In reflecting upon the topic of globalisation, I am repeatedly reminded of an axiom that guides the work of social analysis:  “Where I stand on a particular issue depends on where I sit!”  My commitment to a position is heavily influenced by my “social geography” since I see things from the perspective of where I have placed my body – indeed, where I have placed my heart.

When I read analyses of globalisation that speak more positively than negatively of the advantages of the economic changes   occurring  in  the world today, I am obliged to acknowledge some of the general points raised, e.g., potential trade benefits, greater sharing of technological advances, more rational organisation, etc.   But I am still not at ease or won over to the positive side of the picture in the face of what I daily perceive in Zambia and other parts of Africa as the clearly negative results of globalisation.

A few of these negative results include:

·         major political decisions regarding the future of Zambia’s development are not in the hands of the elected representatives of the people;

·         models of macro-economic development offered by the international financial institutions (IFIs) are accorded an a priori credence that give them greater influence than alternative models designed from local Zambian experiences;

·         outside financial investments utilise non-social criteria for evaluating success or sustainability;

·         ecological concerns are accorded second-place in planning schemes;

·         impact of globalised attitudes and structures on traditional cultural values are largely ignored.

TWO ETHICS

For me, at the root, at the heart, of the problem is the foundation of a set of ethical criteria for judging the positives and negatives of the process of globalisation.

One set of criteria is founded on the principles of a neo-liberal economic ideology that gives market operations (with concurrent profit margins) the major priority.  Consequently, individualism, competitiveness, consumerism, profits, are guiding values.

Another set of criteria takes human dignity as a foundation, dignity recognised with rights and duties and promoted within a communitarian context.  Consequent guiding values are community, solidarity, social sustainability, common good.

Let me be clear about one very important point of comparison.  It is not that those individuals or operations guided by the first economic set of values completely ignore or disdain the human set of values.  They indeed may promote conversation, concern and some actions that take human values into account.

But in my judgement, these human values are accorded basically only secondary importance.  If in any specific situation they come into conflict with the first, market-driven set of values, then they must give way.  For example, profit margins that are influenced by labour conditions must take first place in decisions to locate production units.

Nor can those guided by the second human set be said to simply overlook economic values.  After all, economic systems are made up of interactions between women and men and should have as their purpose the integral development of women and men.

But if human values take precedence, then market operations must be subservient to them.  We must be clear in acknowledging that this position sets up a very different set of expectations and operations.

ZAMBIAN EXAMPLES

Let me give a concrete example from an issue that affects the lives of thousands – perhaps millions – of ordinary Zambian citizens.  This is the privatisation of the main industrial base of Zambia’s economy, our copper mines.  There is no question that major economic reform had to be introduced to remedy the greatly inefficient, poorly managed, and decreasingly productive copper industry.

Not only had the world price of copper fallen significantly (by almost  40 per cent), but production had dramatically declined (from over 700,000 metric tons a year in the 1970’s to less than 300,000 metric tons a year in the 1990’s.)  Continued state ownership and operation of the mines was a great drain on the national budget, with consequent serious deficiencies in allocations to the social sector.

Privatisation, sale of the huge parastatal Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines (ZCCM), seemed to be the orthodox solution to this problem.  The process of globalisation guided by an economic ethic dictated certain lines of action in the Zambia case in the mid- and late-1990s, including:

·         strong outside pressures from the IFIs which imposed conditions for further assistance or debt relief;

·         ignoring of social and environmental implications for such a substantial and intricate process of privatisation;

·         substitution of the influence of external investors in the place of local concerns.

But problems very soon became evident.  ZCCM was more than an economic reality.  It had become over the years, for better or worse, a major social entity.  Besides conducting mining operations on a grand scale, the corporation provided housing and physical infrastructures in numerous local communities of the Copperbelt, ran educational and health institutions, managed taverns, sports clubs and other social functions, etc.

It had become intertwined in the lives of thousands of its employees and their families and thousands more citizens whose livelihood depended on the operations of the mines.

The final results of privatisation of ZCCM are still to be evaluated, both in economic and social terms.  But sufficient evidence is available from current studies to show that there has been large-scale social dislocation of thousands of people in the Copperbelt and that this fact is not being adequately addressed, either by the new owners nor the previous owners, the Zambian government.

