Pierre Rousset
Europe solidaire sans frontières (ESSF, France)
(Europe in Solidarity Without Borders)
[This contribution has been published in "Bandung 2005: Rethinking Solidarity in Global
Society". * It discusses only some aspects and political issues of the
multifaceted process of the World
Social Forum. Other aspects have been addressed in previous articles and
reports. I hope to be able to prepare a more thorough paper in the coming
future. P. R.]
*****
The World Social Forum
process, initiated in January 2000 in Porto Alegre (Brazil), represents one of
the main attempts to build a framework in which old and new types of
solidarities can dynamically combine. The success of the fifth World Social
Forum, in January 2005, shows that this experiment is still very much alive.
But it also shows that this process today faces new challenges and new tasks of
coordination.
The World Social Forum (WSF)
in Porto Alegre represented a significant step forward. The figures are
impressive. Record participation, with 155,000 people registered, coming from
135 countries. For the opening of the World Social Forum (WSF) in Porto Alegre,
there was a demonstration that was even bigger than on previous occasions
(figures given go up to nearly 200.000). There were about 2,500 activities
organised over four days. Such a numerical success must not be treated as a
matter of course; it has to be explained.
In going back to Porto Alegre after having migrated last year to
Mumbai in India, the WSF could have lost its momentum. And indeed there were
many who announced that it was running out of steam, or even that it was in
decline. The question deserved to be asked, insofar as the international
situation is bad and the policies applied in Brazil by the Lula government
could have had a demobilizing effect. However it very quickly became clear that
there was a significant increase in the number of people registering for the
WSF. The success of the Forum was thus foreseeable in November 2004, even
though some people continued speculating about its failure right up until the
opening day.
The particular success of the 5th WSF can partly be explained too
by the Latin American context: the scale of neo-liberal attacks, coupled with
the aggressive policy of intervention and of so-called "preventive"
wars that Bush is so fond of, are creating profound instability and new phases
or radicalisation, of politicisation. Demonstrating this politicisation, the
debates over questions of orientation and strategy were particularly well
attended at the WSF. It was apparently the first occasion for many Brazilian
activists, in particular the young ones, to engage into broad and contradictory
discussions on the evaluation of the Lula government's policies. But the
phenomenon is not just Latin American.
The process of social forums is spreading on an international
scale. It resisted the ideological counter-shock of the attacks of September
11, 2001, as well as Berlusconi's repression at Genoa. It still expresses the
offensive frame of mind that has characterised it since the beginning, in 2001,
even though the bourgeoisie is still dealing severe blows against the workers'
and peoples' movements.
Elements of continuity
Quite logically, the numerical scope of a social forum depends on
the host country (in Europe, for example, it was smaller in London than in
Florence or Paris). But since 2001, although not uniform, it is much more
consistent than social or anti-war mobilizations; is even on the increase. This
remains true at least when one condition is met: the range of organizations
involved in its preparation must be sufficiently representative and
diversified. In such cases, the forums fill a specific function.
The
conception of the forums flows from the characteristics of the present period.
It provides for both defensive regrouping faced with the universal nature of
neo-liberal, anti-democratic and militarist attacks; and for the offensive
expression of alternatives incarnated by new generations of activists. It gives
an answer to an essential question: how to build links of solidarity and ensure
convergences in struggle between very varied sectors of society (all of whom
are hit by the ultimate "commodification" of the world) and much more
varied fields of mobilisations than in the past.
A
new answer to this question had to be given also because conditions of unity
have changed since the 1970s (the previous period of international
radicalisation). Beyond the student radicalisation, there was then the
centrality of the labour movement (in the West mostly) and of (actual or
potential) protracted armed struggles in the Third World. In some countries,
the trade-union movement may still play a similar backbone role (for example,
the KCTU in South Korea...). But overall, we today have to do without such
organisational poles of attraction, of centralisation. This is not to say that
the "new" forms of organisations eliminates and replaces the
"old" ones. Many so-called "traditional" movements (like
unions) are key components of the social forum process. But solidarities
combine in a new way.
This
new framework, among other reasons, explains the present function of the Porto
Alegre type of Social Forums. They offer an "open space", a free
space, where all types of organisations can meet and exchange, in a much less
hierarchical way than in the past. A space where resistance to liberal economic
policies as well as alternatives and aspirations for change can be collectively
expressed. A militant space too, where unity can be forged, where international
campaigns can be discussed and where a common calendar of initiatives can be
elaborated. This combination between the "open space" of convergences
and the capacity of the concerned movements to prepare actions proved to be
very dynamic. The forums also provide a way of
getting involved in politics at a time when the authority of political parties
is being challenged.
For
sure, contradictions are very much at work within this process. But the Social
Forums embody a much more complex and rich process than traditional
international conferences (of trade-unions or NGOs...), a new form of
unity-building. They spread significantly at the world, regional, national and
local levels. Porto Alegre 2005 has shown that their
function remains essential today in Latin America. The resounding impact of
Mumbai, last year, allowed the process to grapple with Asian reality. In Europe
the European Social Forum is helping to define a common action programme on a
specifically European level, which the unions, on their own, have been unable
to do for the last forty years. The task is not simple, success is not
guaranteed but it is highly significant that the question is posed in the
framework offered by the forums.
