WHAT ARE WE STRIVING FOR?

Sir,

There has been constant talk about First World status as being the ultimate developmental goal for this country. I don’t know about you but I often wonder what this means. Surely this implies that there is a Second World, a Third World and possibly a Fourth?

What is it that this ‘First World’ resembles, what criteria needs to be met in order to be part of this seemingly prestigious classification? I ask this because the term ‘First World’ seems to be a rarity in current development writings, seminars and so on and yet our government and media have used this term with such gusto. In my understanding of international development, the world is divided into ‘developed’ and ‘less developed’ States. So which is it, ‘First World’ or ‘developed’, or maybe there are just a few other classifications that might just add to the confusion. Either way it would probably be best to start with a simple definition of this illusive term.

Historically speaking the term gained its prominence during the Cold War as it described the two opposing sides, the First and Second World countries. The First World referred to the capitalist countries of the west, the Second World referred to the communist/socialist countries of the east, the Third World were the non-aligned countries, and finally the Fourth World referred to the unrecognised nations of indigenous people living within the borders of First World countries.  As it stands the Cold War is long over, the countries of the Second World became nonexistent with the fall of the Soviet Union. So why have the terms ‘First’ and ‘Third’ World stuck?

 Cold war

During the Cold War it just so happened that the capitalist countries of the then First World were large industrialised and developed economies. The majority of non- aligned States of the Third World were poverty-stricken and underdeveloped economies. So it came to be that the term ‘First World’ became synonymous with developed, industrialised and economically advanced countries of the west, while the term ‘Third World’ became synonymous with the mostly poor and economically weak countries of the world.

However, this terminology was never universally accepted, and since the end of the Cold War the original reference of this term has become outdated. Regardless of having outlived its original meaning, many people around the world continue to refer to countries as being either First World or Third World. More commonly used is the term developed and developing to describe the overall development of a country. This term is also used quite loosely and lacks a universally acceptable definition.

There is a variety of terminology being used to classify or rank a country’s developmental progress. Developmental progress has been even further broken down by the World Bank, which separates countries into four categories: high income; upper-middle-income; lower-middle-income (which is what Eswatini is classified as); and low income.

So what exactly is it that we are striving for? Is it a ‘First World’ status, or possibly to be ‘developed’, and what about being classified as a high income country? Either way I find it quite difficult to keep up with all of this terminology and which is the most appropriate, or politically correct to use. I don’t know about you but I feel that this issue needs to be seriously addressed at an international level.

Howard

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: