Adib Nehmeh
On a New
Social Contract in a Savage World - Adib Nehme
Context
On February 12th, 2025, I have participated in a virtual conference organized by the International Labour Organization on "The New Social Contract in the Middle East and North Africa," focusing on workers' rights and providing decent work opportunities for all amid the multiple crises sweeping the world and our region. The session I have attended, addressed the question of identifying "the most important factors hindering the establishment of economies that provide decent work opportunities for all, and its connection to the macroeconomic framework and the multiple crises."
Below are some thoughts and reflections that have aroused from my participation in this conference.
Opening
Scene
As the curtain rises on
President Donald Trump's office, unveiling Mr. Elon Musk to his right and a
journalist. The journalist asks: "Mr. President, What do you think about
the social contract?" The answer comes quickly: "This is a very old
idea that has nothing to do with the modern era. I don't really know who
invented this idea and when, but it probably came to us from the ancient world
(Europe) hundreds of years ago (of course, we don't expect him to know about
the Enlightenment and its thinkers who contributed to shaping this idea, such
as Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke, and others) ... In fact, I don't fully understand
what any social contract means! I've never heard of such a type of
contract." He adds: "Perhaps this was something invented by a leftist
or extreme environmental group that wants to undermine the freedom of capital
and the leading role of great America in steering the global
economy."
The scene
has ended.
The Social Contract
The emerging form of "savage globalization," which began to
take clear shape with Donald Trump's arrival at the White House and the
enthusiastic celebration of the global far-right, constitutes a complete annulment
of the idea of the "social contract" and its philosophy. Such ideas,
generated in the "Age of Enlightenment," are considered by proponents
of savage neoliberal globalization as extinct beings and "weeds" that
must be removed because they harm economic growth and hinder the full momentum
of unrestrained utility values, driven by the emerging savage global system to
its utmost limits. On this basis, the struggle for a new social contract is considered
as a global battle aimed at preventing the eradication of this very idea from
the economic and societal relations. In this sense, it pertains to the essence
of the system of values and the racist and violent choices that despise all
rights, except for the right of those in power and wealth perched at the top of
the economic and political pyramid, in order to maximize profit and control the
world. There is no place for a social contract among societal parties based on
equality and recognition of the mutual right to defend divergent or conflicting
interests, while doing all efforts to reach dynamic historical compromises
between these interests.
The social contract is often emphasized as a contract between
governments (or authority) and citizens. This is true, but it is only
considered so in a subsequent moment to the actual contract that is formed
through struggle/strife/ and negotiation among social components, and their
political, union, and community expressions at the base level of the society
itself, It is than transformed in the next moment into a written relational
framework (constitution) institutionalized in political systems, resulting
policies that seek to translate the principles and orientations of the contract
and the mutual obligations contained therein into an actual reality. This does
not occur in a single, definitive moment, but rather is a dynamic process of
struggle and shifting balances among the interests and choices of various
social formations.
What prevents a fair economy and a decent work?
As usual, there are always
obstacles primarily stemming from the nation-states themselves and their
policies, along with regional influences. There are other factors arising from
globalization and the policies that shape the features and directions of the
global economy, which in turn is a critical and determining factor in regional
and national policies. At this specific historical moment, global contexts are
the most important and defining factors, constituting the main obstacle to
economic and social development in our countries, including the provision of
decent work opportunities for all. This does not in any way exempt national
governments and their policies, as well as the social and economic forces
behind them, from responsibility; rather, the subservient surrender to global
trends amplifies their responsibility instead of diminishing it.
The deep and core
reason for the inability to build a fair and inclusive economy that achieves
decent employment for all, lies in the fact that achieving this goal requires
an approach, choices, and a social-historical carrier that all go in the
completely opposite direction to the neoliberal globalization trends that have
prevailed since the 1980s; they are in stark contrast to the emerging global
trends led by the far-right, particularly under the leadership of U.S.
President Trump. This new formula is characterized by the return of
protectionist tendencies and trade wars among the current poles of
globalization (including, and led by, China at this time), as well as by
violence, savagery, colonial tendencies, and a complete departure from the
global governance system that was established after World War II. What the
world has witnessed in the recent years, including our Arab region, and the
genocide occurring in Palestine—specifically Gaza and the West Bank—extending
to Lebanon and the broader region in 2024, is a stark testament to such a
transformation (without neglecting what is happening in other parts of the
world, including the capitalist core countries themselves).
