Richard Adams:

As luck has it, the US has an issue sitting in its lap that would instantly make it friends around the world. In May James Wolfensohn steps down as president of the World Bank. The US, as the bank’s largest shareholder, gets to appoint the new president. Instead of filling the job from a list of insiders and yes-persons drawn up in the West Wing, it could do something entirely radical: make the appointment on merit. Failing that, it could at least introduce some transparency into proceedings, and entertain the extraordinary idea that a non-US citizen could be qualified for the job.

This is important, as the World Bank has been transformed in recent years into a hyperactive international aid provider, filling a role that is far too big or important for even the largest NGOs such as the Red Cross. The bank’s rapid reconstruction work in Bosnia following the Dayton peace accord showed its ability to harness international relief efforts, as did its late but eventually enrolment in the battle against HIV/Aids For all its faults the bank is the best tool to influence development for the world’s poor. Yet it is a bank in name only. It relies on just $20bn of financing a year. Chastened by its unsuccessful record in the 80s, the bank now holds regular dialogues with NGOs and grassroots organisations.

That is why the right choice of president is vital. In recent years the bank has spent much time lecturing its aid recipients on the need for good governance. An avalanche of research has found that development is powerless to effect change in places where society has been distorted by corruption. The drumbeat behind aid has constantly rapped out calls for openness and accountability. Yet at its heart, the appointment to the top job in the world’s leading development agency is as open and accountable as the bad old days of the Suharto regime in Indonesia.

The current situation is the result of an unhealthy carve-up, between the Europeans, who get to choose the head of the International Monetary Fund, and the US, which gets to name the bank president in a quid pro quo. Some argue that this actually works in the bank’s favour. Because the US is the bank’s largest shareholder and biggest potential contributor, it needs to be kept happy. The World Bank, they argue, is not supposed to be a democratic institution. By protesting against the US’s droit du seigneur, developing nations may provoke a backlash by the neocons and backwoodsmen of Congress. The World Bank could find itself in the same bind as the UN: derided on Capitol Hill and starved of extra US funds.

That pragmatic view ignores the fact that while the US does have a 20 per cent stake, the rest of the world has 80 per cent. It also means that economic powerhouses such as Japan and China are locked out of the process, and left without a say in who gets the bank’s top job. The democratic deficit wouldn’t be so bad if the US insisted on nominating its finest minds.

Sometimes, that has been the case: between 1968 and 1981 the bank was run by Robert McNamara. A cold war warrior who directed America’s gruesome battle in Vietnam as secretary of defence for JFK and LBJ, McNamara changed his spots and became anti-poverty’s biggest cheerleader as bank president. His vision transformed the bank and gave it a new role, tackling poverty in all its causes. But his successors sadly showed little of his energy or ability.

Plucked from the back catalogue of Washington’s backers and brokers, such non-household names as Tom Clausen (head of Bank America), Barber Conable (retired congressman) and Lewis Preston (retired head of JP Morgan) have run the bank in the post-McNamara era, appointed by presidents Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr respectively.

None of the trio had any experience or background in development. The result was 15 years of drift, leaving the bank unable to oppose the raw spirit of “structural adjustment’’ and unfettered free-marketeerism pushed through the 1980s. The danger of another Republican appointment is another nobody, and the bank’s focus on poverty being again diverted in favour of US bilateralism. It also leaves the bank vulnerable to the turf war breaking out between it and the IMF.

The website worldbankpresident.org lists a series of rumoured names, including a conservative Republican senator, an old classmate of President Bush at prep school, and one of the consultants of the US’s post-war Iraq economy. Such an appointment would be seen as moving the bank back to the periphery of US policy-making. That would be a shame, because the bank has been the target of muttering that it didn’t react more enthusiastically to the US invasion of Iraq.

Yet the bank’s presidency offers the Bush administration a painless and cost-free way of setting out some multilateral credentials, and gaining kudos in the developing world. All it would cost is pounds Sterling 8,200. By treating the job like any other, the US will be doing its bit for international transparency. More importantly, if the US is not willing to take this step, the bank’s other shareholders should make their power felt. For the US to trumpet freedom and democracy abroad, while relying on shabby stitch-ups in Washington, does no one any favours, and certainly not the world’s poor. The most important job at the world’s most important development institution should not be left to the mercy of a US president’s whim. — The Guardian