WordType Designs™
Driven To Distractions©
The Sound of One Hand Clapping©

A rchive Date
[ 23-02-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Federalism ]
      [http://www.uia.org/uiata/swart1.htm

      Toward a normative politics of global transformation: synthesizing alternative perspectives
      Voices for alternatives and the imperative for global coalition and transformation
      by Ignatius Swart
      Department of Religious Studies at the University of Stellenbosch
      Private Bag XI, Matieland 7602, South Africa. 

      This article was published in Transnational Associations. All rights reserved.

      To me, the real answer to the present turbulence is the only civilised alternative to both the globalizing and ethnicizing trends, namely a worldwide federal democratic movement, both political and social, which alone is capable of responding to the demands for the self- determination of regions and ethnic groups as well as the struggles for equity and justice.

      Only such a movement can respond to the genuine need of transcending national boundaries and experimenting with various supranational formations that can deal with new socio-economic needs, new ideas of organizing human collectivities, and the growth of new identities. (Rajni Kothari 1993: 128)

      We live in a world at present which calls for radical alternatives and transformation. At least, this is the point of view taken by a noticeable group of intellectuals today theorising about alternatives not only in development, but also in many other fields. Indeed, it is a point of view urged by normative conviction, by cultural sensitivity, by ecological concern, by aesthetic valuation and by a deep awareness that gross injustices are being done to the majority of the world's people who are not receiving their fair share in the current world system and societal arrangement. At deepest and in the more religio-philosophical sense, it is a point of view characterised by a discontent with the "good life" of Western society itself, a fundamental questioning of the dominant value-system and a reconsideration of the relation between having and being that determines the latter system (see Goulet 1995: ix).

      Hence, we may furthermore say, the above- mentioned urge for transformation and alternatives on an intellectual level is today also confirmed by the many new social movements which have asserted themselves in recent times. To many, in fact, these movements, grassroots, national and transnational, in the North and in the South, have come to denote the decisive subjects to bring about the positive change and transformation which are increasingly desired (see e.g. Sakamoto 1995: 139-143; Falk 1987; Rahnema 1993: 169-172; also Shaw 1994: 651).

      Whilst the latter social movements, as well as the above-mentioned alternative intellectual movement, have all shown a profound discontentment with predominant statist approaches to regulate social change, affirming the increasing obsolescence of exclusive statist views, someone like Lester Ruiz, coming from the same (progressive) intellectual environment, have pointed out the significance of "Progressive and leftist" nationalist and popular political formations from the South that have started to mobilise across nation-state boundaries in the post-Cold War era. According to Ruiz three major gatherings by leftist and progressive parties, organizations and fronts from Latin America and the Caribbean in Sao Paolo in 1990, Mexico City in 1991, and Managua in 1992 denoted the emergence of a new "major leftist political formation that underscores the profound transformations that are occurring in leftist theory and practice in the South" (Ruiz 1994: 250). Hence the declared goal of the meeting in Managua, the III Encuentro Continental de Resistencia Indigena, Negra y Popular, representing twenty-six countries, "to generate a broad, pluralistic, multi-ethnic and democratic movement to work for a new international economic, social, political, and environmental order" (Ruiz. ibid).

      For Ruiz, finally, the articulative practices of the political formations noted above signalled "a clear, even fierce, affirmation of the peoples of the South as the subjects of their own history"; "an uncompromising commitment to a nationalist, popular, and socialist vision of the future of the peoples of the South, and in contrast, a clear repudiation of the present global system oriented around multi-national capitalism and its logic" (Ruiz 1994: 251-252). Hence our point of reservation that Ruiz is perhaps underestimating somewhat, through his omittance of such fact, the appeal of global capitalism and Western notions of development (modernisation) to the South and Third World itself (see Lee 1994: 2-3, 45; Ulrich 1993: 284), an appeal which is forcefully and effectively undermining leftists and socialist aspirations, values and ideologies in those societies (a good case in point which illustrates this fact is for instance the succumbing of socialist forces and ideals in the new South Africa to global capitalism). Nevertheless, notwithstanding this reservation, we, together with Ruiz, take the above-mentioned political stirrings in the South as an important attempt by the counterpoint (to Western capitalism) to reassert and mobilize itself to work for an alternative system of societal arrangement and regulation by and large. Fundamentally, however, in the context of the discussion in this paper, is our point of view that these political formations from the South (as for instance identified by Ruiz) would need to become part of a larger global initiative of progressive actors or subjects to bring about the transformations which are envisioned.

      But it is also from another corner that the voice for alternatives (in the plural!) is being raised in no uncertain manner. This is the protest by contemporary fundamentalisms and ethnic uprisings against the homogenising and excluding trends of current globalisation. Manipulated by Western forces and ideology to be viewed only in extremely negative light these upsurges, however, also signify the deep feelings of frustration by non-Western societies and peoples against the political, economic and cultural imperialisms of contemporary globalism - in which the Northern economic and political powers and the minority elite in the South have in fact formed a coalition against the majority of poor and deprived particularly from the South. As the following more sensitive, non-western perspective of current ethnic uprisings in the South by Rajni Kothari also declares:

      [Ethnicity] is a response to the North within the South. To the homogenising thrusts of capitalism, the nation-state and technology. To regimes that are engaged in integrating diverse social formations into a global marketplace... Ethnicity represents a revolt against this. It is an affirmation of the hitherto subdued and excluded, reflecting deep stirrings of consciousness as well as emerging capacities of challenging hegemonies, engaging in a recovery of both civic and sacred spaces that are sought to be overtaken in the ruthless march of modern economies, modern statehood and modern technology. And in many instances it is an affirmation of the local, the regional and the  'ethnic' against the internal colonisation that has often accompanied the more pervasive and corrosive forms of the nationalism of the nation-state... The new expressions of ethnicity are a challenge to both these homogenising thrusts - of the nation-state and world order. (Kothari 1988: 194)

      Indeed, it is in the contemporary uprisings of political Islam that the protest against current globalisation, as described above, is becoming particularly evident. Hence the conclusion that the alternatives to the current world system or order which are to be constructed will, fundamentally, have to accommodate the aspirations of the latter grouping for self-expression and better livelihood, but also of the many other non-Western groupings of the world. It is with regard to such conclusion that someone like Mohammed Sid-Ahmed's statement that there can be no world peace without the inclusion of Islam in the shaping of contemporary (or rather future!) global civilisation must be taken very seriously. Identifying the present Arab-Israeli dispute as a focal point of Islamic cultural aspiration Sid-Ahmed concludes:

      The way in which the Arab-Israeli dispute is tackled will be decisive in determining the outcome of the confrontation with Islam in the future. If the determining factor in concluding an Arab-Israeli peace is to avert what the West perceives as the growing danger of political Islam, there will be no peace. In fact, the confrontation with political Islam will deepen. The time has come to put an end to this confrontation by recognising Islam as one of the main tributaries flowing into the mainstream of contemporary global civilisation. It is only by restoring its legitimate place in the commonwealth of contemporary culture that Islam will shed its political character in a confrontation imposed on it by the West. (Sid-Ahmed 1994: 219).

      Identifying all the above subjects as actors calling for, and in increasing instances demanding for, alternatives to the current world order we may furthermore note that there now appears to be a growing consensus emerging, especially by theorists of alternatives, that a global coalition of progressive forces and actors is required to bring about an alternative world society (pertaining to social arrangement and structure). Recognized by theorists of an alternative development that all the grassroots initiatives for transformation, being dispersed and to a large extent a-political in character, have remained rather insufficient to enforce the macro changes which are required to bring about a more just and sustainable world (Sheth 1987: 165-169; see also Kothari 1995: 128), the latter perspective even coupled with such pessimistic views that we are in fact facing a world in which there will be little scone for alternatives (Kothari 1994), the perspective which is now emerging is that of a macro theory of transformative political action to be constructed and implemented. As D. L. Sheth (1987: 169) has put it, a theory 'which is based on the values and practice of democracy and which has synthesising potentials for integrating the perspectives and actions of various issue-based movements in a larger framework of transformation'.

