Click here for search results

Presidential Lecture by Dr. Kumi Naidoo

  Civil Society, Governance and Globalisation

World Bank Presidential Fellows Lecture

Dr. Kumi Naidoo
Secretary General & CEO
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation

Presented at the World Bank headquarters in Washington, DC, 10 February 2003
(the actual Lecture can be viewed on Bank's B-SPAN site)
(complete text of the lecture follows)

I. Introduction

Thank you, President Wolfensohn, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, its members, and civil society partners around the world, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address you and to share some ideas regarding three of the biggest issues presently facing humanity: globalisation, governance and the role of civil society. [1]

If someone had told me a decade ago, when I was working as a grassroots activist in South Africa, that I'd one day be invited to address the World Bank, I would have scoffed at them in disbelief. I would have been equally surprised if someone had suggested that one of the most inspirational figures in our liberation movement, Mamphela Ramphele, would be one of the managing directors of the World Bank during this time. So when I received the invitation to deliver a Presidential Fellows Lecture, I was somewhat astonished but also excited by the opportunity it presented.

My colleagues at CIVICUS must have noticed my nervousness as I started to prepare my comments, since a few days ago I received a memo that contained some words of advice. In the spirit of transparency, I thought I should summarise for you some of the points from that memo.

    1.  Bear in mind there are mixed feelings about civil society engagement with the World Bank, both within civil society and inside the Bank itself. There is scepticism on both sides about the costs, effectiveness and rationale for engagement.
    2.  A lot of people within civil society will be waiting to see what you say: your speech needs to reflect the views of a broad range of organisations and networks which have provided input.
    3.  Be careful about acronyms and civil society jargon. Internal civil society language like 'indigenous resource mobilisation strategies', 'horizontal and vertical accountability' and '501(c)(3)s' may turn off your audience. If you think you're losing them, toss in some references to PRSPs, HIPCs and LICUS and hopefully they'll be drawn back in.
    4.  Stay away from jokes, stick to your notes and think about wearing a suit and tie instead of your favorite African shirt.
    5.  Finally, keep in mind your experience at Davos last month. Along with several other civil society groups, you took part in plenary panels and discussions inside the meeting, but also joined the demonstrations outside on the streets. You need to adopt the same approach at the Bank – our role has to be one of both constructive engagement from within and support for peaceful dissent from without. Good luck!!!


II. Problematising Globalisation

This last point actually provides a good starting point for my comments today. CIVICUS, along with several other civil society organisations, was in the somewhat unusual position of attending both the World Social Forum and the World Economic Forum last month. I say unusual, because the two events are often presented as completely antithetical to one another. Indeed, on the surface at least, they are strikingly different types of gatherings and many question how it is possible to engage with both processes. Yet at a basic level, both of these annual global meetings are grappling with three of the key issues of our day – namely globalisation and its manifold effects, the meaning and role of civil society and citizen participation, and challenges to effective governance at local, national and global levels.

In many ways, the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre can be understood as both a product of globalisation – and as its very embodiment. It is the much-discussed phenomenon of globalisation which provides the impetus for the WSF – and for the hundreds of similar events at the regional and national level that have been convened over the past several years. What has erroneously been called the 'anti-globalisation' movement is ironically one of the most globalised movements of our time. Globalisation has drawn the people of the world into closer proximity with one another; it has intensified contact between them; lowered many – but by far not all – types of barriers to the movement of goods, ideas, technology and cultural products; and accelerated the pace at which information is shared.

It is the more benign aspects of globalisation that have made possible gatherings like the WSF, where tens of thousands of people from scores of countries organise themselves to descend upon a chosen destination at a given time, using email and the Internet to coordinate everything from the programme schedule and travel arrangements, to the advance exchange of discussion papers.

