The Challenge to the South 

For the past four decades, such battle cries have echoed throughout elite development circles of the South. While the rhetoric employed in this passage is compelling and engaging, when wrested from the development paradigm of modernity (loosely defined as the complex relationships that emerge from the intersections between the ideologies of Western capitalism, Darwinistic individualism, Western science and rationality, Western patriarchy and the "modernization" process), it raises several questions about how the ideology for South-South cooperation has been both constructed and implemented. To fully understand the implications of this Oxford-ized passage, we must peel off the layers of passionate clichés by critically asking: (i) Who are the "peoples?" (ii) Who is the "South?" (iii) What does it mean to "gain control of their economies and politics?" (iv) Who are the "dominators" and who are the "dominated?" (v) What "self-reliant actions" are required to free people from "poverty, underdevelopment and dependency?" The answers (or lack of answers) to these questions highlight the glaring inadequacies of the current model for South-South cooperation. They serve to remind us that the primary beneficiaries of South-South cooperation, to date, have not been the millions of people who live in hunger and poverty throughout the world but rather the elites and, to a growing extent, the middle classes of both the North and South. They also remind us that a large segment of the global population is forced to live in an environment of intellectual, creative and cultural stagnation which limits not only the opportunities for their individual and collective growth but also for the greater survival and advancement of human civilization.

In this essay, I argue that South-South cooperation has failed to impact the tremendous suffering and disparity in the world because its ideological foundation is grounded in the wrong development paradigm--it has, ironically, been engulfed by the very paradigm that it was originally intended to challenge and deconstruct. The South-South ideological Messiah that was supposed to remedy the injustices of the modern world has instead been so coopted that it has colluded with the paradigm of modernity to increase the gap between the "haves" and "have nots." Even more disturbing is that this ideology was intended to elevate and build mutual understanding and appreciation between the peoples and cultures of the South but, has instead conspired with the paradigm of modernity to manufacture seemingly irreparable rifts and to devalue the traditions and cultures of the South while glamorizing Western consumer culture.

The passage above implies that a violent struggle will be necessary to overthrow the parasitic power relations that dominate the peoples of the South. Modern civilizational interpreters have been encouraged under the dominant paradigm to frame and analyze such struggles and apparent victories or losses as purely physical phenomena. What they have failed to reflect upon is the ideological conflicts that underlie and drive these struggles and ultimately, influence who really is in control. This has resulted in an extremely narrow understanding by the peoples of both the South and the North of what actions comprise a "violent struggle" and what outcomes constitute "freedom" or "conquest." Few thinkers have been able to frame the intellectual, psychological, emotional and cultural levels on which the battle occurs. For domination of the peoples of the South to truly end, it is critical that the focal point of the struggle against it be shifted from being physically violent to being ideologically violent. The peoples of the South must no longer seek empowerment from AK-47 rifles. Rather, they must seek to develop those frameworks and tools necessary to force a sharp break from those ideologies and institutions that are linked to the dominant development paradigm. The foundation for this shift is taking shape as a realization is slowly emerging among the peoples of the South that the current path of development is not capable of alleviating the poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, violence, environmental degradation, human isolation and moral and spiritual decay that paralyzes the modern world. A great deal of attention, however, must still be given to thinking about and articulating the new paradigm of development with its own set of multiply interconnected political, economic, social and cultural ideologies and institutions which are based not on principles derived from ugly, self-absorbed individualism and the Darwinistic dollar, but rather from mutual respect, compassion, trust and sacrifice.