      In short, then, the alternative strategy and agenda which is called for and which is now emerging (at least in theory) is fundamentally political in kind and global in scope. Crucial furthermore, it is a strategy that is normative in kind, determined by certain universal values. For its impact it calls upon a new project of global solidarity (see Waterman, forthcoming) which may bring together all progressive parties coming from national and global civil society, from nation states, and from the regional and transnational political arenas. Pertinent, furthermore, is this strategy and agenda's scope for new global institutional arrangements, which necessarily imply the radical democratisation of existing global institutions to address issues of security, environment and development that are necessarily global in scope, and also for structural changes on a global scale to bring in place a new pluralistic world order of far greater political, economic and social (cultural) equality and fairness (warranting maximum diversity and self-realization) than the one at present.

      Thus, it is a strategy and agenda which have particular processes, generated by the coalition of particular actors or subjects, as well as particular ends in view. What we are speaking of here, then, are in particular those perspectives of processes and ends that are directly associated with what is known as the World Order Models Project (WOMP) and, consequently, also the journal Alternatives, which has been a direct outcome of the latter project and in which the perspectives of the WOMP has been put forward. Finding particularly in the latter circle of the WOMP and Alternatives our framework and contents of perspective we, however, want to make it clear that we, in principle, do not want to restrict ourselves to this circle. For this reason we also integrate, however to a limited extent in this paper, perspectives which have been put forward in publications outside Alternatives, perspectives that we regard to provide a significant complement to the framework and contents put forward in the latter journal.

      What we are thus aiming at in the rest of this paper is to provide some sort of a synthesis of the unfolding perspectives and the agenda put forward by a particular group of theorists (with reference to the previous paragraph) who have in view a global transformation of the present world order or system. Necessary to say further that these theorists are building there perspectives on the practices of certain new actors in the arena of politics and development and, furthermore, are also directly associated with what have come to be known as alternative development theory and practice. However, these perspectives go beyond the latter mentioned actors and beyond the notion of development: fundamentally and more, they comprise a particular systemic and structural component which must be regarded as indispensable to more permanent and long term solutions to the current deprivation of the majority of the world's people and their abstention through the current structures by and large from self-actualization; to this must crucially be added, more permanent and sustainable solutions to the present ecological deterioration and destruction brought about by current socio-economic practices and arrangements. To further explain this systemic and structural perspective - or vision! we may well turn to the exposition of perspective set out by Rajni Kothari in the very first edition of Alternatives.

      He wrote:

      The concept of alternatives, then, is not to be limited just to development policies; it should entail visions about society and polity, and it should do this in the context of the evolution of the human community as a whole. When available models are found wanting and a new alternative is called forth, this applies not just to social and economic arrangements within a given society, but to the ordering of the world as a whole. Alternatives is a conception not just in the theory of development. It entails a model of and a perspective for world order and the transformations entailed for such a world order. It is an exercise in values and their realisation at various levels of reality, always taking account of cultural diversities but also of the unities that inform these diversities. It is not just a different kind of model for China or India or Tanzania (or Brazil) that one is seeking out though no doubt these and other models provides a very large scope for learning and criticism and action. One is also concerned about the making of a different kind of world conceived as a set of interrelationships. Without seeking to alter these interrelationships the effort to alter individual societies is not likely to go very far. This is the great change that has taken place in human affairs, the global setting in which they have to be conducted. (Kothari 1975: S).

      Relating ourselves directly to the framework and contents of the WOMP, and consequently the ideas expressed in the journal Alternatives, we are also likewise exposed to criticisms of being unrealistic and opportunistic, of presenting a blueprint, and of being utopian. On the issue of utopianism, first of all, a note. In this regard we find much comfort in Bjorn Hettne's reply to the same point of utopianism and alternatives when he states that the current mainstream model of society and development is to his mind also utopian because of its long-term unviability. For Hettne, furthermore, this unviability is due more to inherent contradictions of the mainstream model (of Western modernity) itself than to the lack of political support for it. To the contrary alternative models (which are now proposed) are in fact more viable in ecological and social terms, but here the accusation for utopianism rests precisely, and rather, on the lack of political backing (Hettne 1995: 160); we may add to Hettne, on the lack of moral conviction - as the title of this paper suggests, we do not make a separation between morality (values, norms) and politics. Hence our conclusion together with Hettne that the alternative view (or views) may well become more relevant as the crisis deepens. 'What seemed Utopian in the 1970s may become necessary as we move towards the year 2000.' (Hettne 1995: 161)

      In further defence of our adherence to the WOMP perspective we express our comfort with it exactly because it does not want to provide a blueprint. Over against any suggestions of a blueprint its very strength could be seen as lying in the fact that it has in scope the social totality of the human and social reality (see Ruiz 1994: 252) without providing a blueprint. As such it envisions systemic and structural change to the extent that would in fact make possible the ideals of cultural plurality and diversity to its full blossoming whilst not forsaking some sort of interrelationship, cooperation and mutual enriching between the diverse societies. Fundamentally, it envisions institutional change to support and serve all these different societies in an equally fair manner.

      But having in view a certain global framework of transformed structural and institutional arrangement the WOMP perspective significantly sets itself clear limitations of perspective. Indeed, this recognition seems to take a central place in the current thinking of the WOMP. Following for instance from one of the recent writings by Lester Ruiz on WOMP perspective new ideas and metaphors of myth and mythmaking, and of horizon are presently determining the project's conception, hence making place for yet nonconceptualizable and unimaginable spaces and identities to be generated and constructed by the subjects of those spaces themselves (see Ruiz 1994: 254-259).

      As Ruiz furthermore describes the dialectic or creative tension between fixed and nonconceptualizable imaginaries that are determining WOMP perspective based on the affirmation of plurality:

      This is not to suggest the undesirability of the idea of a peace and world order studies perspective or even a political project to constitute a global polity. In fact, I will suggest later that the latter may very well be necessary to the construction of a radical imaginary.. The affirmation of plurality, or difference, or the multiplicity of subjects and subject positions implies a fundamental challenge to some of the preferred trajectories or favourite strategies of peace and world order practices. In fact, this affirmation has a two-fold significance: on the one hand, plurality presupposes the recognition of different canters of power, thereby challenging those centralising logics implicit in many of modernity's projects. Such centers function as dislocatory practices, putting in question institutional logics that are hegemonic; and underscoring the historical and contingent character of these logics and practices. On the other hand, plurality points to different constructions of community and identity, alternative forms of knowledge and being, and diverse political strategies - all of which underscore not only the impossibility of a fixed positivity but of genuinely other spaces for the construction of transformative cultural practices. Precisely because of this multiplicity of subjects and subject positions, which function as dislocatory practices, we U understand that our frameworks and perspectives - indeed our preferred worlds and transition strategies - are radically contingent, precarious, historical. We are brought face to face with our end, with our limits. (Ruiz 1994 254-255)

      Consequently, we may conclude, it is within the latter conceptual framework - and socio-political arrangement - that one may anticipate the full blossoming of different alternatives coming in particular from the many peripheries of world society. It is within such a framework and arrangement that we can perceive the possibilities of an African alternative (see Nabudere 1994: 170), an Islamic-Arab alternative (see Sid-Ahmed 1994: 219), hence, of many other indigenous alternatives around the world - however, which do not imply extreme autarky or delinking but, to the contrary, a situation in which radically democratized global institutions will serve the many local and regional alternatives (see Shiva. 1993: 154-156) for them to come to full self-realization and self-expression.