Yet it is other aspects of globalisation which motivate these meetings to be called in the first place – it is the harsh contradictions of globalisation, its unevenness, its sheer cruelness that is driving people to join forces in collective efforts to discuss and debate ways to harness the forces of globalisation for the common good. These critiques of globalisation are now well known:


    • Globalisation is exacerbating global inequality, and its 'rules' – to the extent we can call them that – appear to be driven by the rich at the expense of the poor. The relentless lauding of so-called 'free trade' in fact masks a set of double standards that protect certain markets in wealthy countries and deny poor and developing countries the chance to benefit from the most promising segments of their own economies.
    • Globalisation, and the forces driving it, is throwing up a set of intractable challenges that brazenly cross national borders and which, by their very definition, defy national-level solutions. The spread of environmental degradation, HIV/AIDS, human trafficking, the drug trade and terrorism are all enabled by globalisation.
    • At the same time, the momentum toward economic, political and cultural integration weakens the ability of national governments to take actions in the national interest. Globalisation is having a impact upon the role of elected representative institutions at the national level and is elevating powerful new actors, such as supranational governing institutions and transnational corporations. Local control over decision-making is rapidly shifting upwards to structures and processes that are not accountable to ordinary citizens.

Another contradiction of globalisation can be seen in the curtailment, particularly post-September 11, of what we might call 'international civic mobility.' As an African, travelling on an African passport and working at the global level, I often muse that if I were to write a book about my tenure at my current job, it would be called Visas, Bloody Visas. While cheaper travel has increased the movement of many, there has never before been the level of legal restriction on the movements of people from poor countries to rich countries, unless they have distinctive skills that the developed economies need.

Arguments about globalisation tend to occur in extreme terms – globalisation is often presented as either 'all good' and full of promise for a better future, on one hand, or as irreparably flawed and diabolical, on the other. John Clark, in his forthcoming book Worlds Apart: Civil Society and the Battle for Ethical Globalisation, refers to these two camps as the 'agony school' and the 'ecstasy school.' Yet globalisation is too complex and multi-faceted to be boiled down to a caricature. Independent surveys [2] conducted in Northern and Southern countries over the last two years reveal that citizens are ambivalent about globalisation: they hold generally favourable opinions about globalisation and global integration, yet they are highly anxious about growing inequality and the loss of local control. They are concerned about non-economic dimensions of globalisation as well, such as threats to local culture and the disappearance of indigenous languages.

The grassroots action we have been witnessing on the streets of Porto Alegre, in cyberspace, outside the headquarters of the World Bank and IMF, and on the roads and railways to Davos is emerging in direct response to a perception that, increasingly, important decisions affecting people's lives and well-being are being made in non-transparent ways in supranational institutions that are not accountable to citizens and not accessible to citizen engagement. Decisions about trade rules, intellectual property rights, macro-economic restructuring policies, privatisation of vital public services, and debt relief are made behind closed doors in ways that are largely perceived to be undemocratic.

It is against this backdrop that the notion of 'civil society' has re-entered mainstream discourse. Civil society is, of course, not a new concept, but it is one that has been re-discovered over the past decade with this rise in citizen activism. Unfortunately, in the media and in the minds of some people, views about civil society as a whole are often framed by the actions of its 'un-civil' elements – groups who espouse violence and destruction, or who pursue racist or exclusionary goals. Activists are often portrayed as 'radicals' who are not interested in dialogue.

I want to dispel this image. What the World Social Forum and recent global civil society gatherings have come to represent for many people around the world are spaces where the voices of average citizens 'count' in discussions around social, political and economic justice. They are venues where people and groups who feel increasingly alienated from the prevailing global system can join together to explore alternative visions for a more ethical form of globalisation that works for the benefit of average people, rather than simply for the benefit of powerful interests.

III. Civil Society in the Context of Globalisation

Attempts to define civil society are often contested, but one way to think of it is in terms of activities that are undertaken for the public good by groups or individuals in the space between the family, the state, and the market. This means that we must look today not only at non-governmental organisations (NGOs) – often taken as synonymous with civil society – but also at a rich array of heterogeneous civic elements that includes trade unions, foundations, faith-based and religious groups, community-based organisations, social movements and networks, and ordinary citizens who are active in the public sphere.

It is often said that civil society burst onto the public stage at the Earth Summit in 1992. When the thousands of citizens who attended the Earth Summit left Rio, they did so with much optimism and a belief that an historical watershed had been achieved. In a way they were right: Rio was the first major conference where 'civil society' became a prominent player at the global level. Since the Earth Summit, civil society has come into its own as an important political, social and economic actor. The last decade has witnessed a dramatic growth in the number of citizen groups, as well as in their capacity, scope, reach, public profile and influence. This 'global associational revolution,' as it has been called, is being driven by the same forces that are producing globalisation – democratisation, the spread of new technologies, and global integration of various forms – but it is also reacting to many of the effects of globalisation that I mentioned above.

