Managing globalisation

Now that the World Social Forum (WSF) has concluded its meeting in Mumbai, it is time to stand back and take stock of the event.

It is easy to be carried away with the colour and the spectacle, the music and the dances, the slogans and the joie de vivre "" in short, to treat it like a carnival.

It is also easy to dismiss it as so much hot air, an opportunity for NGOs and leftists to let off steam. And there is no doubt that much of the criticism hits home.

It is true, for instance, that many of the speeches and debates were one-sided and simplistic. It is also true that much of the rhetoric was the same tired old mouthing of moth-eaten socialist ideals.

And there was little in common between fire-breathing radical economists sharing the stage with priests or children's rights activists.

While the WSF may have served its objective of serving as a platform for dissent, it is difficult to see how that will translate into any coherent plan for further action. Their much-vaunted 'rainbow coalition' is largely a myth.

Yet there is no doubt that this coalition has been able to make significant headway. NGOs have been able to force the multinational pharmaceutical companies to slash the prices of AIDS drugs. They have been able to force creditor nations to increase their level of debt forgiveness.

Earlier, they were able to scuttle the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment. And while the victory for the developing nations at Cancun was largely the work of the governments in developing countries, there is no doubt that NGOs contributed to the outcome.

In short, as the former UN Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson put it, they have been able to mobilise 'people's power' against the power of vested interests.

Perhaps that is the way forward for the WSF and its constituent groups. Instead of trying to fight globalisation, they must aid and abet the governments of the developing world to ensure that globalisation takes place on terms that are favourable to the world's poor and disadvantaged.

As Joseph Stiglitz pointed out at the Forum, globalisation has greatly benefited the countries of East Asia, and much of the growth has trickled down to the masses. And if it can happen in East Asia, it can happen elsewhere too.

On the other hand, countries that isolate themselves from the rest of the world end up becoming like North Korea. The point is not to oppose globalisation, but to be able to manage it well.

Rather than listen to dogma, whether of the Washington consensus variety or the socialist kind, the way forward must be pragmatic, as clearly demonstrated by China.

The other lesson from the WSF is that globalisation and modernisation throw up both winners and losers. In its emphasis on education, on healthcare and on other basic needs, the WSF is right on target.

Furthermore, NGOs have done some excellent work in drawing attention to human rights violations and to the anti-war effort.

This work must continue, and a forum like the WSF serves the purpose of building alliances among activist groups in different countries.

In other words, while another world may not be possible, meetings such as the WSF can do much to ameliorate the injustices of this one.