In the empirical study of Politics and International Relations, one begins to realise that the world is all about ideologies and theoretical persuasions. This is perhaps difficult to understand since we are engulfed by a social campaign against the role of theory in our daily lives.

Often, one hears the phrase: "It is possible in theory but not in practice." This registers a thinking that theory is an abstract thing, far from our indulgence. Should one engage the literature on theory, you will appreciate the role of theory.

Theory is some kind of simplifying device that enables one to decide on the relevance of facts, theory tries to explain reality, theory is part of reality, theory influences reality. Theory is about usefulness in helping us understand something.

After the end of the Second World War, liberalism gained momentum in the west by advocating for a better world; liberal institutionalists such as Woodrow Wilson of the imperial USA took the lead in seducing leaders present at the Paris Peace conference that it is possible to have a world that is free of war and conflict with institutions regulating states' behaviour, relations between and among them.

Out of Liberalism emerged Neoliberalism spearheaded by people such as the ruthless female leader, Margret Thatcher of the UK.

We will surely establish that Neoliberalism is linked to the so-called 'Washington consensus' that calls for privatisation and deregulation; trade and financial liberalisation; shrinking and minimal role of the state in preference of the market and encouraging foreign direct investment.

hatcher's "there is no other alternative" rhetoric really helped push Neoliberal ideas. Neoliberalism is linked to the Structural Adjustment Programmes promoted by the IMF and the World Bank.

It is naked truth that Neoliberalism institutionalism and 'Washington consensus' have failed and will continue to fail.

If we go back to the end of the First World War, liberal institutions such as the League of Nations have failed miserably including their incapability to explain the emergence of the Second World War.

It was Realism which came to explain the Second World War. Realism is a theoretical standpoint based on the assertion that states are rational, unitary actors who seek to maximise their interest in the anarchic international system.

After the Second World War, Neoliberal institutionalists created institutions such as the UN and many others in an attempt to create a 'war-free better world'.

Of course they failed to prevent war, as we know now. As such, it is befitting to note that powerful states such as the US can and have shaped institutions for their own purposes and ignore them when they are too constraining.

If you think the UN can regulate the US, think again - the Iraq War is a nice case in point.

Americans will/have remained Americans despite who the President is.

As Africans, we must not forget how disastrous the SAPS and other economic reforms of the IMF and the World Bank were to the continent.

Africa is still to recover from the damages of these ignorant market fundamentalists.

Neoliberal Institutionalism has failed and even these 'mediocres' know so. Africa always pays for the West's experimental fantasies.

All global financials the world has come across thus far originated outside Africa but Africa pays a great deal. The failure of Copenhagen should open our eyes. Africa only contributes about 4% of global emissions, while suffering the most as a result of climate change.

Just recently when the global financial crisis they created took center stage in the global political economy, they were/are busy bailing out the already wealthy greedy capitalists instead of helping the hard-hit poor of the poorest.

As Sandbrook et al (2007) indicated, even the World Bank economist, William Easterly, has conceded in his article entitled 'The Lost Decades', to the fact that market reform has not helped the global periphery. He writes, 'Whereas the median per capita income growth in developing countries in the era of state interventionism (1960-1979) reached 2.5 percent, it was a disastrous 0.0 percent in 1980-1999.'

We should take note of the literature that argues that high and growing inequalities have accompanied market liberalisation; democracy itself is diluted and hallowed out and that market liberalisation generates conditions in developing countries that are conducive to instability and conflict supplementarily.

I would like to expose you to the recent failure of Neoliberal institutionalism and the 'Washington consensus'. The global financial crisis has made everyone realise that we can no longer put our trust in the market as this has proven to be problematic and suicidal.

Putting trust in the market is gambling with the lives of the people. As for us in the global periphery, the crisis should be the foundation of redefining ourselves in global politics and renegotiating our place in the global political economy. It is time we realise that Neoliberalism and the 'Washington consensus' are not the way forward for our situation.

As I near my conclusion, the fundamental question - that of the way forward?

I wish to submit that Social Democracy is the way forward for the developing world. It (Social Democracy) should therefore include an antidote to the merciless tendencies I have described above; provide economic security; social cohesion; redistributive mechanisms such as effective land reform, job creation, accessible education, health care, progressive taxation, labour market taxation, social insurance and welfare provision.

- Till second half - hear and be heard.