Globalisation is a complex phenomenon. The discussion of this phenomenon has been going on for twenty years or so in our modern times. It has become even more complex by including the dimension of social justice in the search for the global common good. For some, it seems to be exhausted. As McKeever observes:

Yet a spirit of common purpose remains a driving force towards a realisation of a just and inclusive process of globalisation for the common good. Therefore, it would seem useful to reflect on the significance of globalisation for Sub-Saharan Africans vis-à-vis their independence agenda towards their integral development. I believe this is important, if we have to assess the significance of globalisation as a means towards the realisation of the common good of people in Africa South of the Sahara. The hypothesis to be examined is that globalisation cannot be for the common good in Sub-Saharan Africa if deliberate effort is not made to realise social justice.

Therefore, the primary objective of this discussion is to offer a critical observation on globalisation within the wider spectrum of social justice in Sub-Saharan Africa. In this regard, it describes the terms: globalisation, common good, and social justice; it explores the significance of what each of these imply to the life of the poor majority of Sub-Saharan Africa; and it establishes some recommendations regarding what is to be seriously considered, so that globalisation can be truly for the common good for Sub-Saharan African peoples.

There are many descriptions of the concept of ‘globalisation’. It is a reality that means different things to different people and provokes varying emotions. To some people, it is a beneficial process that contributes to the development of people; to others, it is a dangerous force that escalates inequality among peoples and nations, thus marginalising and impoverishing the weak masses. On one hand, it is seen as an irresistible and benign force for bringing about global economic prosperity to all; on the other hand, it is blamed as a source of all current ills.¹

Aninat concurs with most scholars and economists that globalisation is a process through which an increasingly free flow of ideas, people, goods, services, and capital leads to the integration of world economies and societies, thus bringing about rising prosperity to countries. It has boosted incomes and raised living standards of people in many parts of the world. Moreover, it has promoted greater integration, consequently promoting human freedom by disseminating information and widening the sphere of choices (Aninat, 2002, pp. 3-7).

This process is enhanced by the international financial institutions whose major role is to make economic decisions for, and influence domestic policies of particular countries. It has generated the Transnational Corporations (TNCs) which value the efficiency of the productive activity and profit margins over the integral development of citizens of particular countries. It generally benefits wealthier countries and enhances the poverty of the masses in the poor developing nations.²

The common good is increasingly a transnational reality. It is a social reality characterised by more complex interdependence of people that calls for the share of each member through participation with their personal and communal abilities.³ It implies ‘the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily’.⁴ It comprises three essential elements: first, it presupposes respect for the persons as such, respect for the fundamental rights of each person and respect for the natural freedom indispensable for the development of the human vocation.⁵

Second, the common good demands the social well-being and development of people. Thus it calls for accessibility to each person of what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education, suitable information, the right to establish a family, etc.

Third, the common good calls for the stability and security of a first order. It presupposes that the government should guarantee the security of its members by using morally acceptable means.⁶

The common good is realised by the establishment and cherishing of peace and order. It must be efficiently guaranteed by the law of the State, which is invested with the power of coercion.

Moreover, the common good is not an end in itself. It is in the service of each person and all people, and of God’s creative and redemptive design. This implies that an individual person as well as all people should never become mere means towards the purpose of society and its interests.

The common good is promoted by its members. These members, ranging from individuals, families and different societies, have a noble and grave responsibility to respect and develop it. In unity, they must coordinate their common commitment to its realisation by fulfilling the basic task in response to the existential ends of humanity and all other creatures.

Lastly, John Paul II has complemented the most recent understanding of the common good with introduction of the concern for the environment into the discussion of the common good. He calls for inclusion of the good of the biosphere in the understanding of the common good, because its degradation has harmful effects on human beings and their integral good.⁷

Scholars commonly agree that social justice refers to the economic welfare of social groups. It is concerned with a proportionate share for the social partners in the fruits of their economic cooperation.

