It is common ground for a great many people in the know, in academic circles including well respected economists and politicians, that globalization in trade is not expected to benefit most developing countries and underdeveloped countries. Hostile consequences infrequently follow at the heels of the implementation of the so-called "Washington Consensus" heralded by the United States.

"Washington Consensus", briefly put, means the diminishing of the government's intervention role, enhancing of privatization of enterprises and extra-territorial infiltration of trade and commerce all over the world. Multinational companies have sought to exert negative pressure on developing countries and underdeveloped countries. These multinational corporations, blinded by lust for gain, virtually demand a swift removal of cross-border trade barriers and, despite foreseeable dire consequences, place lopsided emphasis on the need to hasten closer economic, political, social, cultural and services co-operation.

Of the 100 commanding economic entities in the world, these multinational corporations number 51. They participate in 20 per cent of world trade activities, covering over 70 per cent of international trade but employ merely three-quarters of one per cent of the world's work force. Needless to say, their impact on trade globalization is immeasurable. Under the pretext of promoting open markets and market economies, the real interest of these corporations seems to lie in the undeterred exploitation of resources, labour, land-use and traditional know-hows of the weaker nations.

Few economists would reject the concepts that democracy will bring on more trade and that global open markets will evoke more democracy. For the acknowledged interdependence of open markets and democracy, there is a need for profit-seeking unscrupulous developed countries to drum up and back fast-track democratic movements. Most developing countries and underdeveloped countries often suffer lamentable consequences under the pressure of forced imposition of westernized democracy and open markets.

It is noticeable that in the late 20th century, 50 per cent of manufacturing has taken untold advantage of the labour-intensive developing countries and underdeveloped countries. In the last four decades, such exploitation has increased by 12-fold. Granted that the world's poorest have come down by 200 million since 1980, but the divide between the rich and the poor has spread. It is unforgivable that whilst only US$6 billion is solicited for providing basic education for the underprivileged children of the world, the United States consumers currently spend over US$176 billion on pet goods, US$206 billion on jewellery and US$46 billion on cosmetics! Siphoning heartless profits from weak nations seems to be the root of democracy promotion overseas.

Evidently, it is a cardinal rule for Hong Kong that democratic pursuit must have regard to local conditions and progress in an orderly and prudent way.

American democracy was not built in a day; it was the product of running trials and errors in the past. Why is it, then, the Hong Kong SAR must embrace imminent universal suffrage?

As for the mainland, the analysis of Robert Kaplan, an economist, is worth mentioning. He seriously doubts if the People's Republic of China would not have been split by terrorists/separatists had the Tian'anmen Square episode not been decisively resolved. Ross Muno, an Asia expert concludes that the mainland's steady and mapped progress in democracy at her own pace paved the way for the nation's neat preparation for a leaping economic success, yielding a coveted return leaving India miles behind under a democratic system.

It is time to closely examine the world history of democracy. To begin with, Hitler and Mussolini grabbed power under unreal or unripe democratic elections. Sudan's democratic election in April 1985 brought in a barbaric regime. Tunisia's rampant corruption was not successfully contained after her first democratic election. The attempted second election was in vain. Kurdistan's fostered democracy under the auspices of America put Saddam Hussein in power. Afghanistan's election entrenched an Islamic brutal administration with little regard for the rule of law.

In Sub-Sahara Africa, Sierra Leone's democratic election ushered in total chaos. Mali was hailed as an outstanding example of democracy by the West, but her last election session was boycotted by the opposition party, visited by murders and riots.

In South America, Venezuela's elected government was displaced by the military in a coup. Chile's undemocratic military junta managed to provide at least a stable middle-class society. Columbia's middle class voted with their feet, deserting the region after a democratic election. Peru's election failed to seat a truly democratic government or restore stability. Argentina's election fell short of replacing the weak ground institutions, eradicating corruption or improving the employment index. President Carlos Menem's second term raised doubts if democracy was sustainable. Elections in Brazil drove her citizens into more slums and discontent with an unbearable crime rate.

Twenty-two thousand US soldiers restored the "democracy" in Haiti with merely 5 per cent eligible to vote. Since April 2000, the nation has been plunged into famine and instability.

Even Russia's high 99-per-cent literacy rate failed to take advantage of the relatively abrupt democratic elections. Years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, economic revival has yet to be attained.

The Chinese mainland's planned progress in her cautious approach to democracy with Chinese characteristics has yielded unprecedented growth.

The Hong Kong SAR has the hindsight benefit of these international democratic movements. Hong Kong people are evidently able to learn a good lesson from these historical events. We are left with little alternative but to take notice of our local conditions in a progressive democratic advance.

The author is a council member

of China Law Society and

former Hong Kong Justice of Appeal.

(HK Edition 06/30/2004 page3)