Historically much of the work of civil society organisations, or CSOs, has occurred at a micro level, where they are involved in providing important services to vulnerable communities in areas as diverse as health care, education and professional training, legal advice, humanitarian relief, women's empowerment, technical assistance in agriculture and environmental protection, and so on. Civil society groups have often stepped into the uneasy vacuum of post-conflict situations and have compensated for the state – not uncontroversially – in the growing number of instances where vital public services have been rolled back due to macro-economic reforms.

Increasingly, however, civil society groups have recognised the need to rethink the well-known slogan 'think globally, but act locally.' Experience has shown that, in and of itself, acting locally will not get to the root causes of many social and economic problems – if the real locus of power is global, then there is a need to 'think locally and act globally' as well. A growing number of CSOs have become actively engaged in advocacy work, campaigning, and policy-making. Public campaigns on issues such as landmines, debt relief and the international criminal court have had a definable impact.

As civil society has matured, its credibility with outside audiences has grown. Many governments seek to harness the expertise and local knowledge of civil society groups in policy-making. High-profile civil society groups, particularly those working around environmental issues, have developed a certain 'brand recognition'; their endorsements or criticisms of business practices, for example, carry weight with the public and have become an important force with which the private sector must reckon. Perhaps most importantly, civil society groups generally enjoy a high level of public trust – in fact, a recent survey revealed that, among 17 institutions ranging from national governments to educational systems to media and the legal system, NGOs are the institution most trusted by average citizens after their country's armed forces. [3]

IV. The Challenges Facing Civil Society

Accordingly, civil society is attracting a new level of scrutiny in its role as a major public actor. It is being forced to grapple with both external and internal challenges, from those who are seeking to make civil society stronger and more credible, as well as from those who question its right to play certain roles. I would like to touch briefly upon five of these challenges.

The first is a challenge of power and power imbalances within civil society. The sector is vibrant and extremely diverse. It encompasses both major transnational NGOs with multi-million dollar operating budgets and tiny citizen-based organisations with highly constrained resources, access to information and capacity. It embraces highly structured groups such as trade unions alongside loose issue-based social movements. While this diversity adds to the sector's richness, it also throws up fundamental questions about whose voices are heard and in which venues, how resources are accessed and distributed, and who is speaking for whom.

The second challenge internal to civil society is about bridging narrow interests and broader goals. Many civil society actors are committed to advancing a specific issue, whether this involves protecting rainforests, promoting fair labour practices, or advancing women's rights. While recent civil society activity has been noteworthy for the alliances that have been formed among groups with different areas of interest, there remains a type of 'silo mentality' which prevents CSOs from working across areas of speciality, toward common goals.

For example, dialogue between human rights organisations and development organisations has historically been weak and many potentially productive synergies have evaded us. With many human rights organisations now embracing social and economic rights, and with many development organisations adopting a rights-based approach to their work, it is an opportune time to bridge this divide. The dichotomy between the world of volunteering (defined as the provision of direct services to communities in need) and the world of social activism (defined as those that are more concerned with structural and policy changes) remains a challenge. We also need to create an environment where, for example, NGOs rise to defend workers' rights of association in cases where trade union rights are threatened, and where trade unions vocally defend the rights of NGOs.

A third internal challenge for civil society is to articulate a coherent vision for a more just and equitable global system. One of the frequent criticisms of the so-called 'anti-globalisation' movement, is that it is against everything imaginable, but not for anything discernible. Although many within the movement are working proactively for social and economic justice, civil society is challenged to move beyond debate and ad hoc mobilisations and to formulate a strategy for achieving its vision. The core issue, however, may not be an absence of alternative visions, but rather the fact that the world's powerful governments appear unwilling to engage with these alternatives. As an example, the 2001 study produced by Third World Network for the UNDP, entitled The Multilateral Trading System: A Development Perspective, provides a detailed set of recommendations for transforming the international trade system into an instrument for balanced and equitable human development. Yet because they seek to redress power imbalances, such visions are often rejected out of hand.