Furthermore, it demands a proportionate share and equity in the distribution of wealth of a nation among different groups and regions of its citizenry. Moreover, it demands balance of wealth between stronger and weaker sectors of a society, e.g. a flourishing industrial and a less favoured agricultural sector, or between developed and developing regions in a nation.

Above all, social justice obliges nations in their bilateral and multilateral relations. It binds the economically advanced nations to assist the poor developing ones, so that their people can live in a manner worthy of human beings.⁸

Brian A. Wren summarises the meaning of social justice as follows:

In Africa, globalisation is meant to raise the living standards of poor Africans by establishing ‘a fresh set of human, spiritual and economic values’ aimed at addressing "poverty and inequality".⁹ In other words, the process of globalisation has a potential of serving the common good for Africans, if it embraces the principles of social justice.

It is important for us Africans to assess globalisation for the common good within the spectrum of our agenda at independence. Most, if not all, Sub-Saharan African countries had a focused tripartite agenda that included the fight against poverty, ignorance and disease. Therefore, our assessment of success or failure of globalisation with regard to the common good has to be done within this context.

We can argue that globalisation has been for the common good for us if it has to a greater extent helped us to overcome the misery of abject poverty, that is, many Africans have enough food that guarantees balanced diet all the year around, reasonable housing for their shelter, clothing, potable water, good roads and transport network, storage facilities for their products, old age insurance system, among many other things. Furthermore, their literacy has advanced, that is, many people can read and write, access secondary, tertiary and higher education facilities, above all, their education has contributed to their liberation from poverty and disease. Moreover, they can easily and readily access quality medical facilities and the overall public health status has improved to the extent that the living environment is conducive for the generation, cherishing and enhancement of healthy human life.

Contrary to this tripartite independence agenda, what is observable in post-independence, Sub-Saharan Africa is disappointing or heart-breaking. The African majority experience increased unemployment and poverty, with a widening gap between high- and low-income earners. Homelessness has escalated, food has become a scarce commodity, disease, such as malaria, typhoid above all STIs/STDS and HIV/AIDS have reached epidemic proportions.

Schneider summarises this ugly scenario as follows:

The concrete factors that underlie the continued failure to achieve the tripartite independence agenda in Sub-Saharan Africa today are both internal and external.

There is a wide range of internal factors which keep Sub-Saharan Africa in a vicious circle of poverty, ignorance and disease. However, to a greater extent I concur with Ayittey that the main factor is the inability of its people to either get rid of governments that use their citisens for their own advantage or force nation-state leaders to adopt policies that are of benefit to the entire citizenry. According to him, African ruling elites, upon assuming power they solidify it in their hands, thus transforming the state and its institutions: the military, civil service, judiciary, and banking system into their own personal property by plundering the treasury for their own benefit, the benefit of their political allies, above all, the benefit of their tribes’ men and women. The majority who do not belong to these privileged groups are marginalised and impoverished (Ayittey, 1998, pp. 21, 73-76). Most of these leaders have no sense of justice, or even patriotism since they can plunder their countries resources’ and bank or/and invest them in foreign rich countries. Their priority is not to improve the people’s standard of living and promote their integral development. Instead they ‘hijack’ the state, monopolise socio-political and economic power to advance their personal interests, thus lead their countries in socio-political and economic devastation.¹⁰

This has generally resulted into the creation of a very small privileged class of people who are in control of all the goods, services and the entire resources of their respective countries reaping personal benefits at the expense of the great majority of their fellow citizens. Naturally these leaders protect the interests of such a class of people who in turn provide maximum support to them. Such a method is also employed to ensure that they remain in power. Meanwhile ethnic tensions increase resulting into greater political instability, a factor that leads to a change of focus from addressing the real issues of poverty, ignorance and disease; thus blocking the whole process of integral development of all citizens.¹¹ More could be discussed regarding the internal factors that underlie the failure to achieve the independence goals, but I find this to be the mother of all internal factors contributing to the vicious circle of poverty, ignorance and disease.