      On a final note regarding our adherence to the WOMP perspective we relate this project also directly to that particular practice of an alternative development strategy which has come to be known as Participatory Action Research (PAR) - in particular as put forward by the radical exponents of such practice (e.g. Fals Borda 1988; Rahnema 1993; Rahman 1993). Consequently, we see the WOMP as the creative response to Orlando Fals Borda's recognition of a 'healthy compulsion to modify the current vision and mission of Participatory Action- Research as set in a wider historical perspective and to look beyond it'; furthermore, the WOMP as the next step in 'a progressive evolution [of PAR] toward overall, structural transformation of society and culture; a process that requires ever renewed commitment; an ethical stand, self-critique, and persistence at all levels' (Fals Borda 1992: 18). Indeed, we conclude, there is a direct correlation between the values, principles and goals determining radical PAR practices and that which determine the WOMP.
       
      A value-driven political process and the quest for a global values construct
      In WOMP, as in radical alternative development thinking, values and ethics have shifted to the forefront of discourse. Fundamentally, in this discourse politics, structures and values/ethics have converged in the framework for understanding and action. As Richard Falk has significantly described the essence of the WOMP, it 'is a norm-driven, values-guided expression of anthropolitics (italics added), seeking to fulfil human potentialities, but contextually, that is, acknowledging and celebrating difference and resisting totalizing modes of thought, organization, and technological capability' (Falk 1994: 146).

      For Falk, furthermore, it is the latter normative character of the WOMP which fundamentally differentiates it from the hegemonic and totalizing nature of post-Cold War geopolitics, also coined as the 'new world order'. Whereas the WOMP discourse cannot escape a certain descriptive and predictive element necessarily pertaining to the social totality and the aggregate common good of humanity as a whole (political, economic, social and cultural), thus implying a focus on some form of global (humane) governance pertaining to socio-economic and socio-political arrangement and regulation on behalf of the well- being of all humanity, it remains an essence a normative project and not a hegemonic one (in the totalizing sense). Normative in the sense that it has in view a '(n)ew world order... to be created by a combination of social-forces acting effectively and on behalf of such world order values as non-violence, economic and social justice, human rights and democracy, and environmental quality'; normative, furthermore, in the sense that it is informed and inspired by a moral 'desire to improve the human condition by direct political action, deploying means that reject violence, respect truth, and rest their confidence upon democracy as both process and outcome' (Falk, ibid.). To add, crucial to emphasize again that the non-hegemonic nature of the project is to be guaranteed through the principle of diversity which constantly has to inform and determine the articulation of the specified values into concrete political action and systemic transformation.

      Having specified the value-driven, normative contents or nature of the political processes determining the WOMP the question naturally arises about the actors relied upon to direct such a normative politics and also about the possibility of a true global reach of such politics and values - specified in the sub-title above as the quest for a global value construct. With regard to such questions we may first of all point to a recent article by writers Coate, Alger and Lipschutz who have put forward a rather favourable picture of an ongoing process towards a new global values construct. According to these authors new nations, states and movements, in the context of UN fora and elsewhere, have gained increasing access to an ongoing dialogue on global values in global governance, thereby shaping definitions of values that have acquired growing global relevance and legitimacy. According to them, furthermore, it is now possible to summarise this dialogue in terms of four widely accepted global values: peace (non-violence), development (economic well-being), human rights, and ecological balance (Coate, Alger and Lipschutz 1996: 102-103). (note 1)

      In recent years, the above-mentioned authors proceed, the latter four values have in fact been integrated into what is, by now, largely a single dialogue. Substantiating their argument these authors firstly point to the fact that it is now increasingly accepted by peace movements that the full meaning of peace does not only pertain to the notion of non-violence, but also to development, human rights and ecological balance. At the same time, they argue, it is increasingly accepted that human rights must include not only civil or political rights but also economic, social and cultural rights, and environmental justice. But significantly, furthermore, also the notion of 'development' has gone through a continual process of redefinition, from Western economic growth models to self-- reliance of Third Word states, to fulfilling the basic needs of people, to people deciding for themselves what their basic needs are (i.e. local self-reliance).

      A fourth significant development towards a single values construct, Coate et at. indicates, have also been the integration of 'ecological balance' into a single dialogue. As a consequence of ongoing dialogue about its meaning, they argue, ecological balance has subsumed the dimensions of development, human rights, and peace. As significant as the latter ecological determination, Coate et al. finally conclude, is the tendency by many involved in the present effort to define global values to use a broadly defined notion of peace as a paramount global value that is inclusive of all the above-mentioned four value dimensions (Coate, Alger and Lipschutz 1996: 102-103).

      Certainly, Coate, Alger and Lipschutz's claim of a single, integrated values construct currently in process should not be dismissed out of hand and in fact calls for an optimistic spirit. But we cannot neglect that there remains an undissolved tension between such optimistic points of view and those more pessimistic ones pointing to increasing processes of 'global apartheid' (Mazrui 1994; Köhler 1995), to continuing denials of human rights (particularly with regard to women's issues but also otherwise) (see e.g. Mogwe 1994: 189), and to the subtle cooptation of 'the language of resistance' by mainstream forces. With regard to the latter Vandana Shiva, in her contribution to a series of articles emanating from a WOMP workshop held in Zimbabwe in 1993, argued that institutions such as the World Bank and IMF "took over the language of underdevelopment and poverty, removed their history, and made them the reason for a new bondage based on development financing and debt burdens". Situating her argument in the context of North-South bilateral interactions, Shiva furthermore pointed out that by treating biodiversity as a global resource, the World Bank has now emerged as a protector of biodiversity; instead, according to Shiva, it has rather become a case wherein the North succeeds in gaining access to the South's biodiversity as globalization becomes a political means to ensure an erosion of the South's rights to its own biodiversity (Shiva 1994: 198; also quoted by KremI and Kegley 1996: 128).
       
      Putting authors like Coate, Alger and Lipschutz's exposition of global values construction in further relative perspective, mention should also be made of the growing group of critical theorists from the field of international political economy (IPE), but also critical globalisation theorists from other fields. As Anthony Giddens for instance, belonging to the latter group, has concluded on the globalizing trends of contemporary social life in his       Sociology:

      the world global system is riven with inequalities... One of the most worrying features of world society today is that increasing globalisation is not matched either by political integration or by the reduction of international inequalities of wealth and power (Giddens 1989: 547).

      Against the background of such conclusion by Giddens we may subsequently also turn to the conclusion of someone like Robert Cox, belonging to the former group of IPE theorists. Understanding the problem of change as the problem of a particular values construct that is dominating in almost absolute terms Cox states:

      It is often said that although  United States economic power in the world has experienced a relative decline, the American way of life has never been a more powerful model. An American-derived 'business civilisation', to use Susan Strange's term, characterises the globalizing elites; and American pop culture has projected an image of the good life that is a universal object of emulation - a universalized model of consumption. This constitutes a serious obstacle to the rethinking of social practices so as to be more compatible with the biosphere. (Cox 1995: 43)

       Thus, problematizing again the prospects of a (new and alternative) global values construct as the fundamental determinator for positive (global) change, without totally neglecting the claims that such a process may in fact have come into momentum, we conclude that such problematization confirms the indispensable need for a more effective and deliberate coalition of progressive, alternative actors or forces to push forward the true global reach, and consequent application, of such a values construct. Necessarily to stress again that such coalescent action calls for an overt value-driven macro politic.

      In WOMP perspective, consequently, this recognition places special hope on the transformative potential of the new social movements. Drawing also on the perspective of Raymond Williarns of a mobilising process towards transformation which may be evident today Richard Falk observes that we are envisioning a process in which the new social movements are in fact losing some of their particularity by expressing a certain overall commitment to the future that draws on common elements" (Falk 1987: 189). But, at the same, it is also significant that Falk, as one of the main spokespersons of the WOMP, acknowledges that social movements can, and are only one important source of positive (global) transformation enforced by a particularly enlightened values construct. For Falk, in particular, other sources include "cultural and technological activities; crisis, accidents, and education; "silent revolutions" in life style and ambitions; enlightened behaviour by governments that solve problems and provide models; cultural artifacts in the form of music, painting, literature; the transnationalizing character of international institutions and professional associations" (Falk 1987: 178).

