A brief overview of the international conference in Ghent on the anti-globalist movement
Amsab, 9 September 2005.

Francine Mestrum, PhD
Université Libre de Bruxelles

Francine Mestrum, Thomas Ponniah and Peter Waterman, members of NIGD, took part and intervened in the conference. This text is part of the introduction and it gives some first partial conclusions.

The first question that we have to try to answer is simply the following: what are we talking about? I would like to introduce to you a series of different questions and of course I hope that this will be the beginning of an interesting debate.

The alternative or anti- globalisation movement is very diverse, very heterogeneous. This is also a very common statement, but what does this concept of heterogeneity conceal? We are told this is a movement of movements, but, what kinds of movements are part of it? Do they have anything in common? And if the answer is yes, what do they have in common?

It is often said that this movement of movements is a non identified political subject position. That certainly sounds good, though I am not sure it is correct. The movement surely has become a political actor, but does it have a clear political identity? Or does it have several identities?

These first questions lead to a worrying statement: do we have the language to deal with this movement of movements?

Let us begin with a first series of questions in order to clear the blurring of semantic lines.

First, a linguistic problem, not for English speaking people, but for French and Dutch speaking participants. Are we talking of ‘globalisation’ or ‘mondialisation’. Many authors have tried to make a subtle distinction between the two concepts, and this is not easy. A a linguist, I would like to answer the question with ‘mondialisation’, ‘mondialisering’, since ‘globalisation’ ‘globalisering’ is an Anglicism and I think that the Anglicisation of social relationships is something we are fighting against.

The next question is: are we anti- or alternative globalists? That is where real difficulties start to arise. Members of the progressive left will tell you that they are other-globalists for the very simple reason that the left has always been internationalist and that they cannot possibly be against globalisation. This left will be committed to a globalisation of solidarity and justice. And this globalisation is only a concrete way of being universalist, a concept and a principle that has always remained too abstract.

A second reason for the movement to prefer ‘alternative globalisation’ is the willingness to introduce itself as a positive force, not a movement that is simply against something but that is in favour of something else. It wants another kind of globalisation. Globalisation should not be focused on the market but on democracy, participation and solidarity. It is the other name given to the movement: the global justice and solidarity movement. That is why the movement is committed to poverty reduction, respect for human rights, global taxes, fair trade and democratisation of international organisations.

These reasons certainly are relevant, but they do not amount to a consensus. What has changed in the past twenty years, is the offensive neoliberal capitalism that calls itself ‘globalisation’. What anti-capitalists say, is that it is not conceivable that they would suddenly become alternative capitalists. They are against globalisation, in the same way as they are against capitalism. In this approach, the focus is on the fight against capitalism. Implicitly, it claims that other-globalists are not anti-capitalists. This is another question that has to be examined. Does the alternative globalisation movement offer an alternative to capitalism?

This opposition between anti- and alternative globalisation is rather clear. The more difficult questions concern the political options of different movements that are part of the movement of movements.

An analyses of the convergence and divergence of different movements that participated in the World Social Forum of Porto Alegre II and III, show that only two elements are common to all participants: denouncing neoliberalism and demanding democracy. At the conference, Thomas Ponniah argued that the demand for democracy manifests itself via two forms. One form is a participatory democratic statism akin to the participatory budget process in Porto Alegre. The other form is a horizontalist autonomist politics akin to the Zapatista model in Chiapas.

Apart from these two common demands, there is a real heterogeneity. It is difficult to know whether this has to be seen as a proof of the movements vitality, or as a serious risk of fragmentation for the movements. Reformists and radicals, anti- or post-capitalists, modernists, postmodernists and antimodernists, religious, anti-clerical or spiritual movements, localists, glocalists and globalists: they stand next to rather than opposing each other. Of course, it is possible to find some tendencies toward uniting among all these different ways of thinking, but then, there is a risk of serious opposition from the many participants who are against any form of synthesis, against any endeavour to unify the movement. They want respect for cultural diversity and they are afraid of too many dividing lines. But then, of course, this can also paralyse the movement. Personally, I think that one of the major questions the movement has to face is the question of whether the movement has to try to write one or more programmes. If we allow globalisation to stop us from trying to write a common programme, than why should we try to build a movement at all?