The fourth challenge is one that emanates from outside civil society. The allegation is made that citizen activism threatens to undermine democratic systems by 'short-circuiting' established procedures for decision-making. This is a critique that we in civil society vehemently reject. An active, engaged citizenry is essential for a healthy democratic society. We must resist the notion that elections equal democracy, that a victory at the ballot box is a blank check to rule without any interface and dialogue with citizens in between election periods. To reduce democracy to the singular act of voting once every four or five years is clearly an error. Civic activism complements democratic practices and makes them more effective by drawing citizens more fully into public life and providing a constant check on official accountability.

Clearly, it does not make sense for political leaders to deprive themselves of the policy knowledge that civil society actors acquire from working directly with vulnerable communities. Who better to inform the drafting of a domestic violence law than women who work with survivors of such violence? Who better to inform the drafting of an adult literacy strategy than those that work day in and day out with adult learners in our communities? Who better to help craft a rural or urban development strategy than those working on the ground addressing these issues? Engagement with citizen voices leads to more effective policies that better address the concerns of primary and secondary stakeholders, that integrate innovative ideas and knowledge from the local level, and that result in greater impact and ownership within communities.

The fifth challenge is perhaps the most complex of all, and is heard both inside and outside civil society. Here I am referring to the challenge of legitimacy, and the related issues of transparency, representation and accountability.

Challenges to civil society's legitimacy come from many quarters. They are often voiced by national political leaders, and occasionally by prominent voices at global institutions. It is frequently said that civil society groups don't represent the views of anyone but themselves and that if they are accountable at all, it is usually 'upward' to their funders, rather than 'downward' to those they purportedly serve. Those that offer this critique sometimes evoke a range of derogatory acronyms to describe certain kinds of wannabe NGOs: BONGOs (business-organised NGOs), PONGOs (politically-organised NGOs), BRINGOs (Briefcase NGOS), DONGOs (donor-organised NGOs), GONGOs (government-organised NGOs) MONGOs (My own NGO), and RONGOs (royally-organised NGOs).

At the 2002 World Economic Forum, the then-Director General of the WTO, Mike Moore, said in a session that the WTO was only willing to engage with those civil society groups that operated in a transparent fashion, demonstrated accountability, and which were elected on the basis of a defined constituency. These are commendable criteria, and if the WTO applied this criteria rigorously to its member governments, WTO membership would be significantly smaller. Issues of legitimacy run both ways. When tens of thousands of citizens demonstrate against international institutions such as the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank in Seattle, Prague, Washington, Buenos Aires, Barcelona or Johannesburg, one has to wonder where the legitimacy of official institutions ends and civil society's begins.

Legitimacy cannot be taken for granted and must continuously be earned. And civil society groups are taking up this challenge head-on. Self-regulation mechanisms such as codes of ethics and standards of excellence have been adopted at the national level by civil society in several countries; a culture of transparency in governance structures is also gaining strength across the sector. Civil society groups work to derive mandates and legitimacy for their activities through extensive consultative processes.

There is also a powerful accountability factor at play with the functioning of CSOs, which I call the principle of 'perform or perish.' Not a single cent secured to undertake CSO activities is secured on the basis of obligation. Whether funding is derived from a government department, individual, foundation, business organisation or multi-lateral institution, resources will not continue to be available if civic organisations are not performing on the basis of their vision, mission and objectives. Most governments and inter-governmental organisations, to a lesser extent, are guaranteed a revenue flow from taxation or from countries' annual member contributions, even if performance is mediocre or substandard.

I would like to underscore, therefore, that the issue of civil society legitimacy is a valid one – particularly when it is voiced with an eye to building up the long-term credibility and effectiveness of civil society as an actor. All too frequently, however, the critique is lodged by those who would dismiss the right of civil society groups to give voice to citizen concerns and to engage in decision-making processes.

V. Civil Society, the Crisis of Governance and the 'Democracy Deficit'


This view that government has a monopoly on truth and wisdom, I'm afraid, reflects an outdated notion of governance – one that sees it as the exclusive domain of governments. In the case of electoral systems, governance occurred through a system of representative democracy where citizens delegated votes to individuals who would represent them and leaders who would take decisions on their behalf.