Secondly, I argue that the model for South-South cooperation that has been implemented is impotent because it lacks the dynamicism and responsiveness necessary to internalize, react to and grow with the complexity that is created by relationships stemming from the dialectical interaction between the modern and traditional and the local and the global. It has been unable to evolve the framework of South-South cooperation to respond to rapidly changing conditions, rules and players in the global environment. The static nature of this model is especially disturbing because not only has it been unable to ignite the sparks necessary for generating a new paradigm but also because it has served to psychologically cripple the creativity and imagination of the peoples of the South by placing the responsibility, expectations and tools for ideological attack and reconstruction solely within the hands of the intellectual elite. Christian Comeliau states, "Today, it is rather regrettable that with its exceptional intellectual 'strike force' the South Commission was not able to come up with a more critical view of the nature of this system, its advantages and costs, the potential scope for adapting or even transforming it, with a view, for example, to promoting a more equitable world or sustainable development."(2) While Comeliau's critique of the inability of the South Commission to develop the foundations for a new paradigm is astute, it unfortunately fails to question what is an even more fundamental problem, that is, the elitist expectation that the South Commission should be the producers and gatekeepers of the new paradigm. I believe that the it should not be the role of the South Commission, or any such group of elite or semi-elite intellectuals, for that matter, to formulate and articulate a new vision for development.(3) Their role should be as facilitators rather than as "experts". What is needed is an alternative approach to South-South cooperation which focuses more closely on the "processes" and "actors." This process of creating a new paradigm must be different from previous attempts in that it should involve a broad range of participants and it will have been created at the "grassroots" level and spread simultaneously horizontally and vertically throughout the global system.

An Ideological Wrong Turn

The ideological underpinnings of South-South cooperation must be grounded in the questions of why and how countries of the South should cooperate with each other.

The modern conceptualization of South-South cooperation emerged as a reaction to the global inequities that were created and supported by North-North cooperation and North-South exploitation. The post-colonialist process of development had begun to falter and several economically disadvantaged countries were becoming increasingly concerned with the exploitative development motives and bullying tactics of the United States and Europe, as well as, with their inability to provide their citizens with the basic needs of life. The historical and cultural experiences of colonialism, the Industrial Revolution, the Cold War and Christianity had tightly bound the countries of the North together to the point where their economic and political agendas became intertwined. The construct of the "South," a linkage between the countries from Latin America, Africa and Asia, emerged as the answer to these well-organized and coordinated oppressors. There was a desire to create a similar bond between the politicians and intellectuals of the developing countries because it was believed that a unified South could provide these countries with enough strength and leverage to succeed in the Northern-dominated world. The grounds for cooperation between these countries were framed in their common historical experiences with colonialism, their struggles with neo-colonialism and their incongruent desires to pursue some shared vision of development. Unfortunately, the result was what sounded like a bad Michael Jordan commercial where many of the elite leaders and intellectuals of the South aspired "to be like Mike."

The obsession to create a South that was like the North heavily influenced the underlying foundations for South-South cooperation. The terms of cooperation between developing countries that were initially framed focused on the problems of development as being linked to rules and actors rather than to the broader development paradigm. In other words, there was an underlying belief between the elite leaders of the developing countries that it was possible to work within the development paradigm of modernity and simply "tinker with," or adjust it, in order to solve the problems of the developing countries. While calls for various new international orders did eventually surface, these movements were also grounded in the paradigm of modernity and so were content in trying to tinker with the rules of the game but not change the bigger game itself. Immanuel Wallerstein writes a fitting obituary for these movements, "I frankly believe that the illusions of 'developmentalism' should be put aside--that is, the illusion that, within the framework of a capitalist world economy, the underdeveloped South will ever disappear as a construct. The most serious anti-systemic movements of the last 100 years have all in the end failed, and failed badly, but they failed precisely because they never put that illusion behind them."(4)

Under the paradigm of modernity, the core principles of increasing economic and technical efficiency surfaced as the guiding rationale for why and how countries of South should work together. An unquestioning faith in economic growth as the miracle tonic for all of the sicknesses in the developing countries was embraced and propagated by quack politicians, intellectuals and international donors. This was a continuation of a tradition of trickle-down theory which falls from grace, is recycled and resurfaces in various incarnations. Even the South Commission was guilty of advancing one well-cloaked mutation of this myth that springs directly from the paradigm of modernity, "Rapid and sustained economic growth is indispensable for the South's development. Hunger, disease and ignorance cannot be overcome unless the production of goods and services is greatly increased."(5) Only recently, has there been a growing realization that the conception of "development" for the countries of the South must mean something different from that of countries of the North. Small pockets of people in the South are beginning to understand that following the North's highly vaunted model of economic growth-driven development has: (1) not only failed to provide all of the people with their basic needs and with a minimum quality of life but rather increased the absolute levels of poverty and the gap between the rich and the poor; and, (2) created a different set of social dilemmas in the countries of the North and the "modernized" urban centers of the South -- ranging from decaying family and community safety nets, self-gratifying individualism and bitter isolationism, dehumanizing unemployment, escapist drug and alcohol abuse, barbaric violence, environmental degradation, homelessness, racial polarizaration and sexism. This realization is grounded in a deeper understanding that the social and cultural values that stem from the principles of the market economy (i.e., notions of private property and corporate law) are fundamentally impatible and often clash with the belief systems of many cultures of the South.

