| It
has become well known as the annual meeting of the club
of those who run the world, or think they do. Several
years ago, an entrepreneurial impresario came up with
the idea of developing a sort of select and exclusive
trade fair of the world's business and political elite
in the Alpine ski resort of Davos in Switzerland. Klaus
Schwab turned out to have come up with a winner, at
least in his own terms, as his brainchild emerged as
the big bash that the rich and powerful attended to
network among themselves and even wanted to be seen
at.
The
annual meeting of the World Economic Forum became the
focus of international attention, as the bosses of the
world's largest and most powerful multinational corporations
rubbed shoulders with leaders of the developed world
as well as heads of state and ministers from developing
countries anxious to attract foreign investors. The
organisers of this meeting and the participants themselves
usually made no attempt to conceal - and even flaunted
- their bias in favour of large capital and their belief
that unregulated capital and liberalised markets would
deliver prosperity for all. Thus, the usual demands
of lower taxes and less regulation, greater freedom
for large capital and more flexible labour laws, and
of course ever more protection for foreign investors,
have become the chants heard at each World Economic
Forum.
In the process, the Davos meeting also became the symbol
of corporate globalisation and the nexus between big
business and political leaders. The anti-globalisation
movement specifically targeted the annual Davos meeting
and at the peak of this movement, the protests were
so widespread and marked that the meeting received more
undesirable publicity than the positive press which
its organisers had come to take for granted.
More significantly, the World Economic Forum spawned
its other, the alternative meeting called the World
Social Forum, held at approximately the same time every
year. The purpose of this was to highlight the concerns
and aspirations of ordinary people, rather than big
business and government looking for ways to support
big business. This began in Porto Alegre in Brazil,
but has since become more a movement than just a meeting,
and the Forum held in Mumbai last year revealed its
huge potential for mobilisation and getting very different
groups to work together, as well as its ability to become
a people's carnival of huge proportions. This year,
again the World Social Forum is being held in Brazil,
and has attracted more than 120,000 people, compared
to the 2000 odd participants who have shelled out large
sums simply to register for the Davos meeting.
The atmosphere also has been completely different in
the two meetings. The World Social Forum tends to be
a chaotic but joyous and always vibrant mix of many
different kinds of people, organisations, countries,
with meetings and discussions competing with musical
performances, street shows, exhibitions and other events.
The World Economic Forum, by contrast, is much more
boring: a closed shop of the elite, where the business
suits dominate as corporate leaders and government representatives
network discreetly to influence each other as much as
possible.
More than $6 million is spent by the World Economic
Forum on security alone for this one meeting in Davos,
and the main meeting halls are really not much better
than a series of concrete bunkers designed for maximum
protection of the inmates. Nevertheless, leaders from
across the world, and especially from developing countries,
continue to flock to Davos, not really to listen to
the various big names but to use the opportunity to
attract some potential investors, discuss trade and
other policy issues.
Even this year, for example, large numbers of leaders
arrived at Davos, from Tony Blair to Thabo Mbeki, from
the newly elected Victor Yushchenko of Ukraine and Mahmoud
Abbas of Palestine to President Lula of Brazil (who
came straight from the World Social Forum).
Nevertheless, it still seems that this particular idea
is now running out of steam. Some of the absences were
more telling than the presences: from the US, only the
Secretary of Labour and the Assistant Secretary of State;
from other European countries such as France, video
conferencing rather than physical presence; from many
developing countries, only a limited involvement. The
Chinese had a large delegation, but they seemed to have
come to listen rather than to display any of their own
wares. The Indian Commerce Minister and Minister for
Science and Technology did attend, but finally the Prime
Minister seemed to have realised that he had better
things to do at home.
More than this, the Davos meeting no longer seems to
be able to grab media headlines automatically, or even
stir up any reaction stronger than yawns among people
across the world. This may be why the event this year
was designed rather differently in terms of inviting
and showcasing media and film stars rather than the
usual suspects of politicians and businessmen only.
Clearly, adding the more supposedly glamorous of these
groups - such as George Soros and the Bills (Gates and
Clinton) may no longer be adequate.
Thus, some of the guest list could almost have reflected
a pop music or film awards function: Angelina Jolie
and U2 singer Bono reciting the woes of poverty and
Africa; Sharon Stone pledging money for disease control;
Lionel Ritchie, Peter Gabriel and Richard Gere turning
heads in the lobby; to name only a few. And the focus
of the meeting itself was also quite a break from the
past, with sessions on combating world poverty; fighting
not only AIDS but also malaria; global warming and the
plight of Africa. Not only were the topics different,
but even the discussion was apparently much more touchy-feely,
full of concern for the downtrodden and openly redolent
of the milk of human kindness. In fact, some of the
discussions and statements seemed almost to be borrowed
from the ''other'' event in Porto Alegre, with concerns
about growing inequality and joblessness actually being
put on the table.
When a gathering that was designed to be a quiet place
where big business and government leaders could get
together to do business and work out deals turns into
an outward orientated charm offensive with the spotlight
on the media stars, something has clearly gone wrong.
This is certainly not business as usual, which suggests
that business itself may not be going along as usual
in the big wide world.
Perhaps
it may be reading too much into the actions of the organisers
of the World Economic Forum, to see in these rather
desperate manoeuvres some indication of broader problems
at work in international capitalism. But it is certainly
the case that if the Davis meeting is at all a symptom
of the degree of cosy consistency prevailing among the
world's elite, then the most prevalent tendency today
is not complacency but an almost fierce need for legitimisation
and popular approval. If this is really the case, the
World Social Forum and the anti-globalisation movement
may have been more successful than is generally thought,
if only in creating a greater sense of insecurity and
need to be loved on the part of the most powerful people
in the world.
|