      However, whilst Falk's perspective positively pertains to sources and actors on the micro and macro levels we retain our standpoint that this perspective, no matter how hopeful, still lacks in a theory and praxis of coherent normative political action. It is in this sense that we find William. Kreml and Charles Kegley's (1996) suggestion in the most recent issue of Alternatives of a "global political party", which would consist of the many issue specific oppositional groups and democratic political parties and organizations existing in the world today, to be provocative and to leave much food for thought for possible constructive opposition on the global level. Whilst these two writers have left problems of institutionalization, locality and operation, and the relationship of such a party to a transformed (!) United Nations, for instance, unanswered it is certainly an idea that calls for further reflection and exploration (see further our final subheading below). Furthermore, it is in the same issue of Alternatives that we find the collective perspective of writers Coate, Alger and Lipschutz (1996), already referred to above, of the need for a far- reaching integration of the institutions and actors of civil society in the organization and operation of a (transformed!) United Nations also of crucial relevance. Indeed, we conclude, these two publications, by Kreml and Kegley, and by Coate et al., mark important contributions to the perspective of a coherent normative political activity that is needed for a far-reaching global transformation.

      Finally, a discussion on global values cannot neglect the question about the role of religious traditions and institutions in promoting the global values construct envisioned in this discussion. This is indeed an extensive topic which we do not intent to explore here in depth but for a few notations. Within the context of this paper we restrict ourselves to perspectives from the circle of the WOMP and Alternatives, which have been rather and predominantly in favour of religion - at least a certain expression of religion. Significant, then, is for instance Robert johansen's evaluation that the participants in WOMP would need to give more attention to the role of religious traditions in resisting and in promoting the implementation of particular values. He continues:

      Religious traditions possess enormous assets - material, organizational, educational, and spiritual which can be employed for good or ill in shaping the future world order ... Religious traditions are value based, as is ROMP, Religious traditions at their best extol the value of human life and justice ... The major religious traditions preach against viewing the state as the highest authority, as does the Project. At their best they stand above or against national parochialism; in this posture they parallel the transnational emphasis of the Project. Religious leaders are often experienced in calling for major attitudinal change, which the Project also seeks. Both attempt to develop support for doing what is "good", even when the political effectiveness of such actions is not immediately evident. (Johansen 1994: 158-59).

      In a similar positive appraisal Richard Falk stated that the efforts by social movements to reshape the cultural ground of politics have not only set new challenges and opportunities for churches to join in the process of resistance and renewal, but that churches and clergy have throughout the 1980s in fact also provided resources, facilities, and crucial encouragement to the social movements themselves. For Falk, furthermore, "a religious element is (also) congenial with the anti -materialist, anti-secular character of the new movements, as well as with their universalistic sense of human identity" (Falk 1987: 185) Pointing in a later article to the role of the churches in democratic and political struggles in, amongst others, Nicaragua, El Salvador, South Africa, South Korea and the Philippines, Falk concluded that a Christian presence has in fact emerged "at the centre of radical opposition politics" in many contexts of the Third World. But, Falk proceeds, it is not only in the Third World that a constructive pattern of religion and political interpenetration has occurred. He subsequently points to the case of the Solidarity Movement in Poland but also to a less focused, "yet... definite reassertion of religious presence on many political battlefields" in Western Europe and the United States (Falk 1988: 383 - 85).

      Returning again to William Kreml and Charles Kegley's idea of a global political party we may subsequently also note these writers' inclusion of the World Council of Churches (WCC) as one of the "issue-specific oppositional groups" to join in such a party (Kreml and Kegley 1996: 133). As an additional note which could be regarded as a positive response to such idea of collectivity again we may point to the recognition within the WCC itself that in order for the churches (collectively speaking) to participate meaningfully in a world-wide democratic countermovement it would be necessary to build alliances not only within their own ranks, but also with the other democratic institutions of international civil society (Raiser 1994: 42-44; see also Batista 1994: 19-20; Ichiyo 1994: 30-37).

      Finally, however, a recognition of the (potential) significant contribution of religion or rather religious traditions in the plural to a global values construct, which again is fundamentally integrated with coherent global political action, cannot be concluded without stating more pertinently what the nature of such religion should be and what it should not be. To again point to some of the perspectives coming from the circle of Alternatives and the WOMP. In the words of Richard Falk, fundamentalisms are obviously excluded, hence "those religiously-oriented initiatives that rely on violence, seek to transform the state into a theocracy, and fail to incorporate the whole of humanity into their professed imaginary of salvation" (Falk 1987: 185). Adhering to such all- inclusive incorporation it thus pertains to an anti- imperialist and non-expansionist religious attitude and practice which in the words of Ashis Handy evolves "the recovery of religious tolerance" that would sustain "diversities and co-existence in the matter of faith"; which, accordingly, points to a rediscovering of the non-Western meaning of "secularism" of "equal respect for all religions", implying a "space for a continuous dialogue among religious traditions and between the religious and the secular - that, in the ultimate analysis, each major faith... includes within it an in-house version of the other faiths both as an internal criticism and as a reminder of the diversity of the theory of transcendence" (Nancy 1988: 180-81).

      In conclusion we may well point to Lester Rud's notion of theology as a critical theory and practice of transformation for our understanding of religion in the positive. Making a fundamental distinction between religion per se and theology, the latter denoting critical reflection on the religious and human totality (we would like to add, denoting the critical discursive practice which has to inform and shape religious practice and consciousness), Ruiz's positive conception relating to religion pertains to a critical theological discourse which "is at once public, critical, and transformative"; hence, which rejects the uncritical identification of theological and political discourse, whilst at the same time "celebrates their inextricable relatedness". As such, then, Ruiz aspires to a religious or rather theological practice expressing itself as a "politics of transformation" which, ultimately, is directed towards the creation and nurture of "fundamentally new and better relationships", that is, relationships between human beings, between humanity and nature, and between the human and the sacred (Ruiz 1988: 156-57).

      A politics of reconstructive postmodernism
      In the discussion above the concepts of diversity, pluralism, and multiple identity as determinants of WOMP perspective have already been noticeably stressed. Simultaneously the notion of coalition and coherent strategy has also been particularly emphasised. Mindful of the fact not to merely repeat what has already been stated it, however, appears necessary from the point of view of WOMP perspective to qualify in some further detail the above dual notion of pluralism and universalise or unity (as informing the strategic and conceptual framework of the WOMP and our understanding of a normative politics of global transformation) under the separate heading of postmodernism.

      Following from the writing of someone like Richard Falk we may observe that the politics and vision guiding the WOMP are fundamentally informed and qualified by postmodern theory and ideology. But as Falk has further pointed out, following David Griffin, it is a postmodernism which is reconstructive in kind. In this sense it refutes the statist, rationalist and materialist orientation of modernism. At the same time, however, WOMP perspective postulates not to be dogmatically postmodern in tone or substance and, in fact, still wants to draw upon the achievements of modernity in relation to political order, rationality and material enhancement of life for its goals of reconstruction. It (WOMP) thus follows a strategy which seeks and perceive the necessity to preserve elements of modernity to the extent possible, while being concerned at the same time "about the commodification of the human spirit (the consumerist ethos) and the overall constraints associated with sustainability and ecological well-being" (Falk 1994: 146-147).

      Rejecting the totalitarian claim and considerable destructive element of modernism it may thus be stated that WOMP strategy seeks solutions through the multiplicity of existing and new subjects or actors representing multiple forms of insight, knowledge and culture coming from a multiplicity of diverse contexts (see again our quotation of Ruiz on p. 6). This may be seen as one side of the reconstructive postmodernism which WOMP strategy adheres to, in political terms, we may say, a ,politics of difference' upholding the right to differentiation, to self-reliance and to direct participation in the (re)construction of one's own society.
       