Not only has paradigm of modernity failed to uplift the peoples and cultures of the South, it has had two direct negative consequences on South-South cooperation. First, South-South relationships (at all levels from the individual to the institutional) have come to be defined primarily in economic terms. What is considered to be "rational" cooperation between countries is defined by the religion of the "mighty dollar" in which alliances are only made when they are "cost-effective." The rules that define these relationships are Darwinistic -- the strong should survive and the weak deserve to perish; each player thus attempts to survive in this zero-sum world by maximizing his or her individual gain. Interactions between peoples and countries are cold and calculated, driven by fantasies of Federal Express efficiency. Human relationships are conducted as transactions with everyone and everything having a price. People are governed by the unspoken credo of "I'll do this for you, only if you do that for me." Although these types of relationships may sound harsh, they represent a reality that can no longer be ignored. Under the paradigm of modernity, the bonds between countries of the South have remained extremely fragile. Comeliau asks, "The question arises how these economic inter-relations -- known to be weak, compared to the links of dependence with the North -- can lead to a political solidarity sufficient to mobilize the forces of very diverse countries in the 'service' of a general interest in the South ('to serve the South')." (6) By defining the relationships primarily in economic terms (the mechanical connections dictated by modernity), the model of South-South cooperation has been constructed in such a manner as to be easily broken by the divide-and-conquer strategy of modernity. An example of this is the still vivid Persian Gulf crisis where whatever little solidarity existed between countries of the South was shattered by bickering over oil.

The second consequence of modernity has been on the juxtaposition of the South vis-a-vis the North. Ahmed Ben Salah states that, "It is still recognized today that, at the global level, economic, political and military indicators continue to confirm that forces in the North remain in a constant state of confrontation vis-a-vis the South. They persist in erecting, in the South, all kinds of walls to prevent development of the peoples, cultures and economies of the South." (7) Despite this recognition, large-scale confrontation with the North has not occurred. The real question is whether this lack of reaction is due to ignorance, fear or something much deeper and more insidious. The paradigm of modernity has created an interconnected yet decontextualized global system comprised of what Michael Watts calls "powerless places and placeless power." (8) As a result, the peoples of the South not only lack the power to fight but they do not even know who to fight.

Part of the hegemony of modernity can be attributed to its ability to delink the peoples, traditions and experiences of the South from each other. This delinking has many dimensions to it. One example of this wedge is the modern conceptualization of the nation-state which has succeeded in unnaturally dividing many peoples of the South and manufacturing deep wounds between people over artificial boundaries. Accompanying this painful isolationism, has been an attempt to completely emasculate the institutions and individuals of the South--the continuation of a pattern of psychological and cultural conquest begun under colonialism. In order to maintain its ideological sanctity, Western science and rationality have attempted to brutally devalue all non-Western forms of knowledge and suppress the traditions and histories of peoples of the South. This strategy has been executed in a conscious and methodical fashion with full knowledge that a prerequisite for a society to develop outside of the walls of modernity must be a confidence in its own cultural traditions and a respect for other traditions. The media (also controlled by the North) and various donors (through development projects) have reinforced this relentless ideological onslaught by branding the peoples and cultures of the South with such demoralizing adjectives as "undeveloped", "backwards", "irrational," or "lazy." The insecurity which results has not only led to a sense of powerlessness versus the North but has created a debilitating sense of competition and divisiveness among various races, ethnic and religious groups in the South as each vies for position on the totem-pole of intellectual and cultural superiority.

