|
|
|
Live 8 - Making Poverty History?
Or Entrenching Our Irresponsibility?
By John Bunzl, Trustee International Simultaneous Policy
Organisation
The very name "Live 8" used for
the rock concerts being held around the world on 2nd July to
coincide with the G-8 meeting of the world’s richest nations indicates a
focus on just eight politicians. It thus implies that just eight people
could, if only they are sufficiently pressured, change the world by finally
making poverty history. Bob Geldof KBE certainly seems to agree that these
eight people have this within their power when, in referring to the original
Live Aid concerts, he recently said, "We couldn’t change politics 20 years
ago. It was a different world. Now it’s not a charity, it’s about political
justice." Live 8, he says, "has to be this great national moment. This
country gets to change the world and tilt it in favour of the poor. … These
eight guys should to this thing." [i]
These eight guys should do this
thing!
Well, that would be nice.
But can they? Does the G-8 really, genuinely, have the power to make
poverty history? Does it really have that much power at all? Geldof and Bono
by all accounts certainly think so. But are they not, perhaps, simply in
thrall to the very attractive idea that some small group of people must have
massive power and could change the world if only we put enough pressure on
them? It’s tempting to think that someone must be in control of the
global economy because, after all, aren’t our politicians supposed to
be in charge of it? But how frightening would it be if we were to discover
and to have to take on board the truth that no one is really in control;
that the global economy actually runs on a kind of auto-pilot and
governments and their appointed institutions such as the IMF, the WTO and
the World Bank are merely puppets in a game over which they have no
significant control? How frightening would it be, in short, to find that
politicians and corporate executives are merely sitting in first class
because there is, in reality, no pilot in the cockpit?
And it’s not just rock stars who
seem to believe that a restricted group of politicians or business people
have the power to change the world. The thousands of NGOs (Non-Governmental
Organisations) that make up the ‘global justice movement’ and who
consistently campaign against global poverty and other global problems all
essentially adhere to the central tactic of blame, shame and protest to
advance their cause. But blaming politicians or multi-national corporations
inevitably carries with it the implication that they act wholly out of their
own free will and thus have the power to change their behaviour. Blame
implies power. After all, why else blame them?
It may be true that politicians
and their appointed institutions have some power to reduce or cancel debt
and to increase aid to poor countries and doing so would doubtless provide
some short-term relief. But if we have a genuine intention to make
poverty history, we should recognise that aid and debt are merely symptoms
of a global economy that isn’t working. It is not therefore politicians’
performance on aid or debt that will determine whether poverty is made
history or not. Rather, we need to assess the extent to which politicians
have any significant power over the deeper workings of the global economy
itself.
Power Over Markets or Markets
Overpower?
If we look, firstly, at
corporations, investors and business executives who are the global economy’s
main actors and whose behaviour is often blamed for many of our global ills,
lets consider whether they act purely out of their own free will and whether
they therefore have the power to substantially alter their damaging
behaviour. It should be clear that in a competitive global market any
corporation or investor taking on greater social or environmental
responsibility – and thus an increase in its costs - would only lose out to
less responsible competitors causing a loss of its profits, a consequent
loss of jobs and, ultimately, the prospect of becoming the target of a
hostile takeover. Corporate execs are thus largely obliged to do what
they do for as David Korten has accurately pointed out, "With financial
markets demanding maximum short-term gains and corporate raiders standing by
to trash any company that isn't externalizing every possible cost, efforts
to fix the problem by raising the social consciousness of managers misdefine
the problem. There are plenty of socially conscious managers. The problem is
a predatory system that makes it difficult for them to survive. This creates
a terrible dilemma for managers with a true social vision of the
corporation's role in society. They must either compromise their vision or
run a great risk of being expelled by the system."[ii]
And what about politicians and
governments? With no barriers to capital and employment moving instantly to
any country where costs are lower and profits therefore higher, how should
we expect governments to unilaterally impose increased regulations or taxes
on business when that would only invite employment and investment to de-camp
elsewhere? This collective governmental fear has become so ingrained and
accepted that it has long since attracted its own code-name. For whenever
you see the phrase, "maintaining our international competitiveness", you
will be witnessing an unspoken inter-governmental race-to-the-bottom; a
vicious circle which forces every nation to down-level social and
environmental protection so as to better out-bid competitor nations for
capital and jobs. It is therefore the global free movement of capital
which drives the ever-widening gap between rich and poor and which explains
why the environment is continually sacrificed at the altar of competitive
economic growth. Such a political environment thus inevitably precludes the
implementation of just the kind of measures needed if global poverty and so
many other pressing global problems are really to be consigned to history.
Because any government or restricted group of nations that moved first would
lose out to all the others. And that is why nothing changes exept
that our problems only get worse. Because governments, too, - even the G-8 -
are largely powerless to buck the vicious circle of global capital flows
over which they have no significant control.
International
Competitiveness Emasculates Democracy
Which party we may vote into
government or what their pre-election promises may have been consequently no
longer much matters. Once in government even Green parties are forced to
jettison their most cherished policies in the name of maintaining their
nation’s international competitiveness as the German Green party has shown.
This is why party politics has become little more than an electoral charade
in which all parties become ‘business parties’ and none can offer
substantive solutions to global problems. While we may have the mechanics
of democracy, the reality is a kind of pseudo-democracy in which whatever
party we elect, the policies delivered inevitably conform to the
profit-seeking demands of foot-loose global capital. There is no democracy;
there is merely the illusion of political choice. Conventional party
politics cannot therefore save us.