It is rapidly becoming a truism that this old notion of governance is breaking down in an era of globalisation and with the emergence of a devastating 'democracy deficit' in several local and national contexts, and certainly at the global level. Surveys reveal declining levels of citizen trust in political institutions. In many democratic systems 'form' has largely overtaken the 'substance' of democracy: elections may be held, but fewer and fewer people are choosing to vote and the meaningful interface between citizens and the elected is minimal between election periods. Affiliation with traditional political parties is on the decline as the parties themselves are characterised by a lack of internal democracy or fail to address issues that citizens believe are important. The influence of monied interests in many political systems is also turning citizens away from traditional engagement in favour of new forms of participation.

Although faith in traditional political institutions is waning, this should not be taken as a sign of citizen apathy. On the contrary, people are finding new and more direct ways to get involved in public life and decision-making – marking a shift from representative democracy to what is often called participatory democracy. Citizens are arguing for a new notion of governance that requires political leadership to engage with citizenry in ways that allow for ongoing input into decision-making and policy formation.

These new models take many forms, ranging from concerted attempts to build public-private partnerships to the establishment of transparency and oversight mechanisms which allow civil society groups to play quasi-regulatory or watchdog functions. The Social Watch network based in Uruguay is an excellent example of how civil society groups have taken the initiative to monitor progress on international commitments and to report publicly on findings. This type of public accountability mechanism is now widely regarded as an essential part of good governance.

Finally, civil society groups are slowly carving out a more active role in actual decision-making processes, as witnessed in their direct participation over the last decade in UN conferences with some national governments including civil society participants in their delegations. Certain innovative international commissions involve civil society groups as equal stakeholders in policy-making, rather than in an after-the-fact consultative role.

While the space for civic participation in the global policy-making environment is growing, however, the overall picture overwhelmingly remains one where citizen voices are marginalised or are belatedly solicited after key decisions have been taken. Some key examples:

    • The constrained status of CSO engagement can be seen in the case of the Millennium Development Goals, perhaps the most important and ambitious development initiative of our time. Although hundreds of CSOs actively campaign around the issues that have been targeted in the MDGs, there was no significant role for civil society in the development of these goals. Civil society engagement in their implementation will be conditional on a country by country process of national-level goal-setting that will take place long after the overall campaign has been conceptualised and structured. If the Millennium Goals are to be achieved, ordinary citizens around the world must feel a true sense of ownership and must be willing to campaign to hold their governments accountable to them. This can only happen if the MDGs are 'owned' by the people and not appropriated by elements of the international system. Yes, we need the determined commitment and active backing of the multilateral institutions, but this must be done in such a way that the MDG campaign does not come to be seen solely as the UNDP's or World Bank's 'baby,' since this will alienate large segments of civil society, as well as many national governments.
    • If we were to ask ourselves to name the single most important act that a national government engages in annually, we would most probably agree that it is drawing up the national budget. In analysing budgets, we can see the extent to which a government values children, gender equality, older people, education and so forth. However, when we look at the level of influence that parliamentarians have in the budgeting process, let alone that of civil society, it is frighteningly minimal in many systems of governance. What does this say therefore about the quality of governance and the strength of democracy?
    • If we reflect on the current position taken by certain governments with regard to the situation in Iraq, we find clear instances where governments are blatantly disregarding the views of their backbench MPs, ignoring the views of their citizenry and, in some cases, crassly manipulating arguments and supposed 'evidence' to support a military intervention that could provoke a devastating humanitarian crisis and that threatens to polarise the world's peoples even further.

To understand the voicelessness that so many citizens feel, we perhaps need to look more deeply at the discourse around social exclusion. In the coming decades humanity should judge itself not on the basis of the progress made by the most privileged sections, but on the basis of the progress made by those that have been historically marginalised. This includes not only uncontested minority communities, such as people living with HIV/AIDS, people with disabilities, racial, ethnic, religious and cultural minorities, indigenous peoples, people with alternative sexual orientations, people who are not literate and so on. It also should include constituencies not often thought of as minorities per se.