This transformation
poses fundamental challenges and issues, as it is no longer possible to
confront these choices and their consequences by adhering to previous
strategies, and remaining within the prevailing institutional frameworks. This
is no longer sufficient, and in some cases, it is no longer effective or
appropriate; thus, it is essential to seek alternative and effective
confrontation strategies capable of curbing the rampant colonial and neoliberal
savagery in its new form in order to push towards changing the current reality
and addressing the crises it generates, and overcoming these crises successfully,
or at least with the least amount of losses.
They create
the crisis and design the response to it!
The leaders of
globalization manufacture crises through their policies and choices; however,
they do not stop at that but work to preempt any response to these crises that
could be formulated from an opposing or alternative standpoint, which
constitutes an act of containment, and even a confiscation of possible
alternatives. This is particularly achieved by flooding the research and
discussions pertaining to possible solutions to the crises that our contemporary
world bears with approaches, ideas, and solutions of their own making, characterized
by a technical nature that is intended to imply neutrality and reliance on
science. This helps them control the institutions that produce and disseminate
ideas and ideologies promoting neoliberal globalization. Additionally, they
have created a specific narrative about economic growth, governance, and the
causes of crises over the decades since the early 1980s, which many parties
treat as indisputable axioms.
Some of those who
address the issues of the economy and (decent) work in our (developing)
countries attribute the cause to shortcomings or failures in the economic
governance system or labor market governance. Governance here primarily refers
to technical procedures, distancing it from its political component; it does
not imply tyranny or the absence of democracy for example , but rather refers
to: delays in adopting or utilizing technologies; or the inadequacy of
infrastructure and appropriate equipment for digital transformation; or
remaining on the margins of scientific and technological revolutions, including
delays in entering the digital age, artificial intelligence, and the fourth or
fifth industrial revolution... etc.; along with other attractive terms and
phrases. There is often reference to the disparity between the speed of global
transformations in the labor market and the slow transformations in the
governance of the economy and labor market in our countries, which points to
the necessity of accelerating the change of the system of laws and regulations
governing the economy, labor and labor market in developing countries to
respond to global transformations. As simple and straightforward as this
conclusion may seem, even self-evident, such proposals are limited to
administrative and technical modernization, mechanization, and digitization...
etc., without any explicit reference to the political and legal content of such
required reforms or changes, which means accepting the entire globalized package
that includes dangerous biases in favor of capital at the expense of labor.
These proposals
overlook the defining features and conditions of the "social
contract" in general, and in particular the relationship between workers,
employers, and the state, or between labor and capital, at both global and
national levels. The discourse on "flexibility" in the labor market
within neoliberal rhetoric implies the dismantling of laws and regulations
governing the relationship between workers and employers, as has actually
occurred over the past decades, leading to: the weakening of the negotiating power
of unions; the liberation of labor contracts from laws that protect jobs and
workers; a significant expansion of informal work; violations of the commitment
to minimum wage standards that ensure a decent living; the abandonment of the
idea of comprehensive social protection systems; and the continued failure to
assess care work, among other issues. All of this falls within the context of
dismantling the "welfare state" and the social and environmental
responsibilities of the state, while liberating markets and capital freedom,
alongside restricting the freedom of labor mobility, despite the transformation
of migrant workers into a highly significant productive force in all countries,
which are subject to double exploitation, especially in our countries.
In this context, when
discussing the necessity of developing economic governance and the labor
market, particularly in our countries, the priority must undoubtedly be the governance
of the "social contract" over
the relationship between workers and employers, or between labor and capital,
more committed to justice and a system of rights, providing more effective
protection for workers' rights in a broad sense, in accordance with the diverse
forms of work and the transformations that have occurred in the labor market,
starting with migrant workers engaged in difficult and marginal jobs to those
working in the platform economy. In this regard, the notion of flexibility
often refers to the dismantling of regulations governing work and protecting workers
(deregulation), which has been the third pillar of the neoliberal trinity since
the early eighties, alongside economic liberalization and privatization. The
required direction for development is the one that prioritizes rights, which is
completely opposite to the deepening of the gap between labor and capital in
favor of the latter, as it is effectively implied by the emerging calls for
neoliberal good governance.
A final thought in this
context relates to artificial intelligence and its impact on work, the labor
market, and the economy in our countries. There is no doubt that technological
development, digitization, and artificial intelligence (regardless of the name
and the definition of the latter) directly impact the labor market, its
organization, and the characteristics that define it. In the coming years and
decades, it is expected that new jobs will emerge while others will disappear,
particularly in some traditional sectors where modern technologies provide real
and low-cost alternatives, or in some pioneering economic sectors that will be
more affected by digitization and artificial intelligence, as well as in
service sectors.
