I am writing this from Nairobi, Kenya, where some 70 organisations are meeting to plan African mobilisation activities as part of the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (www.whiteband.org). Many of the organisations present are deeply concerned about various developments in important global governance institutions such as the United Nations and the World Bank.
For an organisation that claims to promote good governance, the current appointment process for the World Bank President is one that lacks the very basic notions of democratic practice. Understandably there has been a strong negative response both to the process by which the World Bank President is appointed as well as with regard to the appointee himself, Paul Wolfowitz. As a global governance body, which makes decisions and implements activities that affect the lives of citizens around the world, the World Bank should have an open process that competent citizens around the world should be eligible to apply. Instead, the US President has a virtual right to appoint the President of the World Bank and European countries have a similar right to appoint the head of the International Monetary Fund. This is grossly unfair, unjust, and inappropriate and undermines any claim the World Bank could make about democracy, good governance or anti-corruption.
Some of you will remember a slogan that was quite popular in the early 1980s which said: Think Globally Act Locally. What was behind this slogan was a call to organisations and citizens around the world that, irrespective of what local efforts were being undertaken to advance justice, democracy, sustainability and human rights, a greater consideration needed to be given to how global discourses, global thinking, global processes and global institutions determine what is achievable at the local and national level.
However, one of the ironies of the moment of history in which we find ourselves is that precisely at a time when many countries around the world have achieved or returned to electoral democracy, including many countries in Eastern and Central Europe, Africa and Latin America, real power is shifting from the national to the supra-national level. The reality is that even if we have national political leaders who are imbued with integrity, who strongly pursue anti-corruption agendas and are pro-poor in their orientation, the amount of progress that can be made is determined increasingly by the policies and practices of global institutions such as the World Bank. This reality means that we now also have to Think Locally and Act Globally.
Yet, these institutions are dominated by the wealthy nations of the world, and the World Bank and the IMF are governed by a virtual one dollar one vote system and is rooted in the geopolitics of 1945. Importantly, most of the citizens in the rich countries of the world are unaware of this injustice and inequality perpetrated by their governments.
Even the United Nations, which is considered by many civil society organisations as being more accessible and more democratic, is afflicted by this very same problem. Many of these institutions were set up towards the end of the Second World War. Furthermore, the formation of these institutions was driven by those countries that had nuclear power and were on the victorious side of the War. Importantly, most of the world's citizens lived under colonial bondage at that time. Yet, the rich nations of the world preach democracy on the one hand, but insist on governing these institutions as if we are frozen in the historical moment of 1945.
While, for example, the UN Security Council's five veto wielding nations might have made sense at that time, clearly it does not today. The United States, Russia and China might be able to argue that they have this right based on the size of their population. However, there is little justification for France and the United Kingdom, which are no longer colonial hegemons dominating the lives of large numbers of citizens in their former empires, to be granted this privilege and power today. The only justification, is that they are being rewarded for being holders of weapons of mass destruction.
So why start this piece about the World Bank Presidential Appointment and then talk about the UN? Firstly, developing countries and their citizens are shut out of real decision making power from all global institutions which clearly do not have a democratic mandate. Secondly, the response from certain powerful European governments, and the European Union as a whole, who oppose the nominee but have said nothing about the process of the appointment, have been subdued because of their ambitions to formally support Wolfowitz in an attempt to buy the support of the United States to try to secure a permanent seat on the Security Council.
While it might be late, there is still time for us to express our disgust to our respective governments, the current Board of the World Bank and to raise our opposition to the process of the appointment and the nominee himself who has actively undermined multilateralism as the chief architect of the Iraq invasion which the UN Secretary General has declared as being illegal and a violation of international law.
As we have said on previous occasions, the struggle for civil society is that these institutions are terribly powerful realities that we are often moved to engage with to ensure that we limit the damage they cause or to eke out whatever incremental positive change we can from them. While they are failing citizens from both rich and poor countries, they are also undermining democracy in an era where global policy making, particularly in the economic sphere, has huge impacts on the lives of ordinary people.
As I write this, CNN reports that the European Union has decided to endorse Paul Wolfowitz. A formal decision will be taken by the Executive Directors of the World Bank, possibly on 31 March, which is dominated by the United States and several European governments. There are many signatures on letters that have been promoted by organisations such as the Bretton Woods Project and others, expressing anger and concern with this development. If you have not yet signed on, please do give this consideration. Alternatively, feel free to address such concerns with your governments, the current board members of the World Bank and the European Union. Of course, a transparent, equitable, and accessible process in appointing the World Bank President who has to be a US citizen or, as was the case with James Wolfensohn, would need to acquire US citizenship, does not solve our problems. The entire governance of the World Bank needs to be fundamentally reformed with developing countries having an equal say in the governance of this powerful institution.
While I know many of you will be feeling dejected about this development, take heart in knowing that if we raise our objections regarding this flagrant violation of basic democratic principles, we might lose this round of the struggle, but will be laying the basis for future struggles to democratise powerful global institutions that affect all of our lives.
Warmest regards,
Kumi Naidoo
Please send your comments and suggestions to e-mail kumi@civicus.org.