      Fundamentally, however, it is a paradigm of reconstructive postmodernism which, in our own words, is also determined by a 'dialectics of cooperation' and 'collective identification'. Accordingly viable and sustainable solutions are sought through dialogue, cooperation and interchange among the multiple and diversity of  'modern' and 'postmodern' actors (the latter also in affinity with the premodern and with tradition). Pertaining to solutions in the many terrains of planetary and human life this dialectics of cooperation and collective identification also take on distinct political meaning, hence a 'politics of cooperation' and 'collective identification' seeking permanent solutions through  institutional and structural transformation and change at the highest levels of society.

      Having pointed out the above dual concept of reconstructive postmodernism guiding WOMP strategic thinking, which aspires to a creative dialectical relationship between modernity and postmodern identities and conceptions, and between a 'politics of difference' and a 'politics of cooperation' and 'collective identification', we may well turn in the final analysis to Richard Falk's list of features which defines the postmodern essence of WOMP and seeks to give it concrete expression. Summarizing in fact much of the discussion in this paper so far these features of postmodern determination (in the above dual sense) listed by Falk are:
       
        (i) the WOMP'S radical critique of 'realism' as a basis for understanding the world,
        (ii) the WOMP's blurring of boundaries of space, time, and knowledge, as well as its denial of clarity about limits;
        (iii) the WOMP's commitment to human solidarity as well as to cultural diversity:
        (iv) the WOMP's comprehensive view of the applicability of democratic processes including all domains of social interaction from the family to the United Nations;
        (v) the WOMP's endeavour to occupy a political space that is the domain of concrete struggle and not merely idealism;
        (vi) the WOMP's insistence upon moral engagement and political activism as integral elements of scholarly activity, and its consequent rejection of adherence to neutrality and an academic stance of indifference;
        (vii) the WOMP's flexible search for allies among elites and social movements;
        (viii) the WOMP's commitment to a new world order that entails spiritual aspects of human nature but at the same time proposes various formations of transnational institutionalization of authority and accountability;
        (ix) the WOMP's growing ideological kinship to feminist, ecological and ecofeminist world views
        (        Falk 1994: 147).

      Global institutional and structural transformation: some concrete notations
      As a fundamental component of WOMP perspective this project's emphasis on global institutional and structural transformation, aiming to retain a particular element of global governance, regulation and arrangement serving the common good of all humanity, necessarily calls for some further concrete exploration. For this purpose we, for instance, find significant direction for discourse on global reform in a number of notations and perspectives recently put forward by someone like Samir Amin (1995), thereby directing ourselves also outside the direct circle of WOMP and Alternatives publication. However, necessary to immediately qualify ourselves again by stating that we regard these notations and perspectives by Amin to be fully in accordance with WOMP direction of thought, in fact as perspectives that give fuller concrete expression to the WOMP vision and agenda (i.e. to the concrete processes and ends of the project).
       
      In a review of proposals for reform of the       Bretton Woods institutions that concludes his (v) outspoken critique of the present form of world economic organisation put forward in discussion, Amin first of all points out a five point strategy for global economic reform made by certain more radical advocates which he (Amin) himself regards as "a very fine project for reform of the world economic and political system". In particular for the fact that it proceeds from the central idea that development can only be revived through a redistribution of income both at the global level, that is in favour of peripheries, and at the social level, that is within centres and peripheries in favour of workers and the popular classes; furthermore, that world trade and capital movements must be subordinated to the logic of a demand-side approach to trade (Amin 1995: 47). This project, in concrete terms, consequently entails:
        (i) the transformation of the IMF into a genuine world central bank with the power of issuing a real currency that would replace the dollar standard, would ensure a certain stability of exchange rates, and would provide developing countries with the liquidities for "adjustment within growth";

        (ii) the transformation of the World Bank into a fund that would collect surpluses (from countries such as japan and Germany) and lend them to the Third World (and not to the United States);

        (iii) the creation of a genuine international trade organisation (ITO) which would secure a full- fledged multilateral system of trade, which in the process would temper the negative aspects of the creation of regional units by preventing them from becoming protected "fortresses" being aggressive to the outside, and which would also have other objectives such as the stabilisation (or revalorization) of raw materials;

        (iv) the internalization of environmental issues in World Bank policy which might evolve setting up a world tax on energy, nonrenewable resources, etc., that would increase the resources available to the World Bank which could again be used to subsidise respect for environmental concerns in poor countries;

        (v) the allocation of a heightened political role for the United Nations to ensure that a direct correlation might be established between development assistance (in a transformed multilateral framework) and political and social democracy; hence, to make sure that development aid might not only be conditional upon respect for individual rights and political democracy, but might also support progressive social policies (e.g. ensuring that wage increases parallel increases in productivity, thereby providing for a more equal redistribution of income, etc.); furthermore, to ensure, in accordance with the 'global interest', that the self-interests of countries benefitting for instance from protectionist measures (which, however, would be permitted) might be offset by taxes paid to the world community by the benefitting country, which again could be used as a development fund for Third World countries. (Amin 1995: 45-47)
         
        Having defined the above five-dimensional strategy in predominant positive terms as "a very fine project for reform", as already mentioned, Amin, however, proceeds by putting forward what he perceives as a necessary "constructive critique" (but not denouncement) of the prescribed project. For Amin, consequently, the project needs to be problematized on the following grounds:  
         (i) for the fact that many of the analyses underlining the reformist argument are too much inclined to mix value judgements (that the current system is 'bad') with explanations of the reasons motivating the decisions of the dominant powers, thereby obeying the logic of dominant interest (in other words, if we could further interpret Amin's point, that these reformist viewpoints incline to operate in the ideological framework of a 'bad' versus a 'better' or 1 good' capitalism rather than in a more overt socialist framework);

        (ii) for the fact that the above transformation of the IMF and World Bank should not be seen as the first conditions for transformation   but rather as later or end objectives of a long transition process (that if otherwise they in fact are to become the first conditions it might well mean submission to the logic of capitalism as also grounded in point (i) above); hence, that before reach -ing these other objectives of transformation it would first of all be necessary to construct, on a structural level, a polycentric world on both the economic and the political levels, which must be seen as the basis of political and economic reform;

        (iii) for the fact that the virtues of free trade propagated by the above reform project should also be seriously questioned and that the vision of the authors of The new protectionism (Tim Lary and Colin Hines) should be preferred to that of the advocates of a genuine free trade system (Amin 1995: 48-49).

        Following from the above points of critique Amin finally concludes with his own five point strategic proposal which he suggests should take priority in action for global reform. For Amin the priorities for action must be to:  

        (i) constructing Third World regions organized to face the "five monopolies" of dominant capitalism in such a way to limit their negative effects in the context of ongoing global polarisation; 
        (ii) reviving the European left and the construction of Europe, enriched by particular progressive social reform toward a "hegemony of labour", integrating Eastern Europe and the former USSR in this project;
         
        (iii) reviewing the financial and commercial relations between Europe, japan, and the United States in such a way to permit a relative stabilization of exchange rates and force the United States to give up its structural deficit; hence, which would also permit the reorganization of trade relations;
         
        (iv) reconstructing the UN system to make it the locus of political and economic negotiations to organize the articulation of commercial and financial interdependence between the world's major regions; to open negotiations on disarmament; to take the first steps towards the creation of a world taxation in view of objectives of protecting the environment and natural resources, etc.;
        (v) reforming the IMF in accordance with the above regional and world interdependencies, and not implying its immediate reform into a world bank (Amin 1995: 49-50).
         