Outside investors, directed by an economic ethic congruent with the current demands of globalisation, have not taken account of the social situations.

Moreover, the ecological issues arising from mining are not on the high priority list of the new owners of the mines.  An added dimension is the particular impact on women, many of who now become the primary income-earner in the household because of retrenchment of male mine employees.

The Zambian case provides an insight into the consequences of the economic ideology driving globalisation today, as experienced by one extremely poor country in Africa.

OTHER EXAMPLES

Two other practical examples of the consequences for Zambia of the economic ideology driving globalisation have recently surfaced:

·         Entry into the COMESA-FTA arrangements in October 2000 (Free Trade Agreement for the Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa).  Little or no discussion of the social consequences of these arrangements took place, e.g., impact on employment, agricultural policies, investment standards, environmental   concerns, etc.  The globalisation ethic of free markets/free trade was most influential.  Serious questions remain to be addressed as negative social consequences are daily being felt.

·         Privatisation of ZESCO and ZANACO as conditions for Zambia’s qualification for HIPC relief through the IMF and World Bank in December 2000 (ZESCO is the electricity parastatal and ZANACO is the major government-owned bank).  Public debate on the wisdom  of  privatising  these two institutions has been precluded by the decisions of two main actors of globalisation, the IMF and World Bank.

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES

So what is necessary to turn around such situations?  And what role might the church play?  The answer may be simple, but the process to bring it about is much more complex.  In effect, we need a completely different set of guiding values than those that currently dictate planning and decisions within the globalised economy.  These are the human set of values mentioned earlier, those that stress community, solidarity, social sustainability, common good, and the integrity of creation.

To be specific, if a transnational corporation operating in a globalised economic environment considers investment in the privatised mining industry in Zambia, it should weigh the social implications for the local people as heavily as it weighs the profit margins it hopes to establish.  If this is not done, then the negative consequences of globalisation mentioned earlier in this article become inevitable.

Two points become evident as relating to the question of governance or structures of influence and decision-making.  Today there are highly imperfect structures of governance at both the national and international level.  National governments that negotiate with globalised institutions are too weak to enforce values that the local people might cry out for in a process of privatisation.

This is the case because they are at the mercy of corporations' possessing much greater resources of funds, management and alternative options.  Moreover, there is no international mechanism to regulate the transnationals or enforce any sort of social ethical code.  Efforts to establish such a mechanism, for example, within the institutions of the United Nations, have proven unsuccessful over the past few decades.

ROLE OF THE CHURCH

Does the church have a role in this situation and does it have sufficient credibility to make any impact?  I seriously believe that the church, as a transnational actor guided by the ethical principles of its social teachings, does indeed have a responsibility to contribute to the public discourse around globalisation.

It does that at the general level of propounding its principles, no matter how contrary they are to the prevailing economic ethic, and at the specific level of speaking out on policy matters such as privatisation, no matter how controversial its position may be even among church members.

Who will build up an ethical environment that can challenge decisions taken in the name of the “inevitabilities” of globalisation?  Who will support local government efforts to make decisions  more favourable to the interests of its citizens?  Who will argue at the international  level   for  more  just and socially sustainable measures to meet needs such as the rebuilding of a local economic structure?

The church – leaders, organisations such as justice and peace commissions, etc. -- should be able to enter into this discourse and influence the decisions that have such life-enhancing or life-destructive consequences.

But a very obvious point immediately arises: for the church to promote a global human ethic, it must practice that ethic itself.  One of the evils of globalisation is the removal from local people of the power to make decisions about which they have adequate knowledge and from which they will immediately be affected for better or worse.  The human ethical principle that puts such decision-making processes into local hands is subsidiarity – a key principle in the church’s social teaching.  But I offer no particularly novel insight by observing that current centralization tendencies within the governance of the Roman Catholic Church today go against this principle of subsidiarity.

Without practising the values that can make a difference in the current trends in globalisation, the church possesses no credibility – indeed, deserves no credibility – in playing a role in such a critical place for integral human development.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I make my point very clear: the desire to build a “globalisation without marginalisation,” a “globalisation of solidarity,” something so basic to the integral and sustainable development necessary for human survival, requires a fundamental review of the ethics we preach and practice!

Peter Henriot, S.J.
JCTR Staff
Lusaka

Bulletin 51 - Next Article