Written by Laurence Brahm - Published by Review Asia on 12/06/2007

Without empowering people to undertake their own sustainable economic growth and independent cultural development, there can be no efficient and stable political environment for the world.

“It must be crystal clear that the domination of any country’s economy by foreign capital investment, the deterioration in terms of trade, the control of one country’s markets by another, discriminatory relations and the use of force as an instrument of persuasion, are dangers to world trade and world peace… This conference should condemn any application or instigation of economic measures by one state to infringe the sovereign freedom of another state and to obtain from it advantages of any kind whatsoever, or to bring about the collapse of its economy. In order to achieve the foregoing, the principle of self-determination embodied in the United Nations Charter must be fully implemented. The conference should reaffirm the right of states to dispose of their own resources, to adopt the form of political and economic organization that suit them best, and to choose their own avenues of development and specialization in economic activity, without incurring reprisals of any kind whatsoever.”

Che Guevara
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
Geneva, Switzerland
25 March 1964

Most people want to control their own futures. They do not want their future controlled by a distant power, or driven by an ideology that has no relation to their own ethnicity or geographic identity. They want to administer their own global future through localization, not globalization, Mail-order subscription solutions from Washington—often known as the “Washington Consensus”—are not what the developing world needs and actually against the wishes of most.

So what is the Washington Consensus? Joseph Stiglitz, former World Bank chief economist and Nobel Prize winner in economics, offers a clear definition and explanation of Washington Consensus theory in his book, Globalization and Its Discontents.

“The Washington Consensus policies… were based on a simplistic model of the market economy, the competitive equilibrium model, in which Adam Smith’s invisible band works, and works perfectly. Because in this model there is no need for government—that is, free, unfettered, ‘liberal’ markets work perfectly—the Washington Consensus policies are sometimes referred to as ‘neo-liberal’, based on ‘market fundamentalism,’ a resuscitation of the laissez-faire policies that were popular in some circles in the 19th century…

“The theory says that an efficient market economy requires that all of the assumptions be satisfied. In some cases, reforms in one area, without accompanying reforms in others, may actually make matters worse. This is the issue of sequencing. Ideology ignores these matters; it says simply move as quickly to a market economy as you can.

“But economic theory and history show how disastrous it can be to ignore sequencing…The mistakes in trade, capital market liberalization, and privatization… represent sequencing errors on grand scale. The smaller-scale sequencing mistakes are even less noticed in the Western press. They constitute the day-to-day tragedies of IMF [International Monetary Fund] policies that affect the already desperately poor in the developing world.”

Integration of global ideals must be gut-checked against local suitability. Alternative ideas and solutions are required to harmonize with the so-called norms we take for granted. Forums must be created to foster new approaches and ideas without which these fresh approaches will be marginalized, and in turn radicalized by those who fear radicalization the most. In fact, all prophecies are self-fulfilling.

China’s development experience offers an alternative model, even though China is not presenting itself as a model. The model can be found in its practical experience. It may or may not be applied in differing degrees to other developing or transitional economics. Each country and people must find their own individual path. Starting from the China experience, I journeyed to other countries, particularly in South Asia, searching for other experiences, commonalities of vision that can lead to other paths for development. Seeking the Himalayan mountain range as a bridge instead of a barrier between East and South Asia, I have sought to congeal a new consensus that can serve as an alternative to Washington’s. It’s called the Himalayan Consensus.

Dr Walden Bello, executive director of Focus on the Global South—the Bangkok based non-government organization—and professor of sociology and public administration at the University of the Philippines in Manila, is acknowledged as one of the de facto leaders of the anti-globalization movement. During a recent discussion with me, he reflected on this vision.

“My book De-Globalization reflects the same views as you. A lot of the ideas there are in sync with yours. At the same time, we cannot say there are no universal values. The way people construct their societies, their principles of sustainable development together may be different, but there are universal values—equity, community, solidarity, justice and democracy. It’s just that the particular institutional configuration that puts these principles together is diverse. And diversity should be respected.

“Secondly, what is important is that this appeal for diversity is not perverted by authoritarian governments for their own end. So I would say that when the Burmese junta says they are anti-West, I would put little credence to their junta because they are using diversity as a mechanism to suppress their own people. The Chinese government does not respect diversity per se but rather re-fashions ethnic groups in the interest of Beijing. I support this manifesto for Himalayan Consensus as it puts diversity as a very important principle.”

There are no black and white answers to development. Theories cannot be transposed as cookie-cutter solutions. Academics in America are looking at the world’s problems from the safe and comfortable distance of their university or think-tank institutions. Studies they engage in are often government-funded with a specific political and ideological agenda.

Often, their gobbledygook economic verbiage is irrelevant to solving practical problems on the ground that affects lives. But such theoretical logic is used to justify conditions imposed by such Washington Consensus institutional lending bodies such as the World Bank and IMF, among others. Their so-called soft lending to developing countries comes with creeping political agenda in the form of conditions attached to the loans. The inapplicability of these conditions formulated from irrelevant theory often leads to monetary dependency, in turn creating cyclical poverty.

While media and politicians from the Group of Eight industrialized nations are locked into their Breton-Woods/Atlantic Treaty framework of seeing the world, they cannot envision viable alternatives because they have not stepped out of their own box and bothered to look. But the formula for our future is pretty straight-forward. Without empowering people to undertake their own sustainable economic growth and independent cultural development, there can be no efficient and stable political environment for the world. It is time for the melting pot to stop here. The future of humanity lies in its continued ethnic diversity. And this will depend on culturally sustainable development.

What is ethnic diversity? Every society has the fundamental right to pursue its own ethnic traditions, lifestyle, culture and beliefs. Preservation of the environment is integral to the sustenance of many traditional lifestyles. Environmental desecration assaults ethnic diversity, the preservation of which can in turn protect the environment.

Melting –pot ideology, with its commercialized “mainstream” value system, damages ethnic diversity, which should be considered a universal human right. Many of the world’s social and security problems are reactions against this politically-driven commercial assault to eliminate ethnic diversity through the unilateral and global propagation of neo-conservative values, rigidly applied. This erodes the defining value of humanity that is its diverse ethnic identities.

What is culturally sustainable development? Cultural eradication is not a prerequisite for modernization. Improvement in living standards does not mean replacing one culture with another. Culture can evolve with economic development and in turn provide the social fabric to ensure economic stability.

The Washington Consensus prescriptions for development fail because they force economic and financial models upon societies whose different cultures and conditions render these models inapplicable.

Capital accumulation and conspicuous consumption do not assure human happiness. By eroding indigenous cultural values, they often destroy culture. Economic development should improve the quality of life, not undermine it.

That’s why so many individuals, grassroots organizations, and NGOs are so furious with these Washington Consensus policies and call for new paradigms. These groups are forming a transnational movement that has become all but invisible. With more cohesion, organization and political focus, it could become a new age global International. Speaking out with independent voices, these disparate and separate voices all echo a similar theme. As they gain critical mass, they will be heard. And their resonance will shake the existing global financial and economic dependency system as we know it –or have been conditioned to believe in.

Laurence Brahm is a global activist, international mediator, political columnist and author. He is the leading advocate of a fresh development paradigm - The Himalayan Consensus - an innovative approach to development.

Back to Top