A paradigm dispute

There always has been disagreement about paradigms. Throughout history dominant paradigms have been contested  It helped sharpening convictions beyond a justification of interests. The paradigms of those in power are always different from the paradigms of the non-elite When paradigm disputes turn into an ideological confrontation, conditions in society may become stifled, because groups draw back into their bulwarks. However, a straight and genuine paradigm dispute can help putting a clash between interest groups at a higher political level. It can help disarming powerful elites, undermining their self-justification , unravelling  the case in favour of the status quo, by focusing on the longer turn interest of society as a whole.

That is true for paradigm diputes both within nations and world wide. In the field of international development cooperation such a major dispute took place after the decolonisation in the sixties and after the first World Environment Conference in Sockholm, 1972. There was a risk that the newly won independence of the young nation states would not be followed by a reasonable degree of political and economic autonomy. The answer was a threefold new paradigm: self-reliance plus the fulfilment of basic human needs plus a new international economic order. Neither of the three became reality. Instead the world went through a period of  neo-colonialism, widening gaps between rich and poor and a return to the old order. In the eighties this led to complete stagnation. Gamani Corea spoke about ‘the lost decade for development’. The South was told to adjust to new realities set by the North. There was no international cooperation to address world problems such as mounting debt burdens, a deteriorating environment and increasing world poverty. All possible efforts were paralysed by the last convulsions of the Cold War between East and West. Until 1989, when the end of the Cold War created new perspectives fotr the peoples of all nations, in East and West, as well as  in the South. A new paradigm for development cooperation emerged, again defined with the help of three concepts: democracy, eradication of poverty and sustainable development.

So, when we came together in Rio de Janeiro the mood was positive. There was room for change. Change to the good: freedom, democracy, human rights, disarmament, peace, development and the protection of the environment. No wonder that the new paradigm of sustainability was widely endorsed: progress for the present generation in all respects and everywhere, without discrimination, but on the understanding that any next generation would be entitled to at least the same opportunities. Any living generation was obliged to use the resources at its disposal in such a way that these would be fully sustained or renewed  for the benefit of the next generation. Optimism prevailed, and a belief that the future could be shaped  within the framework of a new and more just order and that choices could be made in an atmosphere of harmony.

The optimism did not last long. The world lacked the capacity to translate the new dream into reality. Between the fall of the wall in Berlin in 1989 and the Sunmmit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 there was a fair amount of political will. Soon this political will became distorted by unbalanced approaches towards issues of so-called ‘good governance’. But even if that would not have been the case, domestic conflicts in many societies and the erosion of the international public system were weakening the capacity to bring about democracy, poverty eradication and sustainable development.