In addition to the internal factors, there are external ones that block the process towards integral development of the people of Sub-Saharan Africa. One of the major factors regards the foreign trade. The prices African producers receive for their goods on international markets depend on the mercy of either multinational corporations or the mechanisms of the international markets which set them to benefit their interests. They are definitely very low. Moreover, the finished good sold to African producers by the giant foreign producers are at a much higher price. Consequently, Sub-Saharan African nations are losing in the international trade game, thus becoming increasingly poorer.¹²

The second major factor is the decline in direct foreign investment. This accounts for less money coming into the region resulting into less money for establishment of adequate infrastructures, job creation, and provision of social amenities. In addition to this is the issue of foreign aid. Although it has remained relatively steady, it has failed to bring about meaningful development to the people of these countries. Zalot analyses the reasons for this failure as follows:

The foreign debt is another external factor that contributes to underdevelopment in Sub-Saharan Africa. In an attempt to modernise their economies, most governments in the region had to borrow money from the international financial institutions. On this account, their external debt gradually increased.

The problem of foreign debt and its repayment compounded as global interest rates increased. Consequently the interest on the outstanding loans of Sub-Saharan African countries increased. Such an increase forced these countries to borrow even more money to service their increased interest expenses.

Unfortunately, the amount of money owed to the foreign creditors far exceeds these countries’ annual production. Hence, almost all what is annually earned by these countries is spent on debt repayment at the expense of human development programmes against poverty, ignorance and diseases.

In order to survive this crisis, Sub-Saharan African countries had to succumb to structural adjustment programmes proposed by the international financial institutions as condition for continued support, not so much for integral human development, but for servicing the hidden agenda – the foreign debt. This of course raises a number of social justice questions.¹⁴

In short, it is only with this background that one can evaluate the benefits and shortcomings regarding the extent to which globalisation has been for the common good for the people in Sub-Saharan Africa.

In spite of this ugly picture, there are undeniable benefits that globalisation has brought about in Africa, generally to the richer individuals and countries as opposed to the poorer majority.

These benefits include: instant global communications through TV, Cell Phones, Internet, Air Travel, job opportunities through Euro-American, Australian, Asian, Japanese Trans-national corporations, NGOs and CBOs, negotiation opportunities through International Monetary Institutions, regional and international Trade Consortiums.

Above all, globalisation accounts for the growing interconnectivity among Africans and others across the world nurturing the realisation that we are all members of the global community. This has inspired a sense of interdependence, commitment to shared universal values and solidarity among peoples the world over.

Concretely, this has been manifested in various efforts for a cooperative agreement among African countries, and between Africa and the global community for long term development at all levels of African societies. These include: the North-South programme for survival (The Brandit Report, 1980), establishment of development goals for 2015 (UN Millennium Development Goals, 2000), new institutional bridges across Africa (New Partnership for Africa’s Development, 2001), new methods in development finance (International Conference on Financing for Development, 2002), agreement by developed nations to assist Africa (G-8 Africa Plan, 2002), major partnerships between the private and public sectors (World Summit on Sustainable Development, 2002), commitment to make development a priority in trade discussions and agreements (Doha Round Table of World Trade Organization Negotiations, 2002-2005), and common interest and shared responsibility between the rich and poor nations in the area of development ( The Blair’s Commission for Africa Report – Our Common Interest, 2005). ¹⁵

Ironically, these benefits are not shared equitably by all stakeholders. On the contrary they have increased dominance, unjust and inordinate control by the wealthy individuals, groups and countries. They have violated human rights, they have severely crippled the ability of our manufacturing industry leading to job losses and increased poverty of poorly trained, less qualified Africans. Many state-owned assets, public utilities and natural resources have become the property of overseas giant corporations who in turn have priced their products beyond the reach of the poor.

