A year ago, we were told we had 12 months to make poverty history. So, in the bleary cold light of the new year, how does our achievement stack up? Did a year of unprecedented focus on Africa succeed?
There has been no shortage of aid agencies and government advisers attempting to draw up the balance sheet. The failure in Hong Kong to achieve a positive outcome for developing countries was a big blow. Even more depressing was the news from Africa. It was not just the string of crises but, more worryingly, the much-favoured reform-minded governments of key countries such as Uganda and Ethiopia showed an ugly ruthlessness. So the campaign fizzled out. It lost momentum in the public imagination after the London bombings in July. The politicians may have ploughed on at the UN summit in New York in September, but they no longer did so under the glare of media attention.
But if you stand back from the past few months and assess the whole year, something more optimistic becomes clear: the politics of global inequality has come of age. In the past, third-world poverty did occasionally grab attention. It marked a step change in the popular understanding that global poverty is about more than dipping your hand in your pocket for the odd pound coin. Issues such as trade justice are percolating through to your average supermarket shopper.
At the same time, 2005 saw the deepening of a cosy relationship between government and the aid agencies. In the 1990s, the debt campaigners laboured away on the margins of the Labour party, and never dreamed of the kind of easy access to ministerial ears their successors regard as routine. Government and aid agencies are now tied into a symbiotic relationship as they bolster each otherâ€™s credibility. During much of 2005 they were working hand-in-glove. They both have much at stake â€” to show that campaigning can work and politicians can make a difference.
The confirmation of this mainstreaming came when David Cameron picked development as one of his six key themes on becoming leader of Britainâ€™s opposition Conservative party, even if he did forget to deliver that bit of his memorised speech. The point is that in British politics, having something to say about global poverty is now regarded as an essential to get the tone of your political pitch right. It hits two Cs: compassionate and contemporary.
So if the politics of global inequality has come of age, what are its ingredients? At a political level, the rhetoric is grandiose. Any aspiring world statesman now has to deliver speeches on child mortality and talk about female literacy rates in the developing world as if they knew what they were on about and spent the early hours worrying about it. Thereâ€™s a new expectation of government. At street level, thereâ€™s a vague sentimentality. Itâ€™s not political mobilisation or activism in any traditional sense, but itâ€™s enough to motivate someone to buy the white wristband and e-mail Tony Blair. The big worry is that this kind of politics has no kind of sustainability. Itâ€™s a flash moment, and short attention spans ensure the media has moved on to something else before the politiciansâ€™ rhetoric has been translated into delivery. This is particularly pertinent to the Gleneagles aid deal, which could very uneasily come unstuck, given the huge increases in aid required from reluctant countries such as Germany and Italy.
But perhaps an even bigger worry is that the politics of global inequality is characterised by a wishful naivety. Tony Blairâ€™s Commission for Africa in March last year posited its analysis of a turnaround in Africa on the existence of a new generation of African governments. Some argued there was no such thing, and their voices have only grown louder as the Ethiopian government shot dozens of demonstrators. More recently, criticism of Ugandaâ€™s Yoweri Museveni has come to a head over the imprisonment of an opposition leader.
There is fat chance that 2005 made poverty history. It finally offered a debt deal after 20 years of campaigning; there was a promise, yet to be fulfilled, to double aid by 2010; and there was a surprise thrown in â€” a hugely ambitious target for universal access to HIV/AIDS treatment. AIDS and climate change will ensure that the suffering of millions of Africans will plague our consciences for decades to come.
But for all its shortcomings, the coming-of-age of the politics of global inequality is being driven by an important issue that will ensure it stays on the international agenda: at its heart is a question of legitimacy. The westâ€™s global dominance is being challenged as unjust. The huge wealth generated by globalisation cannot largely be for the benefit of a tiny proportion of the worldâ€™s population. Increasingly, we question our own legitimacy, as well as being called to account by others. The year 2005 spurred a new expectation from the campaigns in Japan to the US that politicians have to show they do more than just talk about it. Thatâ€™s no small achievement. â€” The Guardian