When I heard of Edward Said's death, I felt a deep sorrow. Although I had only met him a couple of times, the sense of loss was especially keen because the oppressed had lost an articulate and compassionate spokesman.

Ahdaf Soueif, the Palestinian author of 'The Map of Love' wrote a moving tribute to Dr Said in the Guardian in which she quotes him as exclaiming in an exasperated tone after a political debate: "I don't understand these people! Why doesn't anybody speak about truth and justice any more?"

Why not indeed? These archaic ideals are remnants of more liberal times that have been elbowed aside by the mantra of 'might is right'. Politics follows big business, and the world is now dominated more and more by the emphasis on increasing efficiency and productivity as corporations seek to minimize costs and maximize profits. Above all, globalization and trade liberalization are the dominant factors in world affairs.

So is there any room for idealism in this world? In a recent conversation, Imran Khan spoke of his disillusionment when at his last meeting with General Musharraf before the October elections, the president accused him of being an idealist, implying that the ex-cricketer and now head of the Tehreek-i-Insaf was therefore incapable of succeeding in politics. Now I may disagree with some of Imran's political views, but I have never doubted his sincerity, especially when he said to me: "Until decent people enter politics, nothing will change."

Several years ago, my much-missed friend Eqbal Ahmed recounted a recent meeting he had had with a small group of MNAs. He asked them why they had entered politics: was it to improve the lot of their constituents, or because they had been inspired to alter the country's course? They looked at him blankly, almost as if he had arrived from a faraway planet and was talking in an incomprehensible language. Obviously, it had never struck them that politics could be about objectives other than self-advancement.

Given their intellect, humanism and sense of justice, it is no wonder that Eqbal Ahmed and Edward Said were such close friends. Both brought to bear a deep moral outrage over issues of the day where nations and individuals were unfairly treated. Their political commitment was informed by a thorough grasp of history and an innate understanding of the realities of power. Above all, their idealism was not to be confused with naivete: both understood clearly what was achievable and what was not. But both placed enormous faith in the human spirit and its demonstrated ability to surmount huge odds. By sheer chance, both died at the age of 67.

When the Soviet Union imploded as a result of cumulative inefficiencies and corruption some fifteen years ago, there were few tears shed. Many people thought the end of the cold war would reduce, if not end, tension and warfare around the world. Common wisdom decreed that now that the confrontation between the two superpowers had ended, there would be a flowering of peace and as a 'peace dividend', armed forces could be reduced. Welcome to reality: the Balkan wars, Chechnya, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and two wars against Iraq, the standoff over Kashmir and the fighting in East Timor all serve as reminders that the world is a very dangerous place.

It was precisely to prevent such conflicts that the United Nations was established after the Second World War, and while its record has been far from perfect, it has defused more crises than have exploded into actual warfare. It was an idealistic model of international cooperation and its various agencies have done much to alleviate human suffering around the globe. But the new American doctrine of pre-emptive war has struck at the UN's very foundations.

Socialism, unfashionable and discredited as it now is as an economic theory, had the virtue of placing social welfare at the centre of economic development. Despite the nepotism and corruption that flourished in so many socialist states, even their harshest critics accept the high educational and health standards established in even the poorest ones.

The collapse of the Soviet Union has opened the door to the domination of global capitalism to the detriment of the developing world. Classical capitalism as developed by Adam Smith propounded the free flow of capital, goods, technology and labour. What is happening today is that the West is insisting on the mobility of capital, goods and technology, but severely restricting the movement of labour to protect its own workers from cheap imported labour. And even goods cannot move freely: agricultural products where the Third World has a competitive advantage are restricted by quotas. At the same time, poor countries are being forced by WTO regulations to eliminate duties on industrial goods, thereby killing off fledgling industries.

Politically, no nation on earth can now challenge the unfettered power of the United States, and after 9/11, the gloves are off. Armed not just with overwhelming military power but also with the moral certainty of evangelical Christianity, the Bush administration disdains liberal ideals and cultural sensitivity as it goes about fighting its increasingly solitary 'war against terror'.

Sadly, the major political groupings can be divided into two broad categories: those who call themselves 'pragmatists', i.e., champions of the dog-eat-dog, law of the jungle-type capitalism and political interventionism; and muscular religious parties, whether they are informed by Islam, Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism. Those parties that were once proud to be called left-of-centre now hide their social/liberal roots as they move to the centre while centrists move to the right.

In this global rightward shift, the poor and the oppressed have nowhere to go. At international trade conferences, their cause is represented by demonstrators in the streets and not by negotiators inside the conference rooms. Cancun was an exception as finally, developing nations seem to have realized that globalization has certain unbearable costs. But national political parties now seldom have any time for a social agenda.

Against this backdrop of increasing selfishness at the national and individual level, it is legitimate to ask whether there is any longer a place for idealism. Are there any interests we need to serve beyond family and class? Or as thinking beings with a social conscience, are we not bound to protect the weak?

Currently, it must be said that only religious parties have any kind of idealistic component on their agendas. The secular liberal ideals that people like Edward Said and Eqbal Ahmed propounded so eloquently and passionately seem dead and buried.