Most African countries have succumbed to the exploitative prices of ‘free market’ that is constantly sucking wealth from them. In turn they are constrained to payers of foreign debts, thus becoming poorer each day. In this sense ‘globalisation for the common good’ has turned out to be total exploitation of the most needy of Africa. Most Africans have remained merely participants in globalisation rather than active agents engaging the whole process. Of course, the giants of globalisation usually claim that globalisation involves all, and all enjoy its benefits.

But they fail to admit the fact that globalisation has crippled the ability of our developing African countries to equitably engage it in partnership with richer countries and their wealthy financial institutions and corporations.

It is also important to note that developing Sub-Saharan African countries should not blame all global inequity and injustice on the foreign social political and economic powers. While these embody serious systemic responsibility for what is happening in Sub-Saharan Africa, Africans too do have their own share in the game that impoverishes them. The discussion on internal factors has dealt with this matter at length. Abedian summarises these factors as follows: poor governance and operational inefficiency of public service, absence of rule of law, income inequality and wars among others as obstacles to sustainable economic growth and the realisation of social justice.¹⁶

Despite the gloomy picture highlighted above, there are signs of hope. Quilligan summarises these signs established in Blair Report as follows:

Globalisation can be for the common good in Sub-Saharan Africa countries only if it can facilitate the process of realising what African governments committed to at independence by utilising the signs of hope elaborated in the Blair Report. Sub-Saharan African countries should establish accountable governance, initiate democratic reforms, uproot corruption, overcome local and regional conflicts, enhance the rule of law, cherish human rights at all levels, provide free primary education, improve health services, improve soil health, expand the use of irrigation, ensure clean drinking water and sanitation, build and maintain economic infrastructures (housing, roads, railways, airports, electrical and telecommunication networks), expand administrative capacity to absorb international capital flows, encourage and support entrepreneurship, and expand intra-regional trade.¹⁸

Globalisation in Sub-Saharan Africa will be to a greater extent for the common good if it captures the potential available therein and mobilise it to the above-mentioned commitments. In this way it must create a conducive environment for a more equitable distribution of goods and services for the benefit of all. Hence, it can contribute to the empowerment of the Africans to improve their standard of living, easily access primary, secondary and tertiary education thus combating ignorance, and improve health services to arrest the transmission rate of preventable diseases.

It should empower Africans, in solidarity with international financial institutions to commit themselves to the development of national socio-economic systems and structures which can overcome outrageous income inequalities and promote more equitable opportunities for the prosperity of all Africans rather than for a few elites.

It should enable African governments to establish policies that are coherent with the social and developmental concerns of their citizens other than serving the massive economic interests of the rich countries and their institutions, depriving the poor majority a decent life and a better future.

The opportunities which globalisation offers should challenge Africans in the region to overcome the donor syndrome that enhances their attitude of mind and consequent action that the wealthy countries of the North and their giant organisations will work for their development. Globalisation obliges them to do what they can to the best of their ability and opportunity to partner with the wealthy nations and their multinational corporations to forge their way forward to sustainable development. The cancellation of debt, increased foreign aid and opportunities for fairer trade will only maximise profit for the African elite and the wealthy countries and their multinational corporations, and impoverish more the poor African majority unless Africans respond vigorously to the dynamics it offers in partnership with the developed countries.

The great lamentation of many Africans in this region is that after 30 years of their independence they are actually poorer, most of them illiterate and still victims of chronic hunger and diseases. The donors’ money has ended in the pockets of their national leaders and rich individuals who align with them, and mostly has been deposited in European banks and/or elsewhere outside Africa. Their mineral resources have been extracted to the benefit of foreign companies resulting to environmental degradation and economic regression. This calls for a prudent and purposeful action on the part of Africans, thus engage globalisation for their common good.

