Critics of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have, for decades, characterised it as the Imperialist Monetary Fund. They have argued that the IMF has a specific role to perform in ensuring the operation of the world capitalist system, namely to ensure that developing countries do not disrupt the financial flows of global capitalism.

The IMF, it is said, executes an imperialist function by forcing developing countries to keep their international payments, ie profits, debt service, royalties, etc on a current basis, even if the country has to reduce food imports, remove subsidies for the poor and lay off government employees.

They also point out that developed countries never have to subject themselves to the draconian programmes prescribed by the IMF, as rich countries bail out each other. Greece, a poor member of the rich-country European Union (EU) club, should now have an IMF programme, but instead is being bailed out by an EU-enhanced IMF package.

Critics and supporters of the IMF agree that developing countries did not have a voice in the establishment of the IMF and have never had sufficient votes to influence policy. There is not even the semblance of democracy in the decision-making of the IMF.

Recently there has been a token and insignificant reallocation of votes to give marginally more to the emerging market economies. However, the configuration of power remains unchanged, with the US having a block of votes giving it veto power. The EU is overrepresented in votes but has resisted attempts to have a fair redistribution in the IMF Board of Directors.

The G-20 has been heralded as a new, more representative body for global economic management and its communiqués profess to mandate that among the reforms of the IMF is that its managing director be selected on merit. This would break the stranglehold of Europe on that position since 1944. This change was mistaken by many to mean that the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) were now exerting influence, hopefully on behalf of the developing world.

However, what we have seen since May 18 when Frenchman Dominique Strauss-Kahn resigned as IMF chief, is the blatant effrontery and audacity of the EU in nominating the French finance minister, Ms Christine Lagarde, even though Mr Strauss-Kahn had the position for 26 of the last 33 years.

In most cases, people loathe giving up power, and when they do, they have to be pushed. So it was not surprising that the EU wanted to continue the unjust tradition at the IMF.

The US support for Ms Lagarde was also predictable because, if the EU had to give up the IMF, then the question of the presidency of the World Bank, a post the US has held since 1944, would be raised.

China and Russia also endorsed the French nominee rather than support the far more qualified candidate from Mexico, thereby ensuring continuation of European control of the IMF.

The lessons to be learnt are first, any chance for transparency and democracy in the decision-making of the IMF has been denied once again. Second, once a country joins the rich club it will jettison its former colleagues who, in common alliance, created the opening for it to join the exclusive club. Third, the poor, the small and the developing will continue to have no say in the management of the world economy.