Bamako Appeal spikes controversy

7-25 February 2006 on NIGD and Debate list exchanges

Compiled by Ruby van der Wekken
Please scroll down for links to contributions on this issue

On 18 January, the day before the opening of the polycentric World Social Forum 2006 (in Bamako, Mali) a controversial gathering took place. The conference, much initiated by Samir Amin, attracted some 80 altermondialists from different parts of the world and was called the "Peoples' Bandung Conference". The conference thus took place on the 50th anniversary of the 1955 conference of non-aligned nations held in Bandung, Indonesia.
Read the text of the Bamako Appeal

The conference and the appeal gave rise to controversy and debate, both regarding its process and the content of the Appeal. Listed below is a compilation of the exchanges between NIGD and Debate list members.

In his first commentary on the Bamako Appeal, Peter Waterman writes on 7 February, 2006, "I would sign this appeal, I consider it radical, rather comprehensive, and an excellent basis for extensive discussion and amendment (e.g. specific critique of fundamentalisms, the right to sexual options, a lengthening and specification of the section on labour...)."
Read the full text of Peter's comment

Francine Mestrum’s comments on 8 February, 2006 criticises the Appeal in regard to both its process and content, but concludes that, " I totally share the idea of having some sort of programme, not for the forum as such, but within the forum. If we could have three, four, five or more programmes, it would clarify the forum a lot.
Read the full text of Francine's intervention followed by a further developed opinion formulation of her take on the appeal

The same day, Teivo Teivainen comments on the content of the Bamako Appeal, "I very much like most of the contents of the Bamako Appeal. ....One of the problematic silences in the document is the lack of any attention to questions of sexual diversity (gay and lesbian rights etc). ...My other slight worry in the document is the statement that "national democracy remains THE strategic level" (emphasis mine)"
Read the full text of Teivo's comment

Peter continues the debate on the Debate list on 13 February, 2006 writing, "the question has to be raised of why this whole project was not placed WITHIN one or other WSF event rather than being staged separately. ..Many other questions need asking, such as, many of us have been frequently posing, with respect to the WSF itself: Promotor(s)? Funding? Relation to social movements, NGOs, parties, unions, states? Ethnic, Socio-Geographical spread? Gender balance? The key issue, however, is to address what the document actually says."
Read the full text of Peters comment

In the ongoing debate, the question came up as to whether or not to sign the Appeal, or actively take part in any possible development of the text. In the following interventions, Ruby van der Wekken stressed, "the (process of the) appeal is bypassing the essential methodological and educational process of the WSF process."

Peter on 14 February, 2006 wrote, "one of the ambiguities/mysteries surrounding this document is that it has been launched into space without explanation or target. It would be difficult so far to speak of a PROJECT. ... I have myself have suggested to two or three critical and well-qualified correspondents that they might do more than briefly react. My feeling so far is that such critics have been too busy with the WSF itself (or Itself), and with other possibly fading or hypostatised issues (Politics v. Space?) that they have been somewhat thrown by the Bamako Appeal. After all, the Bamako Appeal:
1) circumvents the 'Space' - though this is done often enough, in different ways, by Trotskyists, the ICFTU, Horizontals, Anarchos, or by invitations to someone's private house in Sao Paulo
2) is 'Political', in its heavy investment in the state and inter-state institutions, but without mentioning a party or parties (?)."

Ruth Reitan joined the debate on 14 February, 2006 with a critical stance on the Bamako Appeal writing, “the most effective proposals have, and are, and will be coming up from the grassroots through the massive transnational networks that are alive and well ... Furthermore, the only way that these struggles are going be articulated and linked to any mass coordinated action is through the networking that has, is, and will be occurring among these and other networks who represent (acknowledging that that term is problematic) hundreds of millions of people worldwide..."
Read the full text of Ruths comment

Tord Björk on 15 February, 2006 splits his commentary according to his reflections regarding the form and content of the future of the alter globalisation movements. Tord adresses the question, who will change politics and how: "is there a need for a more comprehensive generalist program of action, or as Ruth Reitan states a bottom up perspective linking massive transnational networks?" He points out the gaps in our knowledge on what actually happens through the WSF and between the social movement networks and other actors, and concludes with a look towards the Karachi forum, also within the context of the crises surrounding the Danish cartoons.
Read Tords full contribution

Marko Ulvila writes on the same day, "I find the Bamako Appeal and the subsequent discussion very welcome. To me the Porto Alegre statement last year and this one are similar to the work done in the assembly of social movements. The difference is that the Bamako Appeal stems from meetings of intellectuals... Since the Bamako process was basically by older men, should we not try to gather young women intellectuals to make the Karachi Appeal and Athens Appeal?"
Read the intervention of Marko

Peter writes in reply to Ruth on 15 February, 2006, "is there not, in both this exchange and in the WSF more generally, too much process, too little product? And since when did 'synthesising' - a classical role of critical and emancipatory intellectuals from Marx to Boaventura de Sousa Santos - come to require distancing quotes? My fear is that this is merely a defence of a status quo, largely by insiders."
Read Peters comment

Ruth replies on 16 February, 2006 restating her argument by writing, “I will restate that the best (to my mind and from my research) appeals have already been written by the various networks themselves and are dynamic and in the process of revision through their own internal processes and through their concrete linking with other networks...where do these manifestos put rubber to road?"
Read Ruth full intervention

Tord writes on 15 February, 2006, "this is great. Finally Ruth Reitan gives us an alternative - to study the statements made ‘by the various networks themselves’ which ‘are dynamic and in the process of revision through their own internal processes and through their concrete linking with other networks.’ Especially the last proposal means going beyond the WSF limitations by putting an emphasis on dynamics between statements and movements capability to act. It would bring us a lot further than the endless and trivial discussion on whether WSF should be an open process or a body making political resolutions." Tord ends on the note that, ".. it is not enough to study the statements made, we must also look at the way they are used. And if there, at least in some countries, (as well as WSF strongly promoted campaigns) are setbacks in the ever-growing process of integrating different movement perspectives then we need generalist theories and empirical knowledge on the limitations of both movements, parties, WSF or PGA, and of course of self-selected circles of intellectuals claiming to have generalist qualities."
Read Tords comment

The last development in this debate around the Bamako Appeal to be taken up in this newsletter is that the Bamako Appeal was launched for signature. Peter concluded 25 February, 2006, that "in introducing the declaration, it is stated that, 'the Bamako Appeal and the proposals for a plan of action included in the document were adopted by the Assembly of Social Movements of the World Social Forum which met in Caracas on 29 January, 2006, in the frame of the polycentric WSF 2006'. I was not myself aware that the Bamako Appeal had been approved by this ASM in Caracas, nor am I sure whether this ASM is the same as the now-traditional Call of Social Movements held in the connection with WSFs. I am, finally, somewhat alarmed to discover that this extensive, complex and uneven document has been issued for endorsement rather than for DISCUSSION. There is, indeed, no place on the website for the latter. The opinions of others on this latest development would be appreciated."