Globalisation is inevitable. African countries, like the richer countries of the world, need to actively engage it instead of passively participating in it. They are equally responsible in solidarity with the wealthy nations and their institutions to challenge the social injustices which deprive globalisation of the possibility of serving the common good of poor majority of Sub-Saharan Africa.

In view of making deliberate efforts for social justice, Sub-Saharan African governments should:

It seems that globalisation has multiplied the factors that make it difficult to attain the sum total of conditions for a decent life for all Africans as stipulated in most African countries’ independence pledges discussed earlier on. Poverty, ignorance and disease have become malignant enemies of Sub-Saharan Africans.

In this sense, globalisation is not yet for the common good for the African majority. The national, regional and global social, political, economic, cultural injustices enhanced by inequitable distribution of goods and services account to the greater extent to the in-attainability of this goal.

Nevertheless, I believe that globalisation has great potential to realise the common good for all Africans in Africa South of the Sahara. What is required is a just globalisation that creates opportunities for all. Desperation and a sense of helplessness are the greatest threats to this noble endeavour.

It is, therefore, the task of all Africans, especially scholars, economists, politicians and religious leaders, to work proactively and compassionately towards a just globalisation that creates an enabling environment to eradicate abject poverty, reduce extreme ignorance and arrest the rate of transmission of preventable diseases. Our engagement in bilateral and multilateral negotiations to solicit trade policy that is consistent with aid policy should be inspired by this objective.

The recommendations made above could form an essential part of a deliberate action to ensure that globalisation is for the common good in Africa. Our task of solidarity should be to free ourselves from the vicious circle of national, regional and global injustices by widening our circle of purposeful and integrated acts of compassion, justice and love in the service of humanity and the whole of nature within the beauty of God’s creative and redemptive plan.

As John Paul II put it:

[1] World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalisation, A Fair Globalisation: Creating Opportunities for All. Geneva: The International Labour Office, 2004, p. 24.

[2] http://www.religious.org.nz/social justice/globalisation.html;  http://www.ijr.org.za/papers/global.html; http://www.sedos.org/english/mbajo.html. 

[3] Mater et Magistra, 59; Gaudium et Spes 30-32.

[4] Gaudium et Spes, 26.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, The Social Agenda of the Catholic Church, London: Burns & Oates, 2000, pp. 82-83.

[7] Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 34.

[8] Ibid., pp. 234-235.

[9] New Economic Program for African Development – NEPAD.

[10] Ibid., pp. 151-154.

[11] Cf. J. D. Zalot, The Roman Catholic Church and Economic Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: Voices Yet Unheard in a Listening World. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2002, pp. 14-17.

[12] Ibid., pp. 19-20; Ayittey, Africa In Chaos, p. 31.

[13] Zalot, p. 21. For a detailed discussion on this matter, see Nicholas Van de Wall and Timothy A. Johnson, Improving Aid to Africa, Washington D. C. Overseas Development Council, 1996, pp. 48-70; see also Ayittey, Africa In Chaos, pp. 275-284 reference made by Zalot, p. 21.

[14] For a detailed discussion, see Zalot, pp. 22-30.

[15] Cf. J.B. Quilligan review of the Blair Report for Africa, see the Centre for Global Negotiations at <www.global-negotiations.org>

[16] http://www.ijr.org.za/papers/global.hotmail, 2005, p. 2.

[17] J.B. Quilligan, <www.global-negotiations.org>

[18] Ibid.

[19] World Day of Peace Message, 1986, n. 5.

E. Aninat, ‘Surmounting the Challenges of Globalisation’, Finance & Development (2002) pp. _____

G. B. N. Ayittey, Africa in Chaos, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.

M. McKeever, ‘Afterthoughts on the Globalization Debate: Critical Observations on a Hyper-Modern Metanarrative’, Studia Moralia, 42 (2004) ___-___.

Schneider, http://www.worlnetdaily.com/news/article.asp, 2002, p. 2. 

B. A. Wren, 1977, p. 55.