It is obvious that the
countries of the capitalist center, and some of their sectors, will be more
affected by this than developing countries, for example. Therefore, merely
replicating this discourse by some officials, business owners, or other
stakeholders in our countries does not take into account the characteristics
and problems of our countries and economies, as well as the nature of work and
the labor market within them. For instance, we can point to some calls that
echo here and there about the necessity of entering the fourth or fifth
industrial revolution in countries that have barely completed the first
agricultural or industrial revolution. Additionally, the impact of digitization
and artificial intelligence in countries where the informal labor rate ranges
between 60% and 70%, for example, and in sectors with low productivity, along
with underdeveloped digital infrastructure and a low and inadequate educational
level in terms of quality... etc., cannot be similar to the effects of
digitization and artificial intelligence in countries where these technologies
were produced and are widely and significantly used in production and in
managing society; we must seriously examine their impact in our countries, away
from simplistic projections and replication.
Polycrisis
The closest translation
of this new term that has entered the global discourse is "one crisis in
crises," or "multiple crises in one crisis." It is not a
collection of adjacent and overlapping crises that our contemporary world is
enduring, such as the climate crisis, economic crises, geopolitical tensions...
etc. However, in its common usage, it remains a limited concept because it
assumes that the current crises have emerged simultaneously across various
aspects of life and the world, and that their coincidence has affected the core
of the global system governed by neoliberalism. This means that the act of
crisis/crises moves from the outside to the inside, from the peripheries of the
system to its center, and from the multiplicity of crises manifesting in
different sectors and fields to the heart of neoliberal globalization and its
macroeconomics.
This is a partial and
limited approach. While the trajectory of crisis from the outside to the inside
may be correct, the more important and influential dynamic—the dominant and
prevailing one—is the one that originates from the center of the system and its
core, namely the neoliberal macro economy, towards its multiple manifestations,
not the other way around. These multiple crises (climate, recession, war,
marginalization, inequality, etc.) are primarily manifestations and outcomes
generated by the structural crisis of the globalized neoliberal model that has
been dominant since the early 1980s, and from its macroeconomic model in
particular. This model has reached its historical limit, and surpassing it has
become a necessary and urgent matter to save the planet, people, and nations
from the looming disasters, starting with climate change, to economic recession
and the shift to a fictitious economy, leading to genocide, and the
proliferation of triviality and the destruction of the value and standard system
expressed by the human rights framework, along with the international
mechanisms entrusted with enforcing it, from the United Nations to all other
global mechanisms and institutions.
The current conception
of the macroeconomic and social options that are being shaped and expanded by
the extreme global right in response to the crisis of the prevailing neoliberal
globalization model since the 1980s includes a shift away from some previous
options and policies, a return to national protectionism, fanaticism, trade
wars, and the use of war as a means of diplomacy in international relations, as
well as the dismantling of the international system that was established after
World War II. All of this is pushing towards creating a global situation
similar to what existed before World War I (and II), accompanied by global
chaos and a violent and savage colonialist tendency. Such situation is forcibly
driving the world towards a cosmic catastrophe, propelled by the interests of
the 1% who monopolize money, power, violence, and media, under the leadership
of the extreme global right, headed by the new American president.
Is it
possible to confront?
Of course; and the chances
of success are likely, if not certain. However, the question at hand is how to
minimize the cost that the planet, the world, and its peoples will pay before
putting an end to this brutal madness and returning to global paths that
include the necessary commitment to the human rights framework, with the goal
of maintaining global peace and halting the path of planetary destruction.
A fundamental aspect of
success depends on the global and national consensus that partial and side
solutions, which focus solely on outcomes rather than the causes and dynamics
that generate crises, are no longer sufficient and are a waste of time and
effort. It is essential to declare the failure of the neoliberal globalization
model that has prevailed since the 1980s, but not in order to impose new, more
brutal models as required by the extreme global right and its colonial and
racist tendencies that we are currently witnessing. The failure of this model and
its new version, more brutal and trivial forms means moving towards an
alternative model that restores the significance of the human rights system,
its values, and standards, including the right to development and
self-determination, as well as democracy, social justice, equality, and the
protection of our planet—our shared home—from systematic destruction due to
unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. This dual conviction of:
a- The failure of the
neoliberal model due to its nature and its increasingly brutal consequences,
b- The necessity of
moving towards an alternative that commits to human rights, justice, democracy,
and the protection of the planet and its peoples;
It is the starting
point for the formation of a global alliance, with national components and
extensions, in the path of emerging from the current existential crisis and its
manifestations in the realms of economy, society, environment, labor, culture,
and values.
