"to develop or not to develop"
Globalization hits me in the chest! Modernization stabs me to the back! It creates a whole dilemma of “To Develop or Not to Develop" in an ideal world development is portrayed as joining partnership in a global world, so that both developing and developed countries will share responsibilities in a symbiotic fashion to harvest the benefits of development. Well in fact, developing countries need to do their homework, to form strategies to decrease poverty and mold governance, so that they can reap the profits of developed countries. The history of existing society is based on class struggle, only nomenclature changes; "freeman and slaves" are substituted by "proletariat and bourgeois" to yield to "developed elite and developing third world countries". If you dig deep you discover that the paramount consideration is plainly based on economic pursuit to achieve development whether dependency, or modernization theory perspective. While the big shots in Lebanon simply blab a monologue of modernization theory in developing a global partnership for development.
Which overlooks different perspectives; it is deplorable how an enormous change in history such as development can be simplified through the panorama of the western world, as if diversity is disdained and merely one man's experience portrays development in the whole wide world.
The Lebanese corporations that are being abused by perpetrators of globalization, just being used as tools to draw their own milky way to penetrate in the heart of the business and suck the profit out of it, to have a piece of the bloody pie by upholding evolution towards modernity to achieve economic surplus through industrialization and increasing investment, to be able to reap the fruits of economic growth.
These poor pathetic Lebanese tools convince themselves that globalization, manifestation of modernization theory, is crucial in building partnership in trade, finance and technology. They claim that Lebanon has acquired the reimbursement of globalization through various forms of development: social capital, historical enrichment, educational and cultural exchange. The modernization theorist stresses that it's essential for Lebanon to be part of the global market, to overcome the constraints of corruption, decease poverty, adjust public spending and give way to privatization of ownership.
Modernization is disguised and merely depicted as a necessary and desirable process to human destiny. Despite the challenge that trade liberation posed to the market by increasing exports of limited natural resources by twenty percent it increased debt to thirty billion dolor, what the author fails to acknowledge here is the flaws of this gain that drained the industry and flood Lebanon with foreign imports, which allows us to weigh the pros and cons of this development and leaves us in a dilemma, of what to do next when the natural resources perish. Lebanese government instead of treating the cause of the disease is trying to remedy the complication, by creating strategies of structural reform, simplifying procedures, public financing, privatization and liberalization of trade, which wouldn't have been there if the initial factors were not present.
I see development, with my own eyeglasses, to be a process where people are dominated and their destinies are controlled according to western standards of comprehending the world. Their plans, imaginations and thoughts are shaped by others who neither share their values nor their lifestyle. This theory portrays development as an outside force, based on western experience, which is universally applicable, disregarding the fact that development comes from within. It rips away from the society its sentimental veil and reduces human relations to mere monetary ties. It is an issue of greater concern that drains cultural wealth and imposes western values, because western is modern and traditional is considered to be hindrance to development.
This propels the myth that change comes from outside, the need for foreign assistance to develop, ignoring the fact that change of development should occur from within. The main problem is that, they disregard the impact of this aid, which is leading to the accumulation of enormous amount of debt by increased interest rate, that developing countries are imposed to pay for the counterfeit received. The World Bank assumes to take the role of godfather to provide a helping hand for developing countries, swamping them with inconceivable debt, condemned to repay for the rest of their lives.
Dependency theorists, explain that the western world not only drives non-western countries into stagnation but also into privatization of economy which is the most vivid aspect of capitalism. Using the exploiting approach of many to benefit a few, allowing few controlling elite to endorse their own development and ensure economic surplus. Which in fact modernization leads to further underdevelopment. Developing countries, hooked up with western economy, become dependent on Ali baba and the crew of thieves, channeling further seclusion and deterioration of their economy.
Ok If their vision is right and modernization is leading to development and a better future for everyone under the equality umbrella how come after tons of years of development we still discover various parts of this world people are worse off then before. So as development is explained to have wide scope of advantages it has leakages where the truth is hidden under the veil of power. Perusing uni-dimentional approach has blinded them. In my opinion I think we need to have a critical mind to be able to go beyond the narrow confines of modernization theory of development and discuss the issue in a multidimensional approach. We can not disregard the influence of other factors such as political
diversity and human
perspective. We are not discussing development in ceteris paribus, in vacuum, but this change is occurring in the society which is subjected to various underlying factors. They only portray the theory as if it is black or whites no room for the grey area to coexist.
In the real world modernization theory of development is based on accumulation of capital where some countries register economic growth while others do not. Big fish engulfs small fish in the ocean. Even if the western world administers aids and technology to the developing countries the hidden agenda is to ensure western oriented decision making and increase own profit by mobilizing exports to third world countries and exploiting their low cost natural resources to develop own industry. It overlooks various aspects, creates the myth of trickle down effect, assuming everyone is equal, where the elite enjoy the benefits of development and the poor are merely endowed with the nuisance. Modernization theory of development pays only lip service to equality between the developed elite and developing countries. The question remains "who gets what on the expense of whom?" ……
Lebanon can't only focus on modernization theory to develop global partnership in development, to be able to reap its promises. We need to focus also on other aspects like social development that sprouts in bottom up approach, entails collaboration of people, rooted within the society, not an outside force hitting them like a lightning to save them from their current situation. They can’t sit and wait for GODO to come and save them from their devastating condition .They can not borrow western standards and apply to their system which can deteriorate the whole situation farther worse then they are now. To be able to make a difference they must understand the situation, analyze its causes and use holistic approach to view the authenticity of their development.