As I’ve said to the media today, following the news the George Bush has picked Robert Zoellick to be the next World Bank President (and the US nominee has always got the job in the past):
No offence to Mr Zoellick, but this is another American and another Bush appointee.
The World Bank has fallen into disrepute through political appointments.
It is not credible for the World Bank to preach good governance to developing nations when its own governance is based on such an outdated and patriarchal world view.
The President of the World Bank should be chosen according to a transparent process on the basis of merit and qualification.
It is a shame that the British Government has done nothing to push for an open and meritocratic selection process for the World Bank presidency.
The world bank is a political organisation serving a political purpose. As such, merit is less important than their opinions and intentions. (Or put another way, whose definition of ‘merit’ do you use?) It’s also owned and funded mostly by the US, which is why they like to have some say over how their money is spent, and as for Zoellick being a Bush appointee, I like him already!If you appointed someone else competent, they’d last as long as Wolfowitz. They’d be pushed out, same as he was, by those whose corrupt interests were threatened.However, I quite like the idea of selecting our rulers and overseers by merit – in my world you would have to pass an exam (say, about A-level standard) before you could stand for Parliament – law, economics, statistics, history, … ethics. What do you think? 🙂
Should Robert Zoellick head up the World Bank? No!
When I saw this news, I knew he looked familiar. I think his family history centers around banks tell me it isn’t uncanny…http://www.slamboard.com/2007/05/30/the-position-as-been-filled/