3. This brings me to the third series of questions. They concern strategy. Obviously, these questions cannot be dissociated form the ones concerning policies. Here, I do not refer to the different forms of actions – research, lobbying or street protests – but to the different actors that are called upon in order to promote change. I think of national states, of international organisations like the United Nations, or of civil society. It is somewhat strange to see that so much attention goes to civil society and so little to national states. Nevertheless, research has shown that most members of the anti-globalisation movement are really nationally embedded. Moreover, national states are the only real power on the international scene.

Another question concerns the alliances of the movement and the relationships with the political world and with the more traditional social movements like trade unions. At the World Social Forum, a partnership of NGOs and trade unions has been created, but questions remain on the direction this is going to take. As far as the political world is concerned, I think the movement has to reflect on its relationship with elected representatives, since they are the only legitimate representatives of the people. Part of the movement is against all forms of participation, but at the same time there exists a global federalist movement that talks of creating global political parties. However, up till now, the elected representatives in national parliaments are largely ignored by international organisations that are at the same are in favour of participation and ownership.

All these questions have to be looked at in a research endeavour that remains to be organised. They may seem very simple, but at the same time they do imply some hard choices.

Before winding up, I would like to add a couple of words on the context within which this movement of movements is working in. Obviously, research on the movement cannot be dissociated from globalisation itself.

Recently, some new questions have emerged and I would like to present them to you.

Firstly, are we faced with globalisation of capitalism or is capitalism slowly being replaced by liberalism? Those who try to express the current situation in these terms, talk of a fading away of a capitalism geared to expansion and inclusion of territories, populations and sectors. This capitalism is said to be replaced by a liberalism geared to the exclusion of territories and people and to a concentration of wealth. But is there an opposition between capitalism and liberalism?

Second question. Does the fight against global poverty, as it exists today in the Millennium Development Goals prefigure global governance and a management of social policies by international organisations? One should not forget that social policies have always been a major instrument of power building.

Third question. How do we have to interpret the ever closer link that is made between development and security? Here we are faced with a discourse that is not very market in the United Nations or at the World Bank, but that is very much present in all the documents of the United States and the European Union. Is the emergence of international terrorism enough to explain it?

It is clear that not all of these questions were answered. But the debates were very rich and fruitful.

One of the very first ideas that emerged in the debate, was the fact that this movement is far from new. There has always been resistance to the dominant system. According to François Houtart, this means that a certain number of Marxist concepts remains valid. Much of the divergences in the movement are linked to the fact that some members only want to regulate capitalism and the state in a different way, whereas others are against all forms of hierarchy. And some are looking for new ways for democracy. In fact, the movement has to avoid two dangerous risks, one is becoming a ‘fifth international’, the other is becoming ‘a social woodstock’.

A second point concerns the need for dialogue between all parts of the movement, certainly with trade unions. Peter Waterman rightly criticizes the trade unions and traditional political parties, but what choice do we have? Is it possible, feasible and intelligent to ignore them? Peter Waterman does not and admits that trade unions have much experience and are still very strong. But they do have a representativity problem, though they are more representative than most NGOs. Probably, they will have to spend more energy on international matters in order to become full members of the antiglobalist movement. To-day, their domestic and their international work is too often completely separated.

A third point that was discussed was violence. A huge majority within the movement is against violence. Nevertheless, the question can be important, certainly in light of some recent events. More and more, development is linked to security. Poverty has been conceptualized in terms of ‘danger’, ‘risk’, and ‘threat’. And we can be sure that those who are in power will not change their attitude as long as they feel no fear.

Finally, it was stressed that we urgently need clear definitions. Too many concepts are used that constantly change their meaning. All concepts of the movement and of the international organisations will have to be carefully analysed. This work has to become a part of the ‘memory’ and the ‘history’ of the movement.

Certainly, Peter Waterman is right in criticizing the organisation of the conference for its lack of real debate, its lack of time for a dialogue with the numerous audience, and yes, most speakers where white people from Western Europe. All the same, for the participants it was a rich event, since most of them did not know the movement at all and they got a better picture of its possibilities and of its difficulties. The many contradictions between new movements and traditional trade unions, between reformists and radicals were present at the conference, in the same way as they are present in real life.

For Amsab, the institute of social history, this conference was only a beginning. It will now have to start its research and to build the history of the (Belgian part) of the movement.