As a defensive manuever to complement its offensive strategy, modernity has made it difficult to isolate and place where its sources of power originate from. It has been able to conceal itself from attacks by its opponents by "buying-off" many unholy allies across the North and the South and weaving them into a complex web of chameleon-like, co-dependent relationships. There is no longer one easily identifiable enemy against which to rally around; the last such ideology that the peoples of the South were able to unite against was the static dinosaur of apartheid, and even that proved to be a difficult one to disassemble. One strand of this web that has now been fairly well-exposed has been the prostitution of the elites of the South. Rajni Kothari states, "The excessive focus on North-South relations has provided an escape route for the elites of the Third World who may wax eloquent in international fora but whose record at home is one of exploitation and repression... In the Third World these elites, psychologically overpowered by the demonstration effect Western lifestyles and conspicuous consumption, have become alienated from their societies and have become part of the global middle class; this is what "globalization" in effect means." (9) Less obvious but more insidious ties are being formed between the middle classes across the South who wantonly aspire now for the same status and material pleasures that have been enjoyed by the elites. To take this one step further, it can be argued that almost every institution, from religious leaders to families to multinational organizations, across the world has its fingers in the pot of modernity, and, as a direct consequence, has an incentive to support this paradigm on some level. Immanuel Wallerstein describes the total impotency which results from this phenomenon of powerless places and placeless power, "What the South Commission wants is a revolutionary transformation in the whole structure of the world system, and it asks for it very politely, almost timidly." (10)

If the fulfillment of the dual objectives of meeting basic human needs and encouraging broader civilizational development is ever to occur in the South, there is a need to redefine the basic bonds that shape the relationships between the peoples of the South. This must begin with fundamentally altering the underlying terms of South-South cooperation. The rationale for South-South cooperation must evolve into being something beyond a reactionary anti-North ideology. The South Commission writes "What the countries of the South have in common transcends their differences; it gives them a shared identity and a reason to work together for common objectives. . . The primary bond that links the countries and peoples of the South is their desire to escape from poverty and underdevelopment and secure a better life for their citizens." (11) While South Commission is correct in its assessment that the countries of the South have a great deal in common, it irrectly identifies the primary bond that links the countries and peoples of the South (once again due to a underlying desire for Western economic growth and modernization). The bonds that link the countries of the South together are much deeper and much stronger. They are grounded in ancient civilizational, spiritual and cultural connections, colonialist struggles and post-colonialist experiences. These linkages transcend the cost-benefit obsessed modern world to form a moral and ethical rationale for cooperation; and while, it may be easy to bury these ties under bundles of dollar bills, they cannot be easily severed. In this context, Tamas Szentes' question begins to make sense, "Do we have the right to benefit from a world order which excludes millions of humans from any benefits?." When discussed from the conscienceless perspective of modernity, this question would be dismissed as idealistic (some would even say "socialist") gibberish; however, when it is discussed from the lens of different development paradigm which is grounded in principles of respect, compassion, and mutual sacrifice, it becomes a moral dilemma that cannot be ignored.

There is a growing recognition that the "business of development" as constructed under the paradigm of modernity is not really concerned with solving the rapidly increasing crises of the peoples of the South and, as long as the model South-South cooperation is grounded in this paradigm, it will remain marginalized and ineffectual. We must thus encourage the formation of a new paradigm of development. The key difference between this and previous approaches will be that the ideology of South-South cooperation will not simply be defined by the existing paradigm, but rather, it will play a lead role in defining a new paradigm.

An Antiquated Model

To this point, I have argued that South-South cooperation has failed to live up to its hype because the ideology has been grounded in the wrong development paradigm. I will now argue that the model for South-South cooperation that has been implemented is sterile. There is a certain connection between these two arguments since the ideology (or basic set of goals, objectives and values) has traditionally defined the model (or strategy implemented to achieve these sets of goals, objectives and values). The model has not only failed to take advantage of the tremendous energy that is created from connections between peoples and cultures of the South but has also prevented the formation of meaningful connections. The model is particularly deficient in four respects.