        Towards a global civil society approach to a transformative global politics: beyond a social movement approach
        The special place denoted by those from the circle of WOMP and Alternatives to the role of the new social movements in global transformation has already been noted earlier in this paper. This is for instance also well illustrated by someone like Richard Falk when he states that "the new social movements seem at present to embody our best hopes for challenging established and oppressive political, economic, and cultural arrangements at levels of social complexity, from the interpersonal to the international" (Falk 1987: 173). But as we also noted earlier, it is also Falk who has observed that social movements are only one source of transformation and that there are also other sources or actors (see again Falk 1987: 178).
      Following from Falk's latter observation we could conclude that the emphasis in WOMP and Alternatives publication also on global institutional and structural reform, the questioning also of the impact of social movements (e.g. Kothari 1993), and the regard for the transformative potential also of many other actors such as intellectuals and scientists (e.g. Kothari 1987: 288-290; Alatas 1993), the United Nations in intimate relationship with all institutions of civil society in which NGOs are particularly mentioned (Coate, Alger and Lipschutz 1996) and a global political party of issue-specific oppositional institutions and organizations (Kreml and Kegley 1996), etc., clearly points to a perspective or approach (in the unified and collective sense) to global transformation ion that goes beyond what may be called a "social movements approach" to transformation. That is an approach to transformation which as Martin Shaw describes "privileges social movements as a pivotal type of social institution reflecting the contradictions of modernity" and which "claims that social movements are uniquely important social phenomena' for transformation (Shaw 1994: 65 1); furthermore, which (i.e. the latter social movements approach) may also relate to the perspective by International Relations theorists who assume that social movements are by definition actors in global or international politics in the traditional sense of inter- and intrastate politics (Shaw 1994: 652-53).

      What seems then to be emerging from WOMP and Alternatives writings but also from writings outside that direct circle complementing the former is the evolution of what Martin Shaw has come to call a "civil society approach" to global politics. Not dispensing with the point of view of the transformative role which social movements might (still) play this perspective calls for "a broader and more complex "civil society" approach" (Shaw 1994: 665) which in practice may give way to a united transformative agenda and politics by all actors from the civil society domain. In short, it is a perspective which echoes authors Coate, Alger and Lipschutz's recent conclusion that global transformative action "will have to come from global civil society - from all its levels" (1996: 118). Coming to a closer identification of such a multi-levelled or multi-layered global civil society, as the first necessary step towards conceptual clarification, Martin Shaw subsequently points out that we could identify at least three major types of institutions which comprise an emergent (however not yet fully developed) global civil society. Being expressions of already transnational (global) linkages, networks and collective organizations these three types are: 1) formal organisations linking national institutions (i.e. organisations of parties, churches, unions, professions, educational bodies, media, etc.); 2) linkages of informal networks and movements (e.g. women's and peace groups and movements); and 3) globalist organisations which are established with a specifically global orientation, global membership and activity of global scope (e.g. Amnesty, Greenpeace, Medicines sans Frontières, etc.) (Shaw 1994: 650).

      By way of further clarification we suggest, as also evident from the particular circle of literature, that a global civil society approach to a transformative global politics may consequently be summarised along the following points:
       
      Firstly      , that the emphasis on social movements, grassroots, national and transnational, remains vital. That these movements present a transformative "politics of difference" but in terms of R.B.J. Walker's identification (writing in Millennium but also coming from the direct circle of WOMP and Alternatives) also a "politics of connections" and a "politics of movement which are to be regarded as absolutely crucial to a transformative global politics. As Walker points out, whilst a politics of connections does not necessarily indicate a "politics of a united front or a counterhegemonic strategy" social movements indeed do connect, converse, learn from each other, and sometimes develop partial solidarities. Moreover, these social movements are the embodiment of a "politics of movement which cannot be fully captured by territorial form and which surpasses the spatio-temporal relations and identities of modernity (Walker 1994: 699). As such they represent a politics which may be located to a particular space and place but which at the same time is also in a process of constant dislocation, always on the move, always expanding, always linking somewhere whilst dislocating again and moving elsewhere/somewhere/everywhere. As Walker furthermore concludes:

      A politics of movement cannot be grasped through categories of containment. A politics of connections cannot be grasped through a metaphysics of inclusions and exclusion, whether of insides and outsides or shoves and blows... An empirical analysis of social movements, and an interpretation of their significance for what a world politics might become, does not have to be bound by the prejudices of modernity. On the contrary, these prejudices can only ensure that the fine lines separating us from them can never be transgressed. An empirical reading of social movements might show that these fine lines are being transgressed all the time. (Walker 1994: 100).

      Hence our suggestion that Walker's notion of a "politics of movement" and a "politics of connections" could be extended to the notion of a "politics of ideas", whereby social movements in their local, national and transnational manifestations are in fact spreading and establishing a new construct of common values and ideas throughout the world, which is to be seen as the ultimate determinant factor for positive structural change. Thus we could say, notwithstanding the absence of apparent links among social movements this "politics of ideas" in fact constitutes a "politics of connections" in the strongest sense of the word, slowly bringing into existence a new global value construct (together with other actors from civil society!) which may ultimately become the binding factor of a decisive global transformative politics.
       
      Secondly      , then, that the actual transformative role of social movements must also be problematized in a global civil society approach. In this sense a global civil society approach directly challenges the overestimation of social movements in what has been identified above as a "social movement approach". More specific, the former approach challenges and problematizes the notion of a grand political strategy of global transformation with which social movements might be associated. Accordingly it appeals to R.B.J. Walker's rectification of what a "politics of connections" and a "Politics of movement" are not:

      It makes intuitive sense to countenance the spatial extension of a movement here to a movement there, to envisage a convergence of progressive forces acting across those merely artificial boundaries that offend planetary integrity and species identity. Similarities and connections are all too readily translated into grand philosophies of history that point upwards to the projected vision of a global civil society, a global governance, and a properly world politics. (Walker 1994: 100).
       
      Following from the latter note of qualification or rectification by Walker, we state, a global civil society approach would therefore also have to take seriously the following questions and statements about the limitations of social movements in a world politics. Hence, that those favouring or emphasizing the significance of social movements as subjects of global transformation (as in fact also propagators of a global civil society approach) must seriously interrogate whether social movements are in fact challenging the constitutive practices of modern politics (Walker 1994: 672) - certainly, a challenge which is to a great extent refuted by current indicators in the field of international political economy. In this regard we are again tempted to quote Walker, who remarks:

      Judged from the real heights of statecraft, social movements are but mosquitos on the evening breeze, irritants to those who claim maturity and legitimacy at the centres of political life. Some mosquitos, of course, can have deadly effects. Some movements, it can be claimed, have had tremendous impact on states, societies, economics and cultures. But even large movements are difficult to take seriously once compared to the might and reach of a properly world politics. (Walker 1994: 669).

      To proceed with our notations and questions of limitation. Propagators of social movements as subjects of a transformative politics also have to ask whether many of the movements (such as the green movement, Green Peace) have not in fact been coopted by the dominant and mainstream (Kothari 1993: 133 -138); furthermore, whether many social movements are in fact political actors at all (Kothari 1993: 134; Sheth 1987: 166-167; Shaw 1994: 652); given also the differentiations among social movements, hence "the specificity of locations and traditions" (Walker 1994: 690) characterising them, also their episodic and in many (most?) cases narrow "political" objectives, and their tendency towards a middle class bias particularly in the North (Shaw 1994: 653-54), whether they are in fact instruments of mass mobilisation (Shaw 1994: 653) and in any way representatives of a focused and central politics of transformation; consequently, whether they are in fact more effective than other bodies in civil society (Straw 1994: 648); and crucial, finally, whether social movements are not in fact dependent on the other actors of civil society as well as formal political parties for their impact, that is for bringing about the world of transformed relations and structures they are envisioning. It is in view of such problematization, then, that we find much orientation in the following concluding statements by Martin Shaw of social movements' dependence on a wider range of actors and institutions for their meaningful political articulation:

      Social movements depend closely on the other institutions of civil society. On the one hand, although they are widely seen as bypassing traditional institutions such as parties, churches and trade unions, they also exist in relation to these. They are often dependent on political parties, in particular, in order to translate social movement demands into political agenda items which have a serious chance of turning into state policy. Social movements also depend on a wider ideological discourse, which develops through university intellectuals but also through interchange with Green and traditional left-wing parties, through the mass media, and through other networks in civil society. In this way, as in others, social movements cannot be seen as completely distinctive social phenomena, but are embedded in the larger complex of relationships in civil society. They overlap and share many characteristics with other civil society institutions. (Shaw 1994: 666).
       