Even the WTO, IMF and World Bank
whom we might expect to have a greater measure of control are, in fact,
merely reacting to forces well beyond their influence. This encourages and
justifies their close-held delusion that competition is an exclusively
beneficial phenomenon. For in having no control over the global free
movement of capital or corporations, and thus in accepting that state as a
"natural given", what else can they do but recommend that each nation
improves it’s attractiveness to global investors by implementing structural
adjustment and privatisation programs? Taking their free movement as a
natural given thus constrains these institutions to prescribe yet more
competition as the cure to our global ills and not less. Sacrificing society
and the environment thus becomes neatly and logically justified by the
ever-present need for each nation to "improve its international
competitiveness". In failing to realise that economic competition becomes
destructive when it fails to occur within a framework of adequate global
regulations which protect society and the environment, the WTO, WB and IMF
serve only to exacerbate the problems they think they’re solving. They are
not in control. There is no pilot in the cockpit.
Because we so often refuse to see
what is so plainly in front of our eyes, I will repeat myself: There IS NO
PILOT IN THE COCKPIT. There IS no restricted group of politicians who can
change the world. Such is the nature of the vicious circle of global capital
flows that the system runs all by itself. No pilot needed. No pilot
available.
For all the good Geldof, Bono and
the global justice movement have undoubtedly done to bring global poverty
and other global problems to wider public attention, they ultimately do us a
disservice by perpetuating the common belief that politicians have
substantial power. After all why, despite all the promises they manage to
elicit from politicians regarding greater debt relief, increased aid and so
on, do global poverty and other global problems only get worse? It was to
broadly this question that Bob Geldof, during his interview on Friday Night
with Jonathan Ross (BBC 1,10th June 2005), rather limply
answered: "I don’t know". For Bob Geldof and NGOs, the first crucial step to
understanding why their campaigns have little, if any, lasting effect would
be to finally take on board and accept that those they believed to have
significant power simply do not have it.
Adolescence or Maturity?
Very many of us would likely agree
with the proposition that humanity’s aggregate mode of behaviour in the
present age of scientific materialist globalisation, with its wars, grabs
for natural resources, terrorism and unbridled consumption, is a sure sign
that we find ourselves in the full flush of our species adolescence.
Evolution biologist, Elisabet Sahtouris, notes ruefully that "Young species
are found to have highly competitive characteristics: They take all the
resources they can, they hog territory, they multiply wildly. Sound
familiar?"[iii] Indeed, one of the traits of adolescence is the avoidance of
reality; the propensity to ignore the unpalatable, to remain dependent upon
others, to blame others for our problems and to expect others to sort out
our own mess. In short, the hallmark of adolescence is the abdication of
responsibility. By maintaining the illusion that politicians have the
power to change the world on their own, by abdicating responsibility to
them, and by encouraging us to think that all we need to do is to buy a
little white wrist-band and go to a rock concert, Live 8 regrettably
perpetuates our avoidance of responsibility. It encourages us to think that
someone else – in this case eight politicians – can save the world
for us.
Fortunately, the road out of
adolescence and towards humanity’s adulthood is being pioneered through the
work of a number of as yet little-known organisations whose supporters have
taken the crucial step of releasing themselves from these delusions and who,
in taking proper responsibility, realise that they themselves,
co-operating globally with other citizens, must take the necessary action.
They know that no one else can or will do it for us. One such group is the
International Simultaneous Policy Organisation (ISPO)[iv] which offers a way
for citizens the world over to firstly take back control of our hollowed-out
pseudo-democratic processes and, secondly, a way we can co-create the
policies necessary to achieve environmental sustainability and global
justice. Finally it offers the crucial means for us to bring our politicians
to implement them simultaneously so that no nation, corporation or citizen
loses out to any other, thus allowing us all to escape the vicious circle of
destructive global competition in which governments, corporations and
citizens are presently locked.
By using our right to vote in a
completely new way which makes it in the vital electoral interests of
politicians to support Simultaneous Policy, it thus has the potential to
turn the destructive, competition-led politics of globalisation on its head
by offering global citizens a practical way to take back the world with a
new politics of citizen-led, international co-operation for our emergent -
but yet-to-be-born - sustainable global society. As Elisabet Sahtouris
comments: "Simultaneous Policy is an imperative if we are to evolve humanity
from its juvenile competitive stage to its co-operative species maturity. A
wonderful ‘no risk’ strategy for finding agreement on important issues in
building global community!".
It’s time we grew up.
John Bunzl – June 2005.
John Bunzl is the founder and a
Trustee of the International Simultaneous Policy Organisation (ISPO).
Adopting the Simultaneous
Policy is free! Please go to:
http://www.simpol.org/dossiers/dossier-UK/html-UK/how_do_i_adopt_sp-UK.html
Simultaneous Policy: Re-Discovering Our Collective Humanity
Footnotes:
[i] See
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/06_june/10/ross.shtml
[ii] When Corporations Rule the World, David
Korten, Kumarian Press & Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1995.
[iii] Elisabet Sahtouris, adapted from
Understanding Globalization as an Evolutionary Leap presented to the
Institute of Noetic Sciences
http://www.noetic.org/,
July 2001. For more by Sahtouris go to:
http://www.ratical.org/Lifeweb
[iv] Global website
http://www.simpol.org.
UK website
http://www.simpol.org.uk
June 2005
|
|
|
|