The World Bank and Paul Wolfowitz: Should he stay or should he go?

Current World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz is under siege. Charged with the mission of reducing global poverty and improving living standards around the world, the World Bank has been consumed with controversy ever since our former Assistant Secretary of Defense took the helm. The latest scandal could lead to Mr. Wolfowitz’s demise.

What’s interesting and also seemingly hypocritical is the very nature of this current scandal and how it flies in the face of Mr. Wolfowitz’s key mandate at the World Bank since his post began. His dream is to free the World Bank of so much of the corruption and graft that has always plagued it. Plain and simple, billions of $$$ of loans have always been granted to impoverished third-world nations to develop modern infrastructures, feed and offer medicines to sick and poor people and create a better standard of living in so many places across the globe. The reality is that many times these same loans are instead funneled into the personal coiffeurs of corrupt governments and/or other opposing factions in these chaotic nations. 

On its own, Wolfowitz’s mistake seems to be the run of the mill kind that we continue to witness across the board in government channels. He created an undeniable conflict by allowing a personal relationship (with his girlfriend) to take precedence over common sense in doing what’s right (or maybe not doing what’s stupid) (Link to article in The Economist). Now, the man is under fire because of the very cronyism that he wants to break the World Bank from.

Wolfowitz has clearly been fighting an uphill battle ever since coming over from the Defense Department and I understand why.  Some say he’s tried to shake things up too quickly, without being politically astute as to the forces at hand. This has created a lot of resentment among the veteran ranks at this slow moving institution. Assuming his motives are sincere, it’s hard to blame him for trying to create real positive change.

Others (including this blogger), still resent his never wavering “Let’s get Sadaam Hussein” ideology from his days in the State Department. I still remember Richard Clarke’s (very believable) testimony after 9/11 when it was clear that Wolfowitz would not listen to reason. All the evidence pointed to Al Qaeda as the culprit, but like a stubborn mule, he would not relent on his mission to brand the former dictator of Iraq as the real perpetrator. Only after it became so obvious that this line of propaganda wouldn’t work, did he and his boss change their story to the tune of weapons of mass destruction. And, look where we are today…

I have never met Paul Wolfowitz. But, I hear that he is a brilliant strategist. Unfortunately, that brilliance hasn’t translated to making smart, ethical decisions when they truly count. President Bush promoted this man after it came to light that he led the push to bring American to war for all the wrong reasons. This lack of accountability is truly appalling. It’s time for the World Bank Board to show courage and make Mr. Wolfowitz step down. A man who has put the battle against corruption at the top of his agenda must be beyond reproach himself. Paul Wolfowitz is not that man and he could never hope to serve that mandate.

Comments

[Steven Zweig]

Ed, you're in a better position than I to comment on this, but I've noticed a style of corporate communications (which I think the Bushies are very prone to), which can be summarized as "Never apologize, never admit you were wrong."

I'd assume the thinking is that an apology or an admission of error somehow looks weak--instead, "stay the course" even the course is head-on for an iceberg.

From your perspective, is this as pervasive now as it seems to be to me, and is also as counterproductive as I believe it? Or does this strategy actually work?

[ed]

It always depends on just how far one pushes this strategy until it becomes unbelievable and lacks complete credibility.

The Bush admin's strategy is obvious. In politics, never admit you are wrong, or in some future campaign, in some future ad it will be used against you or some other big wig candidate. Plus, I honestly believe that Bush didn't (and still doesn't to a certain degree) believe he is wrong on most things.

Public sentiment sways easily though. Once it became obvious (years ago) that this is his strategy and wouldn't relent on it in the slightest way (even when times are at there worse), he loses all crediblity.

We never, ever advise our clients to take this strategy. Good public relations is all about being honest with your constituents and not appearing as arrogant or non caring. Always denying you are wrong, is just bad PR.