       From the latter quotation naturally follows our       third and final point qualifying a global civil society approach to a transformative global politics. Such an approach, for one, recognises the dependence of social movements on a wider range of civil society and political actors for meaningful political articulation. However, we would again like to qualify such recognition by in fact rather proposing the notion of interdependence as the operating framework, whereby it is acknowledged that all those actors or institutions of civil society, however also extended to the realm of party and state politics, who are the serious propagators of a new sustainable and just world are all dependent on each other to obtain their common goal. Stipulating such interdependence we are, however, reminded by Martin Shaw that the existence of global civil society is still more potential than actual and that it is (regrettably) only following relatively slowly on economic globalization which has gathered very rapid momentum (Shaw 1994: 655).

      Not being in disregard of the fact that a mobilising process towards global civil society (as an actor or interlinking groups of actors in globalized political, economic and social processes) may well have come into motion already (to contradict Shaw's perspective again somewhat), we conclude that the great challenge which seems to lie ahead therefore, adhering to a global civil society approach to a transformative global Politics, is for the actors and institutions of civil society to purposefully and strategically work for more effective and binding relationships, networks and coalitions among themselves which may ultimately capacitate them to meaningfully and in a decisive way (as a collective force) influence and change interstate relationships and the processes of global governance. Necessarily to add that what must be ultimately at stake here is the far-reaching integration of civil society actors and institutions (from the grassroots up) into the transformed arrangement(s) of global governance processes. As authors Coate, Alger and Lipschutz have also made the point, in final conclusion:

      What remains a major challenge is how such bodies [from civil society aspiring/pursuing a sustainable development approach], as well as other even more amorphous collectivities such as scientists and other opinion communities, can be integrated effectively into global governance processes and the work of IG0s. In addition, global norms as they relate to people-centred development need to bloom from the roots up, not from the top down. For this actually to happen, the numerous and varied social groupings with which people most closely identify in the context of any particular issue setting - whether they be transnational social movements, religious orders, economic groupings, legal/political units, or whatever - need to be viewed and treated as acceptable partners for transnational cooperation and collaboration. (Coate, Alger and Lipschutz 1996: 111-12).

      The next step: a global political party?
      ... the divisions between rich and poor societies are quite extreme, and could easily become the source of great international tensions. There is no central global agency which could effectively control these tensions, or enforce a world redistribution of wealth. (Anthony Giddens 1989: 547).

      Political excess requires excessive thought. Excessive thought requires the willingness to think beyond accepted limits... The issue of pushing thought to the limits and beyond so as to engage in interpretation and criticism, criticism that is driven by ethico-political concerns, attentive to history and concerned with the expansive and practical dilemmas of world politics. That work is being done now. It repays thoughtful attention (David Campbell 1994: 315).
       
      Having indicated the evolution of perspective in WOMP and       Alternatives publication, but also outside the direct circle of the latter, from a social movements approach to a global civil society approach as strategic framework of a transformative global politics, we finally conclude our discussion by noticing that this evolution of perspective is now also being further stretched by William Kreml and Charles Kegley's suggestion of a "global political party" put forward in the most recent issue of Alternatives, as already mentioned earlier. We content ourselves here with only a very brief exploration of the idea (as put forward by Kreml and Kegley), which in more elaborate discussion has to be the objective of another paper.
       
      For Kreml and Kegley, then, the moment must now be seized, at this point in history, by issue- specific oppositional groups such as Greenpeace, Sierra Club International, the World Council of Churches, Amnesty International, SANE, the Rainforest Action Network, Conservation International, the Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, Survival International, Save the Children, Habitat for Humanity, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and similar organisations, along with those nation-states and regional political organisations that are prepared to participate in a more democratic world, to establish the next instrument towards the world's dialectical progress towards real world justice. That instrument, for them, is a global political party (Kreml and Kegley 1996: 133).

      For Kreml and Kegley the ideological base upon which their proposed global political party is to operate is in particular that of the WOMP. Accordingly the party is to articulate and bring into motion the processes towards a new world order which Richard Falk, amongst others from the WOMP, has envisioned as "to be created by a combination of social forces acting effectively and on behalf of such world order values as non-violence, economic and social justice, human rights and democracy, and environmental quality" (Kreml and Kegley 1996: 126). But in further full accordance with WOMP ideology KremI and Kegley are also very well aware and sensitive for the fact that the party they are proposing is not to "simply mirror the narrowness" of hegemonic statist and developmental views of the world, hence a party that would not simply commit "the domestic fallacy" on a global level, thereby imposing (as current global forces are in fact doing) homogeneity and accordingly a singular universalise on all of the world's peoples (Kreml and Kegley 1996: 127, 130, 132). On the contrary those (postmodern) ideals of the WOMP which acknowledge and celebrate difference and resist totalizing modes of thought (Kreml and Kegley 1996: 126) are to constitute the cognitive basis of such party:

      At its foundation, our proposal for a global political party only builds upon the assertions of subjective multiplicity.. It is a state of mind that recognises the multiplicity of other minds, as sell as other objective circumstances, that will alone permit a transformation from single-minded observances of singular forms of global description to multiple perspectives upon multiple aspirations. The new world's transformation to such a vision can transcend the orthodox bilateral, cognitively analytic, state-centred perspectives on today's global reality. (Kreml and Kegley 1996:131).

      Built on such a cognitive basis Kreml and Kegley consequently envision their proposed political party "to serve as the institutional core of a transnational political opposition movement" (Kreml and Kegley 1996: 124) working towards an "alternative form of universalise" to respond to global equity needs (KremI and Kegley 1996: 130). For Kreml and Kegley, then, the party they are proposing would be at the heart of a global political activity that in a dialectical way would support the strivings of multiple aspirations whilst at the same time would be determined by "an aggregational, comprehensive vision", hence "one that specifically incorporates differentiations among the very qualities of the variables that are to be included in the global equation" (Kreml and Kegley 1996: 125).
       
      Hitherto our short exploration of Kreml and Kegley's idea of a global political party. In the subheading above we have put the notion of such party in question form. Kreml and Kegley, however, in their article, has put the idea in the affirmative since for them "no principles, and no institutions, currently exist through which a freshly constituted global public might organise itself to oppose the new reign of the great powers" (Kreml and Kegley 1996: 124). For these two writers, consequently, a global political party is to fill this gap. We, on the other hand, would be somewhat more reticent by stating that we want to recognise some already existing oppositional force in the activities, Initiatives and symbolisms of many alternative actors and movements across the world - as we have put forward in this paper.

      However, whilst this is said we also have acknowledged the need for a far greater theory and praxis of coherent normative political action, in the oppositional sense, in our discussion above. We have therefore also identified the need, as evident from a certain circle of intellectual perspective, to shift from a social movement approach to a transformative global politics to a global civil society approach. We may finally ask: What oppositional force or forces are going to have enough penetrating power to bring about a radical transformation of the United Nations institutions which would give civil society institutions and actors a far greater reach and participation in decision-making, as writers Coate, Alger and Lipschutz are arguing for? Furthermore, what force or forces are going to have sufficient penetrating power to bring about the above-mentioned global institutional and structural transformation which Samir Amin is arguing for - including in particular the radical reform of the Bretton Woods institutions and regulations?