Nothing is eternal, not even the social forums; but clearly they
remain extremely useful. In this sense, they have demonstrated, over the last
five years, a high degree of continuity.
Evolution
Continuity does not mean immobility. Mumbai represented a turning
point in the history of the World Social Forum. No other has been as popular as
this one, with such an intense participation of grassroots organisations.
Porto Alegre 2005 benefited positively from Mumbai's experience.
The forum represented an opening on many levels. Physically, by leaving the
campus of the Catholic University, by pitching its tents by the side of the
lagoon, by getting closer to the centre of the city and to the local population.
In terms of generations, by placing the Youth Camp at the very heart of the
site and not on the far fringes (it accommodated 35,000 people, especially
Brazilians, followed by Argentinians). In terms of practice, by taking
environmental questions fully into account in the way the site was conceived,
using small producers for food supplies, using free software, without
forgetting the role of the Babels network of voluntary interpreters - all these
are examples. Organizationally, the priority was given to self-organized
initiatives.
A new "methodology" (to use the vocabulary of the Forum)
was applied. The programme was worked out after very wide consultation of base
organizations. Eleven "axes", "fields" or "areas"
were defined, so as to ensure the visibility of the major themes dealt with.
All the movements were invited to check whether their initiatives could be
regrouped, in order to reinforce dialogue and collaboration (the process known
as "agglutination"). Every theme had to try to link reflection to proposals
for actions and campaigns, to make a closer link between debates and
mobilizations.
This new, complex, methodology was implemented in a very short
space of time. A little time will need to pass before we can judge its results.
But it seems really to have enabled networks of militants to discuss different
approaches and to define, over and above political differences, common
campaigning grounds. It also created a new balance between the themes of debate
within the Forum and the Assembly of Social Movements, which in Porto Alegre
remained the place where a common calendar for action on an international scale
was worked out.
Expansion and articulation
North to South "traditional" solidarities remains
necessary, so desperate is the situation in many third world countries. Present
regional inequalities are no less grave than they were in the past, they even
may be worse. Recent tidal waves in California did not kill, while the December
26, 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami provoked 300.000 deaths. In times of emergency,
in the post-tsunami situation, the role of local grassroots organisations and
people's movements proved to be essential; it is still true nowadays, on the
decisive issue of economic, social and psychological reconstruction. At this
occasion, links were tied and strengthened between social movements in the
North and their counterparts in the disaster-stricken countries and
"traditional" international campaigns were revived, like for the
cancellation of the third-world debt.
But new "horizontal" solidarities are also blooming.
Never in the past have the same (neo-liberal and anti-democratic) policies been
applied by the same institutions in such a universal way: from East to West and
from South to North, we are all confronted with the same deregulations,
privatizations and opening-up of markets, with the same attacks on civil
liberties. "Preventive" war and "anti-terrorist" ideology
appear as the counterparts of capitalist globalization. As a result we really
need to build a common international front of resistance and of alternatives.
The social forums offer a framework where both types of
solidarities ("traditional" and "horizontal") can be
addressed. But, in the coming few years, there is a real danger of
disarticulation between the process of the forums and the mobilisations.
The specific, thematic campaigns are again occupying a more
important place, after the big "general" mobilizations of past years
against neo-liberal policies: for the cancellation of Third World debt, against
discrimination (see the publication by the World March of Women of a 31-point
charter [1] ) and against the war in Iraq, for example. That is in itself a
good thing. But it also stresses the need to keep common rallying points where
all the fronts of struggle can converge.
In the coming two years, the role of the regional forums will
probably be reinforced in relation to the world forum. Struggles tend to be
rooted at the national or sub-continental level (the question of Venezuela in
Latin America, the question of the Constitution and of public services in
Europe). In 2006, the World Social Forum will be "decentralised",
inevitably taking on a more regional content than previously.
These evolutions are taking place in response to real developments
and there is nothing negative about them as such; they are necessary. The
problem is that the places where information and reflection are collectivised
on an international level, where regional and thematic processes are
articulated, are being weakened at the very moment when the movement as a whole
is further diversifying. In its composition and its functioning, the
international council of the WSF does not correspond to this need (it was not
capable of concluding the very important discussion on the rhythm of the
forums), even though its commissions can be more effective.
The organizing pole of the network of social movements has to be
renewed, but how to do it is not at all obvious. The various so-called
"intellectual" networks, which are trying to make the link between
developing fundamental analyses and bringing answers to the needs of militants,
have to co-operate more closely, but they are not yet doing so.
If we want to avoid the decentralisation of the movement leading
to its disarticulation (and to a weakening of the capacity of collective
resistance to liberal and military globalisation), new and concrete answers
will also have to be found on this level.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Darwis Khudori editor, "Bandung 2005: Rethinking Solidarity
in Global Society. The Challenge of Globalisation for Social and Solidarity
Movements. 50 Years after Bandung Asian African Conference 1955 Preliminary
Work", Ghadjah Mada University, Department of Anthropology, Faculty of
Cultural Science & Yayasan Pondok Rakyat (People's Shelter Foundation),
Action-Research Group on Urban Develoment, Yogyakarta, 2005.
NOTES
[1] "World Charter of Women for Humanity" adopted at the
5th international meeting of the World March of Women in Rwanda, 10 December
2004.