Young people are becoming increasingly alienated from public life. On my continent, given the decimation being caused by HIV/AIDS and the fundamental impact it is having on our demography, in very real ways young people are not simply the leaders of tomorrow, but are the leaders of today as well. We must also consider older people and take note of the levels of alienation they feel and the fact that we deprive ourselves of their experiential wisdom. We must acknowledge the scandalous fact that, after decades of activism for full gender equality, women still occupy on average less than 10% of leadership positions in government and business. What does it say about the quality of our democracy when women are so heavily under-represented even in long-standing democratic countries, let alone in those that are fledgling democracies? When we add this all up, it becomes increasingly difficult to deny that democratic voice does not prevail in public life and that we are facing a serious 'democracy deficit' on multiple levels.

We do not suggest that civil society is intrinsically good and that governments are intrinsically bad. That is far too simplistic a position to take. However, we need to recognise that effective democracy needs a vibrant civil society as well as an effective and accountable government. Both face struggles of accountability, but they bring a vital diversity to governance and provide complementarity and mutual accountability systems. We can anticipate that this arena will always be contested – but this should strengthen democratic practice, rather than weaken it.

VI. Democratising Global Institutions and Governance


Given the shift of power from national to global levels, it has become a critical priority for civil society to be engaging at a global level, yet it is here that the 'democracy deficit' is felt most strongly. Many of the global institutions that have become increasingly powerful in our current age were constructed at a particular moment in world history that is a far cry from the context in which we currently find ourselves. The geopolitics of 1945 continue to dominate the governance structures of key institutions, even at this point well into the post-colonial era. We need to concede that many of these public institutions appear to be operating under rules and logic that are not in keeping with the realities that citizens confront around the world today.

The World Bank probably leads its peers in terms of its openness to engagement with stakeholders, including civil society. Participatory approaches to development have been integrated into many of the Bank's operational policies and the Bank has undertaken major staffing commitments that support the demands for broader engagement with civil society in both its country offices and international headquarters.

These efforts have not gone unnoticed and I want to commend you for them. However I would be remiss if I did not underscore how much still remains to be done. You will certainly be aware of the external challenges to your legitimacy, in much the same way that we in civil society are aware of challenges to our role.

    • Citizen groups point to a continued lack of transparency in terms of information disclosure, accountability to the global public, and governance structures that are not based on democratic principles.
    • Issue-based campaigning groups note a gap between 'rhetoric' and 'reality' in terms of an institutional promise to end poverty and policies that continue to be driven by the largely discredited neo-liberal Washington Consensus, despite the myth of its demise. Civic groups argue that these policies have shown themselves to be bankrupt and largely ineffective and that the Bank should own up to this more honestly and engage more robustly with alternative proposals being put forth by civil society. Instead, we continue to witness the extension of market principles into more and more realms and a stubborn reluctance to rethink the TINA ('There Is No Alternative') principle. Incidentally, in my part of the world, there is a Zulu name, THEMBA, which means hope. We use this to remind ourselves that 'There Must Be An Alternative.'
    • There is frustration on the part of many civil society groups over the Bank's reluctance to 'move with the times' and to introduce a rights-based approach to its operations. Women's rights organisations cite the Bank's limited efforts to mainstream gender equality into its policies and operations.
    • Civil society groups that have been part of Bank-civil society dialogues note the very uneven track record in terms of Bank-civil society engagement and the crucial difference between 'forms' of participation and the quality of contact. They would encourage the implementation of a participatory 'audit' process to assess the successes and shortcomings of engagement to date and to create new spaces for 'constructive critique,' separate from advocacy work, that are neither confrontational nor co-opted.

This challenge of finding meaningful forms of engagement cannot be overemphasised. Creating channels of access should not be confused with establishing truly participatory procedures. The Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) are a good case in point. The decision to link donor support to PRSPs is in part a response to the global changes discussed earlier, the evolving role of civil society, and the recognition of the need for greater local ownership with citizen involvement. PRSPs, however imperfect, are providing new opportunities for citizens to engage in policymaking. But in order to realise the promise of the PRSPs, the Bank, its member governments and the donor community will have to do much more to realign their processes and support and give citizen participation the weight it deserves – it shouldn't be optional, or ad hoc, or simply an add-on late in the process. It needs to be supported by capacity building for citizen groups to engage with governments and for governments to engage with civil society, through transparency, communications, supportive laws and regulations for freedom of association, and fundraising.