      Moreover, what force or forces could have sufficient penetrating power to make the realization of a polycentric world, hence a world build on the pillars of equity, diversity, plurality and decentralization but also mutual cooperation and exchange (on the basis of equity), a real possibility? And finally, what could be the official or real mouthpiece or instrument which may unite all the alternative actors and movements and actors and movements for alternatives into the truly coherent normative political force that we have argued for in this paper, thus also as the real political instrument of a global civil society approach to global transformation? An answer or answers to these questions, we conclude also from our side, may well lead us to together with KremI and Kegley put the idea of a global political party in the affirmative.

      (1) It would be pertinent to mention here that these are also four central value concepts determining the WOMP.

      References:
        • Alatas, Syed Farid. 1993. "On the Indigenization of Academic Discourse", Alternatives, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 307-38.
        • Amin, Samir. 1995. "Fifty Years is Enough!", Monthly Review, Vol. 46, No. 11, April, pp. 850.
        • Batista, Israel. 1994. "Civil Society. A Paradigm or a New Slogan?", The Ecumenical Review, Vol. 46, No. 1, January, pp. 12-20.
        • Campbell, David. 1994. "Political Excess and the Limits of Imagination", Millennium. Vol. 23. No. 2. pp. 365- 75.
        • Coate, Roger A., Chadwick E Alger and Ronnie D. Lipschutz. 1996. "The United Nations and Civil Society: Creative Partnerships for Sustainable Development". Alternatives. Vol. 21. No. 2. pp. 93- 122.
        • Cox Robert W 1995. "Critical political Economy" in Hettne, Björn (ed) International Political Economy. Understanding Global Disorder. London: Zed Books: pp. 31-45.
        • Falk, Richard. 1994. "From Geopolitics to Geogovernance: WOMP and Contemporary Political Discourse", Alternatives, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 145-154.
        • Falk, Richard. 1988. "Religion and Politics: Verging on the Postmodern", Alternatives. Vol. 13. No. 3. pp. 379- 394.
        • Falk, Richard. 1987. "The Global Promise of Social Movements: Explorations at the Edge of Time", Alternatives, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 173-196.
        • Fals Borda, Orlando. 1992. "Evolution and Convergence in Participatory Action- Research", in Frideres, James S. (ed), A World of Communities: Participatory Research Perspectives. London: Captus: pp. 14-19.
        • Fals Borda, Orlando. 1988. Knowledge and People's Power. New Delhi: Indian Social Institute. 122 pp.
        • Giddens, Anthony. 1989. Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press. 8 15 pp.
        • Goulet, Denis. 1995. Development Ethics. A Guide to Theory and Practice. London: Zed Books: 2 5 2 pp.
        • Hettne, Björn. 1995. Development Theory and the Three Worlds. 2nd ed. Essex: Longman: 319 pp.
        • Ichiyo, Muto. 1994. "Alliance of Hope and Challenges of Global Democracy", The Ecumenical Review, Vol. 46, No. 1, January, pp. 28-37.
        • Johansen, Robert C. 1994. "The Contribution of the World Order Models Project", Alternatives, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 155-162.
        • Köhler, Gernot. 1995. "The Three Meanings of Global Apartheid: Empirical, Normative, Existential", Alternatives, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 403-413.
        • Kothari, Rajni. 1993. "The Yawning Vacuum: A World Without Alternatives", Alternatives, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 119-39.
        • Kothari, Rajni. 1988. Rethinking Development. In Search of Humane Alternatives. Delhi: Ajanta.
        • Kothari, Rajni. 1987. "On Humane Governance", Alternatives, Vol. 127 No. 3, pp. 277-290.
        • Kothari, Rajni. 1975. "Editorial Statement", Alternatives, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-5.
        • Kreml, Williarn R and Charles W Kegley, Jr. 1996. "A Global Political Party: The Next Step", Alternatives, Vol. 2 1, No. 2, pp. 123-134.
        • Lee, Raymond L. M. 1994. "Modernization, Postmodernism and the Third World", Current Sociology, Vol. 42. No. 2. pp. i-63.
        • Mazrui, Ali. 1994. "Global Apartheid: Structural and Overt, Alternatives. Vol. 19. No. 2. pp. 185-193.
        • Mogwe, Alice. 1994. "Human Rights in Botswana: Feminism, Oppression, and Integration", Alternatives, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 189-93.
        • Nabudere, Dani W 1994. "The African Challenge", Alternatives, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 163-17 1.
        • Nandy, Ashis. 1988. "The Politics of Secularism and the Recovery of Religious Tolerance". Alternatives. Vol. 2. No. 2. pp. 177-194.
        • Rahman, Anisur. 1993. People's Self-Development. Perspectives on Participatory Action Research. London: Zed Books: 234 pp.
        • Rahnema, Majid. 1993. "Participation", in Sachs, Wolfgang (ed), The Development Dictionary. A Guide to Knowledge as Power. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press: pp. 116-131.
        • Rahnema, Majid. 1993. "Poverty", in Sachs, Wolfgang (ed), The Development Dictionary. A Guide to Knowledge as Power. Johannesburg: Witwaterstand University Press: pp. 158-176.
        • Raiser, Konrad. 1994. "The World Council of Churches and International Civil Society", The Ecumenical Review, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 38-44.
        • Ruiz, Lester Edwin J. 1994. "Toward a New Radical Imaginary: Constructing Transformative Cultural Practices", Alternatives, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 247-261.
        • Ruiz, Lester Edwin J. 1988. "Theology, Politics, and the Discourses of Transformation", Alternatives, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 155-176.
        • Sakamoto, Yoshikazu. 1995. "Democratization, Social Movements and World Order, in Hettne, Björn (ed), International Political Economy. Understanding Global Disorder. London: Zed Books: pp. 129-143.
        • Shaw, Martin. 1994. "Civil Society and Global Politics: Beyond a Social Movements Approach", Millennium, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 647-67.
        • Sheth, D. L. 1987. "Alternative Development as Political Practice", Alternatives, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 155-171.
        • Shiva, Vandana. 1994. "Conflicts of Global Ecology: Environmental Activism in a Period of Global Reach", Alternatives, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 195-207.
        • Shiva, Vandana. 1993. "The Greening Wolfgang (ed), Global Ecology. A New Arena of Political Conflict. A London: Zed Books: pp. 149-156.
        • Sid-Ahmed, Mohammed. 1994. "Toward a Floating World System: An Arab Reading of a World in the Making", Alternatives, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 209-219.
        • Ulrich, Otto. 1993. "Technology", in Sachs, Wolfgang (ed), The Development Dictionary. A Guide to Knowledge as Power. Johannesburg: Witwaterstand University Press: pp. 275-287.
        • Waterman, Peter. Forthcoming. "Globalisation, Civil Society, and Solidarity", in Sreberny-Mohammadi, Annabelle (ed) & Braman, Sandra (ed), Globalisation, Communication and Transnational Civil Society. Cresskill: Hampton Press.
        • Walker, R.B.J. 1994. -Social Movements/World Politics", Millennium, Vol. 23. No. 3., pp. 669-700.]


Some pages may require Adobe Acrobat Reader™


Copyright and Fair Use Information: The contents of this web site is protected by international copyright laws and may not be reproduced in any form or manner whatsoever, if for the purpose of resale or solicitation of a donation. The essays included here, may be reproduced only if: 1)They are not altered in any way; 2) reproductions must be accompanied by this copyright page ; and 3) it is given freely and without charge.
Fair use: The fair use of copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in above sections, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is fair use the factors to be considered include : (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and; (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market value of the copyrighted work.
Home | About Narrative? |Contact
Copyright © 2025. All Rights Reserved
HAG122125 (1998 -2026)