Civil Society, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Global, Global Geopolitics, Global Governance, Globalisation, Headlines, Human Rights

BOOKS: You’re Not on Their Speed Dial

Abra Pollock

WASHINGTON, Jul 9 2008 (IPS) - Amidst the rise of multinational corporations, technology that unites people across borders, and new waves of international migration, globalisation has also ushered in the formation of a powerful network of elites who have access to unprecedented resources and influence – and whose decision-making impacts the lives of millions across the globe.

These are the findings of David Rothkopf, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, as detailed in his latest book, “Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making” (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2008).

While other books have focused on global economic disparities, this book is a lengthy and comprehensive analysis of the six thousand or so individuals who possess the world’s power – and what this means for the rest of us.

For Rothkopf, a snapshot of today’s superclass can be found at Davos, host of the World Economic Forum. Each year, the forum draws together heads of state, CEOs, financial barons, intellectual leaders, and an eclectic mix of cultural icons (such as U2’s Bono) who collaborate on an agenda to address top global issues. These are the elite individuals who “project power beyond their borders”.

“[Davos] is the factory where conventional wisdom is manufactured,” Rothkopf said, speaking at a book event at the Centre for American Progress, a Washington political research and advocacy organisation.

It is at a small Swiss resort town where key thought leaders and decision-makers of the world strike deals, negotiate new partnerships, and leverage their priorities – thereby reinforcing the web of power of which they are a part.

Yet the world has always had a closely networked power elite who influence conventional wisdom and the life circumstances of the masses. What distinguishes today’s superclass?

According to Rothkopf, quite a lot.

One the one hand, the definition of who can be considered part of the power elite has expanded to include more nontraditional “leaders”. Osama bin Laden is offered as an example of as superclass member because his ideas have a remarkable scope of influence, in part due the groundbreaking reach of Internet technology.

Other, more traditional members of today’s superclass include oil magnates, technology entrepreneurs, military heads, and a select set of artists, writers, and scientists.

Even these “traditional” members of the elite, however, are far more international than in any previous era, Rothkopf argues. The CEO of a multinational corporation, for example, may direct the company’s United States-based headquarters, cultivate relationships with manufacturing centers in Asia, and build a market for its products in Europe.

Buoyed by globalisation, these de facto world leaders have taken the place of the statesmen and monarchs of past eras, whose domain was limited by national borders and whose station in life was often inherited.

While these past elites held their closest allegiances to the populations over which they ruled, today’s superclass is far more cosmopolitan, with closer ties with one another than with their national compatriots.

There has also been a shift in the locus of power away from individuals in the public sphere towards private citizens, Rothkopf argues. Members of the power elite in previous eras were primarily public servants, such as heads of governments or principalities. But 60 percent of today’s global superclass works in the private sector, such as in international financial markets – and this group is growing.

So what does this mean for 6.7 billion rest of us?

“The vast majority of people on this earth not only aren’t represented in this group, they have no connection to this world,” Rothkopf commented at the Centre for American Progress.

This means that the masses are losing their public representation to individuals who prioritise corporate interests. Insofar as traditionally elected or appointed leaders are losing influence, and private or corporate citizens are gaining it, the world’s public no longer has as strong of a connection to decision-making. And those decision-makers who represent corporate entities are legally obligated to advance the interests of their shareholders.

In this decision-making, superclass members “redirect massive assets among markets; create, dislocate, or eliminate jobs around the globe; determine the viability of government programmes, and sometimes of governments,” Rothkopf writes. They also set the agenda for financial markets and public policy.

Staff organisers of the World Economic Forum, for example, will meet throughout the year with “strategic partners” of the forum to ensure that their priorities are covered in the upcoming forum’s agenda.

When there is an international financial crisis, it is representatives of the top global financial institutions who would be the ones to pick up the phone and conduct a private conference call.

“That may be the height of efficiency,” Rothkopf writes. “But the crucial questions remain: whose views are represented in that negotiation? Who is at the table? Who is not?”

Indeed, this one of the key concerns that Rothkopf raises. The superclass fundamentally not only does not represent the world’s interests, it also does not reflect the demographic makeup of the world’s population.

Today’s superclass is primarily European or North American, and is 94 percent male.

Without the developing world represented among the world’s top power elite, how can this system be sustainable – whether morally or operationally?

For Rothkopf, the answer is that it cannot, and will not, be sustained. He predicts a new class conflict of sorts, in which members of opposing classes are divided not only by financial circumstances, but more importantly, by the differential in their power in the decision-making and agenda-setting arenas.

“When the agendas that are embraced produce results for the powerful much more rapidly or to a much greater degree than they do for the disenfranchised, it is a warning sign,” Rothkopf writes.

He warns that leaders in past eras met their downfall when their power became too extreme, and that it is therefore in the superclass’ “best interests” to acknowledge their precarious position and concede some power-sharing.

This is certainly one of the most intriguing arguments of “Superclass”, in which Rothkopf calls upon the values of justice and equality as evidence of the need to reexamine and resist the exclusive system of power that the superclass maintains.

Yet is also one of his arguments that could most benefit from some additional reflection. With informal global leaders making decisions beyond the reach of traditional systems of checks and balances – such as without any regulation, in the case of international financial markets – how would their power be counteracted? By what means would the disenfranchised masses confront their dispersed, unaccountable superclass rulers, other than by protests (of which there are already many)? These are questions that “Superclass” fails to answer fully.

In seeking to limit the superclass’ scope of influence, and more equally distribute the power of decision-making and agenda-setting, Rothkopf calls for the strengthening of international governance mechanisms, “some perhaps new and very different from what past governments have come to expect.”

It seems as though he is seeking something more innovative than international law or the United Nations to usher in the era of more equitable power distribution. What this system would look like, however, is unclear.

If the members of the superclass catch a glimpse of the book that bears their name, perhaps they will have a chance to read Rothkopf’s advice, and will formally cede some of their power in favour a new model of global governance – thus averting the type of crisis that he envisions.

But if they do not, a lingering question remains: will the call of the masses for an equal place at the table reach the chambers of Davos? And would the superclass members heed it, even if it were to be heard?