First, the model of South-South cooperation was purposely designed in a static and unimaginative mold in order to constrain the formation of a new paradigm of development. It is grounded in a rigid Western tradition that is implicitly dedicated to preserving the status quo. This tradition uses a linear, monochronic notion of time rather than acknowledging that different societies have their own internal clocks and are capable from jumping from step A to step E without necessarily having to go through steps B, C and D. Furthermore, it has forced, through such artificial constructs as the "fiscal year", development efforts to demand peoples and cultures to move at unnatural paces and take awkward actions. The Western tradition also leads the model to focus its attention only on the measurable, the calculable, the utilitarian and the predictable. The result is that the model is primarily output-driven rather than process-driven and is geared towards shorter-term time horizons. There has been very little attention given to facilitating the essential development processes of flexibility, experimentation and social learning. Without these three elements, the model lacks the dynamicism and responsiveness necessary to internalize, react to and grow with the complexity of the changing global and local environments. This has led to a model that is not only mechanical but is also actively resistant to change. The process of change is viewed as a negative force that is to be avoided rather than as something natural, positive and inevitable. One manifestation of this has been the propagation of an idea of intellectual and cultural "preservation" as a means of defending the social and cultural fabric of South from modernity. Unfortunately, not only does this approach fail to protect the traditions and ideologies of the South, it unknowingly contributes to their dismemberment by limiting their ability to resist and to evolve alternatives that challenge modernity.

This leads to a second weakness in the model of South-South cooperation. The model is "stuck" in a 1970s, Cold War, nascent post-colonialist definition of the North and South. It fails to recognize the internal and external factors which have changed and continue to change the entire dimension of South-South cooperation. The South is staticly defined as a homogenous body, failing to recognize such problematic factors as the increasing ethnic and religious tensions within and across countries of the South. There is no unified Africa, Asia or Latin America, nor are there any absolutely unified peoples in any of the countries of the South. Recent examples in Rwanda, Mexico and the Indian sub-continent are painful reminders of this Swiss-cheese solidarity. Furthermore, while there still is an oppressive North, there are also oppressors in the South, and while there are those who are oppressed in the South, there are also those who are oppressed in the North. For example, why does an African American male in New York City have a lower life expectancy than many of the peoples of the South? Umbrella categories of "North" and "South" have become vapid. Finally, the model fails to recognize the changing players and roles in the South-South landscape. Within the South, there has been the emergence of new South "powerhouses" such as India, China and the Islamic countries; however, these countries are developing an assortment of new relationships with the North, particularly with the United States which is struggling to define its post- Cold War role in the global arena. Unfortunately, the bulk of these relationships are geared towards following the North rather than leading the South. The model also does not acknowledge the emergence of certain major influential forces such as, the growing impact and accessibility of technology, globalization of information, movements towards privatization and massive emergence of NGOs. "A network of relationships has been built up among private entities -- banks, investment houses, transnational companies -- in the leading developing countries. This has served to strengthen the influence of decisions made by private bodies on world economic activity, and to that extent limit the effectiveness of governmental policy decisions." (12) While the influence of multilateral and bilateral donors (particularly the World Bank and the IMF) has grown, the power of collective institutional structures meant to promote the interests of the South, like the Group of 77, the Non-Aligned Movement, OPEC and several regional formations inspired by the ideas of the New International Economic Order has declined. Even the United Nations has become suspect in terms of whose interests is it acting in.(13)

The third criticism of the model is targeted at the limited actors involved and activities supported under South-South cooperation. South-South cooperation has basically been a euphemism for rendezvouses between the bureaucrats and technocrats of the South. Unfortunately, most of these bureaucratic and technocratic elite have been educated within the paradigm of modernity. They are oftentimes more in tune with leaders of the North than with the peoples of the South. Comeliau writes, "It is not the personality of the members of such groups, or their technical competence, let alone their intellectual integrity which is at issue. Yet the fact is that most of them have acquired their experience in the state apparatus; their training and experience in multilateral organizations have forged in many of them an approach to development and international relations that is Westernized, economicist, and marked by the intellectual and diplomatic modes of this very special milieu; and thus the catalogue of questions dealt with strangely resembles, in short, the table of contents of all the reports that preceded this one." (14) Furthermore, the model lends itself to having the interaction between the countries of the South controlled by the North with a representative of the North usually serving as a intermediary. The North-sponsored activities are typically very focused on economic or technical matters and formalistic. What is on the agenda and when and how it is discussed is carefully controlled--topics of an ideological sort are discouraged. The interaction is usually a one-time fling with little opportunity for on-going or continuous dialogue as such affairs are deemed not cost-effective. The top-heavy participation in South-South cooperation has been criticized in the past for preventing peoples of the South from building strong links at a grassroots level. What has been largely ignored is that under modernity, the bonds (at all levels from top to bottom) have been and continue to be manufactured with synthetic economic and technical fibers. Little opportunity has been provided for activities which explore and promote the natural historical and cultural connections between the South. Such connections, as demonstrated by strong relationships within Europe and between Europe and the United States, are essential to rebuilding the basic trust and vision which is currently lacking among the peoples of the South.

