Home >> Global Organizations >> Other

     Email   Print 

The G-20: Undemocratic and

Biniam Berhe Tewolde - 9/29/2009

Media pundits have hailed “historic” the agreements that emerged from the Summit of the Group of 20 (G-20) countries that was held at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania over the weekend. One of the outcomes of the Summit that has garnered praise is the decision to make the G-20 ‘the premier forum for international economic co-operation’ superseding the Group of 8 (G-8). It is claimed that the G-20 countries comprise 90% of the global gross domestic product (GDP) and two-third of the world population. Hence the leaders who met at Pittsburgh congratulated themselves for shaping a more representative and democratic forum of global economic governance. I disagree.

The G-20 is by no means a break from the G-8. Just like the G-8 it is composed of countries with powerful economies. The debate to give more power at the world stage to systemically important states has been going on for some time. The financial crisis of the mid 1990s proved that developments in second-rate economies such as Thailand and Mexico could directly impact the global economy, and most importantly the economies of the G-8 (the then G-7).

Moreover, the unprecedented and unmatched economic growth of countries such as China, India, Brazil and Mexico has rendered anachronistic the characterization of the G-8 countries as ‘the major advanced economies’. In these circumstances, the G-20 was conceived as a mechanism to initiate dialogue among the G-8 and the so-called ‘emerging economies’. The current economic crisis once again underscored the inability of the G-8 framework to save the system. In the height of the on-going global economic crisis the G-20 emerged as the preeminent forum hosting the flurry of activities aimed at shaping collective responses to tackle the crisis.

This begs the question: Is it only the economically advanced states that are the victims of the current economic crisis? It goes with out saying that, to the contrast, it is the peoples of developing countries that are bearing the brunt of the economic crisis that they had not part in its making. However, as in the past they are not present at the table where important economic decisions are made. In the G-20, the whole African continent is unrepresented but for South Africa. Thus, how could the G-20 claim to represent the interests of the other 172 countries? The African and the other countries that did not make it to the G-20 club may not be as important to the system as the big trading states, nonetheless they are affected by the system equally.

The G-20 in its reincarnation as the premier economic forum is unrepresentative and undemocratic mechanism devoid of legitimacy. The only purpose it serves is co-opting the emerging economies in to the rich-man’s club, and by doing so ensuring the continuity of the lopsided and inequitable international economic system. Any effort that aspires to bring real change to the international system should participate all stakeholders and be carried out in the framework of the G-192, to use the word coined by the former President of the UN General Assembly Father Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann.

In this regard, the UN Summit on the ‘World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development’ that was held in June this year with the participation of all of the 192 UN member states is a step in the right direction. Although it did not get wide media attention as the recent G-20 Communiqué, the consensus document adopted at the UN Summit has identified the measures necessary to end the current economic crisis and, in the long run, to create a system that serves the interests of all states, rich and poor. It is by implementing these measures, not by creating exclusive clubs, that wealthy states could demonstrate their commitment to global economic recovery and uphold democratic values.