This is critically urgent since many civil society voices are beginning to lose faith in the PRSP processes. The director of one European development agency has noted that
    the PRSPs are supposed to be locally owned concepts and processes, but in our view this hardly ever happens effectively. Particularly, civil society is sometimes not consulted, sometimes as a last minute afterthought. In some countries, such as Bolivia, the more policy-oriented national CSOs with know how have been passed up for 'grass-roots' consultations, which has actually divided civil society and left the national NGOs being told they do not sufficiently represent 'the people'. This also meant that the more operationally focused local NGOs were an easier and less critical 'consultation partner' for the government. We believe the PRSP process in principle is excellent – but the reality is very slow, and not giving us much hope at the moment, especially if we factor issues like gender and diversity into the formula.

We cannot trivialise the complexity of meaningful participatory processes. Naturally, these processes generate thorny issues, such as the availability of financial and time resources, choices about participants, and the overall transparency of the processes themselves. However, as James Wolfensohn has remarked: 'If we fail to allow the time to genuinely open the process to different development actors and to the poor themselves, in the design, implementation and monitoring of poverty reduction strategies we might win some immediate battles, but we'd lose the long-run war to develop the accountable institutions that are essential to poverty reduction. Drafting strategy papers in Washington that are subsequently signed off by governments in the name of the people should be a thing of the past. [4]

This high-level public commitment to participatory processes is laudable, and also needs to be mainstreamed into the many programmes the World Bank is involved in. It is encouraging to see the Bank supporting viable and innovative examples of participatory decision-making processes, such as the well-known municipal budgeting process in Porto Alegre. Yet these kinds of principles do not seem to have been internalised into decision-making processes within the Bank itself. Where are the alternatives voices, let alone the voices of the poor? In order to become an 'accountable institution that is essential to poverty reduction,' as President Wolfensohn has rightly advocated, the Bank needs to be willing to bring its own decision-making processes into line with those it is encouraging its clients to use.

Democratising individual global governance institutions such as the United Nations, World Bank, IMF and WTO is a challenge that requires serious and urgent attention. As far as the World Bank and the IMF are concerned, the UK Secretary of State for International Development has referred to certain aspects of current governance arrangements as an outrage, particularly the fact that Europe and the United States essentially control the leadership selection process. The Bank and IMF are now less dependent upon contributions from rich countries than they once were, and it is essential that their governance structures be changed radically to reflect these shifts. Admittedly, the ball here rests in the court of the rich countries that exercise a disproportionate level of influence, and there are serious questions about the political will that exists to make Bank governance more equitable. I would urge the wealthy countries who will determine whether these changes happen or not to give their serious backing to the Development Committee of the World Bank to consider some visionary proposals at the Spring Meetings in April. It would be disastrous if we lose this opportunity to deal with, amongst other things, the severe under-representation of developing countries on the board of the Bank. The World Bank is not just any ordinary bank, but a global public institution with a global mandate to help create a world free of poverty.

Thomas Jefferson, the architect of the US Constitution, once said, 'I am certainly not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and constitutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.'

It is naïve to expect that institutions constructed almost sixty years ago, in a different global context, can be made more appropriate and relevant to our age with only minor changes. We can agree with Jefferson that we do not want to take the changing of institutions too lightly, but clearly the time has come for a revamping of global governance institutions within a more visionary framework that puts the interests of people at the centre of our deliberations aimed at substantive institutional change.

Eveline Herfkens, the executive coordinator of the UN's Millennium Development Goals Campaign, former Dutch development minister and Executive Director of the World Bank, correctly contends that four key deficits must be addressed if globalisation is ever to work for the world's poor: deficits of regulation of the global economy, of democracy, of coherence among the global institutions, and of financing. These are challenges that must be met, for the alternatives are truly unthinkable.

VII. Final Thoughts

Few would contest that we are in the midst of one of the most volatile and dangerous periods of world history. New threats to our security – both natural and human-made – challenge us as never before to find common ground in pursuit of social justice and sustainable development. I would argue that, if this is to be successful in the long run, we are facing a double challenge of reinventing democracy, along the lines discussed today, and reinventing a viable, equitable and just economic system that is premised less on the imperative of crude economic growth and more on a model of economic development that marries environmental sustainability, poverty eradication and broad-based development. Failure to insert notions of justice, equity and fairness into this process will be fatal indeed.

