unclear whether Stiglitz univocally supports a global government in the way that the environmentalist George Monbiot does for example. In his book ‘The age of consent’, Monbiot makes powerful arguments for global governance to counter the ‘rich few’ and from his perspective for the sake of the environment. Stiglitz is less revolutionary.

The problems of mismanagement and corruption as found in the Developing World have in many cases seeds in the Developed World. It is true that there are other complex endemic problems found in many countries that a more democratic way of providing development aid can address far better than the current consensus. Stiglitz’s main message in his book and Monbiot in his is that if we continue to make the rules of the game harder the most vulnerable economies of the world will continue to find it harder to develop and the only result the West will have will be the resentment felt by the worlds poorest towards it failed efforts.

As Monbiot writes; "Everything has been globalised, except our consent".


Links & Resources:

Economist's View - Blog review of 'Making Globalization Work'

George Monbiot - Homepage

Joseph Stiglitz - Homepage

Hii Dunia - Articles on Global Democracy; 1,2,3 & 4

Dangers of NGO involvement in Global decision making

Hii Dunia has carried numerous articles on global governance and the role of civil society in shaping it. Here with reference to an article written by Jan Aart Scholte, Hii Dunia explores some of the dangers to democracy that NGO involvement can have in global decision making.

There are notable dangers for civil society's encounters with global governance. Jan Aart Scholte writing in a paper for the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation in 2001 identified some of these and importantly argued that there is a danger that civil society can actually detract from democratic governance and that it can in cases obstruct popular rule.

Jan Aart Scholte amoung others argue that civil societies, NGO’s and other international organisations do not as a rule have the promotion of democracy on their agenda. His inclusion to accommodate the extremes such as Neo-Fascists and groups such as Hamas is a point also argued by Thomas Carothers writing in Foreign Policy who believes that civil societies do not inherently represent the public good, for if you are including everything non-governmental then organisations such as even the Russian mafia must also be involved .

It is important to presume however that only organisations with a democratic agenda would play any kind of role in global governance, at least through such organisations such as the UN and the World Bank who have broadly democratic constitutions.

Global democracy may also suffer if the interventions of civil society are ill-conceived. This may be an unintentional consequence of going global but many NGO’s need to go international to address their local issues. This can have both a negative effect on them and the international organisation they are working with.

Jan Aart Sholte also identified that democracy might suffer when the agencies of global governance are ill-equipped to handle inputs from civil society. Both the United Nations and the IMF have in recent years made provision for increased numbers of NGO’s to participate in their forums, though it can be argued that this response and the response of other international organisations has been re-active rather than pro-active.

The danger that civil society may get too close to government and its agencies must also be taken into consideration. For example civic groups may come uncritically to render services to governments agencies or take funds from them. The reliance of many NGO’s for state funding some fear also diminishes their independence. This has the danger of causing ‘mission blur’ where perhaps organisations will ‘cross over’ to work with organisations they had previously challenged. Government control, according to some remains ultimate. Ann Marie Clark writting in 1998 affirming this view wrote that;

“Governments are standing firm in their claims to ultimate sovereignty over the issues that seem to most affect their ability to control the distribution of power and resources whether at home or abroad.”

A further danger is that if a NGO suffers from inadequate representation then those inequalities it then risks passing on to governments and government agencies. Jan Aart Scholte wrote that “The capacities of civil society to advance democracy in global governance can be compromised if the participants are – as is currently often the case – drawn disproportionately from middle classes, men, Northern countries, whites, Christians, and urban dwellers.”

Another problem related to representation is that civil society in the south and in former communist countries becomes monopolized by Western-styled and funded NGO’s. Grassroots circles may then become unintentionally marginalised. This fear of a ‘Northern monopoly’ is not new in development. However to the extent to which development has become an industry funded by Northern governments through NGO’s has yet to be fully assessed. There is what many view as a growing corporate manner about some international NGO’s and a market which sustains the growth and contributes to the spread of global governance. This has lead in parts to disillusionment with aspects of civil society.

Scholte’s final point is that civil society groups can have low democracy criteria even within their own groups and even if their purpose is to campaign for democracy. They may purport to speak on behalf of certain constituencies but not consult them.

As Scholte’s points above help to illustrate, there are circumstances whereby the involvement of civil society in global governance can detract from democracy and the effectiveness of the civil society itself. Therefore many argue that it is important for international NGO’s in particular to demonstrate and prove their democratic legitimacy and not allow themselves to become too closely aligned to national governments or in some cases international organisations such as the World Bank.

It is perhaps then to the European Union with its 'realist' state centric approach that the negative effects of NGO involvement in supra state activity can be countered. Its strong democratic credentials and the desire of many countries to join and to adhrere to its 'club laws' that ultimately set it apart in the 'realist view' from the United Nations and its falibilities, including at times negative NGO involvement.

It is this model of forged in Brussels and based upon European values of social mobility, social security and confronting possible foes with incentives to change and the rule of law that gives the world through the establishment of similar regional blocs the ability to move towards democractic global governance.


Links & Resources:

Journal of Peace Research - Article by Scott Turner assessing the emergence of global governance (Requires academic access)

Mark Leonard - Homepage of Mark Leonard, writer and Director of Foreign Policy at the Centre for European Reform. His books include 'Why Europe will run the 21st Century'.

The University of Edinburgh - Profile of Jan Aart Scholte

World Politics - Article by Ann Marie Clark et al - 'The Sovereign Limits of Global Civil Society: A Comparison of NGO Participation in UN World Conferences on the Environment, Human Rights, and Women'. (Requires academic access)

Les Amazones de Guinée

A lot of the press for the outstanding new album by Les Amazones de Guinée has centred, perhaps understandably, on two facts; that the record, Wamato, is only the group's second in 46 years, and that the band are entirely made up of female members of the Guinean army. Those are rather extraordinary facts and too exciting to leave out of any review, but far more important is the exhilarating quality of Wamato.

The album, recorded in Mali 25 years after the band's last release, is a mesmerising demonstration of all the things that make West African dance music so pleasurable to listen to. The two guitars, first off, are wonderful, sounding as if they are perpertually engaged in a teasing dance, dipping in and out, spinning complimentary riffs and occasionally locking into a delightful, hypnotic groove. When one or the other breaks from the simple licks to revel in an impeccably-played flourish, my heart duly leaps.

The percussion is equally wonderful; crisp, driving Mande rhythms, awash with twinkling cymbals. The vocals, handled by at least three different singers, seem to touch all bases, sometimes light and melifilous, sometimes deep, twinged with regret. But the overall mood is overpoweringly positive, and both the harmonies and the call and response lines resonate with the band's self-evident joy in music.

Perhaps most impressively, the music is punctuated by gloriously powerful brass arrangements, the two saxophones delivering jazzy runs and powerful soul riffs by turn. Their gleaming presence lifts an already wonderful music several notches closer to perfection. The record only falters when the band switch to the French language on the disappointing 'Meilleurs Voeux'. Even there, however, they only get through two minutes of a faintly grisly, mournful ballad before the horns arrive and switch the song's emphasis so successfully that one immediately forgets what came before.

This slip-up aside, the whole concoction is deeply hypnotic and extraordinarily warm; an engaging pop record with a thudding, affirming heart-beat. What a fantastic album.


Written by Jonathan Shipley for Assistant Blog