As Robert Zoellick is announced as the new President of the World Bank once more we are left questionning the Bank's democratic credentials.

When, after a storm of criticism, Paul Wolfowitz resigned as President of the World Bank, the Bank and it's members had an opportunity to improve its democratic credentials by organising an open and democratic process of appointing a successor.

Was this the case?
Sadly not - as has been the case since the establishment of the Bretton Woods Institutions, the US put forward its candidate, former US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, and Europe acquiesced in order to maintain its control over the appointment of the IMF’s President, the type of outcome you would expect from a medieval fiefdom, not of a supposed system of global governance.

Where were the voices of developing countries in all this?
There were understandable rumblings of dissent from a number of developing countries, but no formal challenge to the US appeared. This was in large part due to fears about the consequences of challenging the US on such a visible issue.

Should we be worried?
Zoellick’s previous experience of international policy suggests developing countries should be wary.

When Robert Zoellick was US Trade Representative he played a key role in pushing developing countries to enter into a new Round of trade negotiations at the Doha WTO ministerial.

He is therefore likely to continue the World Bank’s emphasis on harmful trade and economic reforms, although little is known how he will approach issues such as governance and rights.

It looks like the interests of world’s poor have once again been marginalised at the World Bank and a vital opportunity for change has been wasted.