The gap in inequality is growing, and with it, the space for dialogue and common ground may be shrinking irrevocably. The recent public assertion by none other than the UK Trade Secretary that there is an incontrovertible link between peace and prosperity, between destitution, war, conflict and terrorism – is an unusually explicit one for a top figure in a wealthy government. But Patricia Hewitt's remarks echo the concerns of hundreds of thousands of us in civil society who fear the consequences if current trends are allowed to continue unchecked.

One of the challenges that we face in this process is not to allow current institutional limitations to constrain our ability to envision a different kind of global governance framework. We have to pose some bold questions about the fundamental changes that are needed to create a framework that is more fair and equitable than the one we are currently working within, and that has a realistic chance of supporting initiatives such as the Millennium Development Goals. We must question the prevailing logic of a system that energetically enables the movement of capital, but not of people, across boundaries; a financial system that essentially rewards unemployment and consolidates a notion of jobless growth; a system that rewards rampant over-consumption rather than grappling with the more complex challenge of sustainable development.

Our vision should be of a world where citizens and the groups they choose to organise are regarded as legitimate stakeholders, not only by the public, among whom they already enjoy high levels of trust, but by governance institutions who value engagement and recognise the many benefits it brings.

Our vision should be of a world where those of us who are serious about the long term future of this planet address these questions – difficult and as admittedly intractable as they are – honestly, courageously and with a commitment to ensuring that the views of not only government and business are considered, but also those of citizen groups working at the local, national and global levels.

Failure to do this will leave us charged by future generations with tinkering with incremental adjustments here and there, when what was required and needed was a fundamental rethinking of an international governance architecture that is rooted in notions of democracy, social and economic justice and sustainability.

In conclusion, let me urge you to recognise that we all face the challenge of doing our work in our different institutional environments in ways that respect and value the integrity, wisdom and contributions that the poor themselves can bring to the development process. The poor should be considered as full citizens and not simply victims, as full citizens and not simply recipients, as full citizens and not merely beneficiaries or charity cases. If there is one message you take with you today, it should be that every single human being that walks this planet has the potential to make a positive contribution to public life. The challenge for all of us as citizens is to ensure that we create just, meaningful and relevant ways in which this contribution can be harnessed for the public good. Unless we put people, and particularly those that have been historically excluded, at the centre of public life, our development goals will continue to evade us.

Footnotes:

[1] The author would like to thank the groups and individuals who provided valuable input into the preparation of this lecture, but takes full responsibility for the content and views expressed herein: Peter Bakvis (ICFTU), Roberto Bissio (Social Watch), Sylvia Borren (NOVIB), Peter Brey (Terres des Hommes), Rob Buchanan (Council on Foundations), Didier Cherpitel (IFRC), John Clark (Centre for Civil Society, LSE), Leslie Fields (Friends of the Earth), Alan Fowler (ISTR), Vicente Garcia-Delgado (Chief Representative of CIVICUS to the United Nations in New York), Yao Graham (Third World Network), Eveline Herfkens (UN MDG Executive Coordinator), Dean Hirsch (WorldVision), Azza Karam (WCRP), Joanna Kerr (AWID), Sammy Keter (ITDG), Irene Khan (Amnesty International), Claude Martin (WWF International), Mary McClymont (InterAction), Elena McCollim (InterAction), Yolanda Navarro (IUCN), Bobby Peek (Friends of the Earth), Liliana Proskuryakova (ECA), Morten Rostrup (MSF), Salil Shetty (ActionAid), Achim Steiner (IUCN), Phil Twyford (Oxfam), John Waugh (IUCN), Alan Whaites (WorldVision), Alex Wilks (Bretton Woods Project), and June Zeitlin (WEDO). I would also like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the staff and board of CIVICUS, particularly our senior policy analyst, Karen Birdsall.

[2] Environics survey, 2001 and 2002.

[3] Study completed by the Canadian firm Environics and launched at the World Economic and Social Forums in January 2003.

[4] James Wolfensohn in Voices and Choices at a Macro Level: Participation in Country-owned Poverty Reduction Strategies, edited by Parmesh Shah and Deborah Youssef, February 2002, World Bank. p. 1.




Permanent URL for this page: http://go.worldbank.org/1ASJ7E43C0