The last weakness of the current model of South-South cooperation is that it remains blind to the control that modernity has on shaping and constraining it. The model is content at being situated as a reaction to some antiquated idea of the North. It is still fixated on the idea that it can fix the dominant paradigm by "tinkering" with it. The focus of South-South cooperation efforts has been on crisis-management and band-aid solutions. The model is paralyzed by a cumbersome set of ideological tools and frameworks that prevent it from adequately reflecting on and breaking away from the more agile modernity. While the model is equipped to begin the project of deconstructing the ideologies and relationships that comprise and are derived from modernity, it is unable to make the critical transition from deconstruction to reconstruction. Like a virus which is able to mutate into more complicated strains, modernity has proven to be quite resilient. The only way to challenge it is to propose an alternative set of competing of ideologies and systems--a new paradigm. Unfortunately, the current model of South-South cooperation has neither been able to strengthen and develop "traditional" ideologies nor to ignite and fuel the intellectual and cultural production of new ideologies that a necessary to generate a new paradigm.

Towards a New Paradigm

There is an urgent imperative to refocus the direction of South-South cooperation. South-South cooperation must be a core ideology that actively contributes to the vision underlying a new paradigm of development rather than a reactionary after-thought. In this final section, I suggest some initial building blocks and parameters for creating a more forward-looking ideology of South-South cooperation, and ultimately, a new paradigm of development. My suggestions focus primarily on changes in the model since I believe that not only are models essential means for implementing certain ideologies, they are a critical means for spontaneously generating new ideologies. Furthermore, a more strategic and dynamic approach to development precludes the isolated plotting out of static long-term theories and plans. Ideologies which are produced solely at the top (in traditional academic circles) have tended to end up still-born since they lack both the widespread "ownership" and the internal dynamicism to survive. It will be important that a dialectical relationship be established between the ideology of South-South cooperation and the model of South-South cooperation so that each can interact with and feed off of each other in order to evolve and grow. This is different from traditional models in which there has typically been only a one-way flow from ideology to model. When a critical mass of several such dynamic ideologies are developed and are able to link up, only then can a new paradigm be formed to challenge modernity.

The paradigm of modernity, however, is extremely powerful in the sense that it can either crush or coopt other ideologies which attempt to challenge its core set of ideologies and, at the same time, extremely slippery and difficult to place due to the complexity of relationships which stem from it. M. Mitchell Waldrop situates the position from where South-South cooperation and other counter-ideologies must confront this juggernaut, "All complex systems have somehow acquired the ability to bring order and chaos into a special kind of balance. This balance point -- often called the edge of chaos -- is where the components of a system never quite lock into place, and yet never quite dissolve into turbulence, either. The edge of chaos is where new ideas and innovative genotypes are forever nibbling away at the edges of the status quo, and where even the most entrenched old guard will eventually be overthrown." (15) Waldrop astutely recognizes that when counter-ideological movements attempt to function in the mainstream they are coopted by the murky whirlpools of modernity--in order to maintain its ideological purity, South-South cooperation must operate from the edge of this chaos. So what does it mean for the model of South-South cooperation to operate from this edge of chaos? A dual strategy which focuses on attacking modernity by identifying the placeless power and empowering powerless places as well as on nurturing and protecting the nascent counter-ideologies from ideological cooptation, must be developed and pursued. This means continuing to deconstruct modernity while undertaking the project of reconstruction. M.C. Doeser suggests a new way for approaching this challenge, "Perhaps we have to start the other way around: not by setting goals for long-term development but by looking for a shared ethics for cooperation to create possibilities by which new directions for development can eventually be discovered." (16) Not only must we start the other way around with a shared ethics, we must build this shared ethics from the bottom-up rather than impose them from the top down. This involves rethinking both the actors and processes that comprise the foundations of South-South cooperation as well as the underlying rationale, tools and incentives that motivate and influence these actors and processes.

