Page 226 - Contemporary Political Sociology Globalization Politics and Power

212 Globalization and Democracy

example, since the 1940s, and more recently, some have been allowed to
participate in meetings of the World Bank and World Trade Organization.
The inclusion of NGOs in government business raises, however, diffi cult
questions about how they represent “ ordinary ” people. They vary enor-
mously in this respect: some (e.g., Amnesty International, Friends of the
Earth) are membership organizations funded by, and quite closely con-
nected with, grassroots organizers; others are much more hierarchical and
professional, oriented towards getting grants from donors (like the Ford
Foundation) and governments; some have well - established reputations
while others are virtually unknown outside elite circles; the largest and
most well - funded, with the greatest credibility for North American and
European governments, are based within these states. Above all, then, it
is not obvious how the most internationally prominent NGOs would

redefine issues, set agendas, and mobilize arguments that would redress
the balance of power towards people in the developing world who are
clearly under - represented in existing IGOs (Woods, 2002 ; Monbiot,
2004 : 63).
The existing inequalities between states in Inter - Governmental
Organizations make it hard to see how the procedures by which decisions
are made might be reformed. What could possibly persuade any of the
permanent members of the UN Security Council to give up or to share
their veto power, for example? And where the states of the G8 are provid-
ing the majority of funding to the IMF and World Bank, how might they
be encouraged to take the lead in introducing policies against what they
perceive as their national interests? On the other hand, it is also clear
that democratizing procedures would not lead to democratic outcomes
where the agenda is set by wealthy states. As we saw in chapter 2 , the
“ Washington consensus, ” which committed the IMF and the World Bank
to neo - liberalism, has been especially damaging to developing countries.

As a result of the global financial crisis of the 1990s, which suggested that
global capitalism had not been rationalized, “ good governance ” and
“ accountability ” are now seen as necessary to the successful implementa-
tion of Structural Adjustment Programmes. These are, however, relatively
minor adjustments to what remains a neo - liberal project to free markets
and minimize states (Chandhoke, 2002 : 43 – 4). Besides inequalities
between states in setting the agenda for discussions in IGOs, in more
crude terms, it is also difficult for smaller states to resist the enticements

and threats of those that are over - developed, over - represented, and have
a larger military capacity. It is reported, for example, that when the US
wanted to invade Iraq in 1999, it bought the votes of Zaire, Ethiopia,
and Columbia by persuading Saudi Arabia to offer them free oil, and after