Rethinking the actors in the model of South-South cooperation must occur on two levels simultaneously. The first level is related to the question of who or what is the "South"? Is the definition of the South concerned with a group of countries in the Southern Hemisphere that were artificially chopped up by colonialist butchers or with the peoples of the world who are forced to live in a certain condition with a certain set of opportunities and possibilities? If it is the latter, then the traditional construct of the geographical entity called the South is questionable as millions of peoples that originated from the South now live in the North. The conceptualization of the South must some how be expanded to include the peoples who live in the South and their brothers and sisters in the North. In addition, the new model of South-South cooperation must seek to expand the range of participants beyond elite and semi-elite politicians, bureaucrats and technocrats. The interests of these groups are vested in current paradigm--they are linked to maintaining the status quo. There must be more focus on involving local individuals and communities--groups that have survived at the margin of modernity but remain at the center of their cultures. Furthermore, certain institutional forces such as media and technology, education, etc., should be viewed as actors since not only can they be used to unite disparate actors throughout the South, they themselves have tremendous impacts on the development of the South. Strong efforts should be made to reframe the ideological underpinnings of these institutional forces and to more closely integrate them into the model of South-South cooperation.

The second level is related to the question of what constitutes "involvement" between these actors? Simply bringing these actors together once a year to talk about some narrow symptomatic topic does not constitute involvement. More attention must be given to the quality of participation. This involves opportunities for more continuous interactions around varied topics. It also involves a "leveling of the playing field." Oftentimes, traditionally marginalized participants are brought to an unfamiliar or hostile forum for a few hours and asked for their "to participate"--they often fail to voice their opinions either because of inexperience with the Western discourse, fear of the political social or economic repercussions, or a variety of other such reasons. Addressing this rubber-stamp approach might involve capacity building and additional preparation of participants, conducting meetings in more comfortable environments (i.e., rather than bringing rural villagers to the city for a discussion, conducting the discussion on their "home-turf"), and allowing more time for thought and reflection. While most development-ices pay lip-service to these ideas, their implementation is often constrained by strait-jacket notions of efficiency and expediency.

This discussion leads directly into ideas about changing the process of South-South cooperation. This transformation of process is the crux in creating a new ideological foundation for South-South cooperation and for a new paradigm of development. This is where the bonds for a shared ethics are built. The process is absolutely critical because not only does it link the actors in meaningful activities but also because it influences whether the model of South-South is reactionary or forward-looking by determining the terms of cooperation. Edgar Pisani highlights the role of process, "Democracy is not imported; it is won and invented at the same time. . . The South must know that it has the choice between two paths: imitation, which means deculturation and submission, and invention, which is control of oneself and a bridled revolt against the troubles of the world." (17) Focusing on the process will allow the South to stop either merely resisting or recycling failed development schemes manufactured under the paradigm of modernity and to engage in creating and spreading their own ideas and dreams.

On one level, the process involves the activities that frame and guide the interaction between the various actors. Careful thought must be given to the defining and implementing of activities to ensure that they are not too narrowly constructed, focusing solely on some economic or technical matter. Rajni Kothari suggests an activity that should underlie all other activities, "The dialogue that has not even begun and has long been overdue is the dialogue with the people: and then, the dialogue between the diverse peoples, first in the South, then across the South and the North." (18) The initial dialogue should be over exploring what "development" means in the modern world. Is it simply about Coca-Cola and Nike shoes or is there something more? Under sustainable development, what are we trying to sustain and for whom? If the peoples of the South do in fact crave Coca Cola, is it because of their innate human nature or because of a glitzy marketing campaigns coupled with a lack of viable alternatives? The rat-race pace and "on the edge" lifestyle of modernity prevents people from "thinking" about these types of questions as they are consumed with "surviving". Modernity creates an amoral world of contentment which allows people to ignore present disparities and future consequences. Our role as development advisors should be to: (1) continue to expose the linkages that comprise and harmful social and cultural by-products that stem from modernity; (2) challenge the ignorant bliss, rationalized immorality and self-indulging egoism of peoples throughout the world; and, (3) work with the peoples of the South in formulating and posing these types of difficult questions and in creating and reflecting on their own answers.

How should we support this process of inventing new alternatives to modernity? Rather than having their wants and needs defined for them by some high-powered Madison Avenue marketing firm or Harvard intellectual, creative forums should be encouraged which help to facilitate dialogue between the peoples throughout the South over what their aspirations are for themselves, their children, their communities, their countries, their planet. These aspirations must underlie the basis for a shared ethics. The form that these creative forums take should be very different in various social, political and cultural contexts and at different point in time as the peoples of the South must design and organize their own forums. Mass reproduction of a pre-fabricated forums must be avoided. What must, however, be common to all of these forums is that they attempt to facilitate a human connection--serving as a space for exploring and rebuilding natural historical and cultural ties, negotiating difference, building moral and ethical frameworks, and creating developing alternatives. The dialogue must be grounded in rebuilding the principles of trust, mutual respect and sacrifice between human beings by encouraging the formation of symbiotic relationships (rather that ultra-individualism). If South-South cooperation is to strengthen human and cultural connections between the peoples of the South and expand their imaginations, it must more definitively support powerful institutonal activities such as sports, music, literature and films. Economics and lack of education (not formal education but an education that leads to openness to new ideas and an appreciation and toleration of difference) stand in the way. These barriers demand a more dynamic model that supports on-going (as situations as constantly changing) communication, creation and experimentation which implies providing ample time and resources (both material as well as intellectual). Such a process approach means that modern notions of efficiency and quid pro quo arrangements must be let go of as the process of building genuine bonds between peoples is a long, arduous and expensive one.

Process also involves on-going critical self-reflection and modifications. It will be important to continuously evaluate who is framing or defining the activities as well as the overall ideological direction while, at the same time, further developing an understanding of modernity. The frameworks and tools that exist for engaging in this process are extremely blunt and unwieldy and force a certain set of predetermined priorities and outcomes. For example, the ideological frameworks of race, gender and class, which are closely held in the hands of the intellectual elite, provide a very narrow perspective on much more complicated linkages. Another example is the emphasis on quantitative indicators (whose reliability is always suspect) which not only fail to capture the nuances of particular relationships but also stifle creativity and vision by limiting analysis and discussion to only what is historically or currently quantifiable. Furthermore, the tools do not facilitate use of the tremendous amounts of information and communication networks that are now available. Information is interpreted and pre-packaged before it is distributed. It is allowed to overwhelm and delink people rather than to help connect and stimulate them. The process must therefore also be geared towards producing a set of complex and dynamic analytical tools and frameworks which are accessible to the peoples of the South.

In conclusion, modernity is an extremely seductive paradigm. Like a slick used-car salesmen, it has evolved a tremendous power to charm people all over the world into believing that not only do they want a certain materialistic lifestyle, but that they need this lifestyle, even though, deep down they know that this lifestyle is morally wrong because of its destructiveness on human relationships, on intellectual and cultural creativity, on the environment, and the list goes on and on. If we reflect back on the questions in the opening paragraph, we see that South-South cooperation has not only failed to elucidate these linkages that underlie modernity, it has unconsciously supported them. Both the ideology and model have failed to contribute to the creation of viable development alternatives and now stand in the way of creating a new paradigm of development. The time has come to acknowledge the need for new approaches to South-South cooperation. Although the challenge awaiting us appears daunting, we must not let ourselves be overwhelmed and paralyzed by it--the tools (human imagination and technology) available for meeting this challenge are equally powerful. As both development advisors and peoples of the South, we must not resist experimentation out of uncertainty, cynicism or fear of failure but rather embrace and nurture it out of promise, hope and belief in the fairness of the world and the goodness of human beings. If history has taught us anything, it is that not only is change possible but it is inevitable.

2. The South Centre. 1993. Facing the Challenge: Responses to the Report of the South Commission. London: Zed Books (71).