Translating Discourse into Concrete Mobilization

The World Social Forum (WSF) is in good health, it is growing stronger, and continuing to advance. Participating organizations and social movements have already registered for approximately 2700 activities to be held over the three events taking place between January and March 2006 in Caracas (Venezuela), Bamako (Mali), and Karachi (Pakistan).

by Sergio Ferrari, December 2005
translated from Spanish by Ruby van der Wekken

"This is more than Porto Alegre (2005), and almost double Mumbai (2004), when the WSF first left Brazil", explains Antonio Martins, 44, journalist, one of the founders of CIRANDA, analyst, militant of ATTAC Brazil, and participant for this organisation in the organising committee that founded the WSF in 2000. The challenges, potential, and political context of this ongoing process are some of the themes analysed in this exclusive interview

Q: Just a few weeks away from its sixth edition and being held for the first time in a decentralised manner in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, what is the current state of affairs of the WSF?

A: The WSF continues to represent an important point of reference for the people, all over the world, who struggle to overcome the logic of a planetary market society. The increasing number of participants noticeable for example, in the multiplication of national, continental, and thematical forums, does not merely imply the adherence to the event; it goes further. The new logic born out of Porto Alegre in 2001 is creating an important space. I am referring to the horizontal structure where interests articulate unity amidst diversity, and there are no main social subjects, or impositions. Where there are no final documents to be debated, and where joint decisions are based on spontaneous adhesion and consensus. This proposal is spreading, and acquiring increased adherence. It was capable in 2003, amongst other things, to promote one of the greatest political mobilisations in history.>br>

TRANSLATING DISCOURSE INTO ACTION

Q: You speak of an accumulative process… but what are the main challenges for the WSF 2006, in terms of the organisation, as well as in regards to content?

A: The organisational challenges are tremendous due to the fact that it is currently, almost simultaneously, holding three large events (with the exception of Karachi, which is envisioned for the end of March). One should take into account that none of the three locations have ever hosted such an event. There is enormous will, but little experience. We will depend on the understanding and patience of the participants. In terms of content, I feel that we are on the brink of a new phase. The WSF breaks with the concept of “pensamento unico,” since Porto Alegre 2001, it has not been necessary to affirmatively speak about the market and capitalism as the only options for our planet. The pseudo-intellectual black mail of Margaret Thatcher was out the window, and the pro-Washington Consensus institutions, such as the World Bank and the IMF, began to recognise the realities, like the existence of poverty.

The second phase was the presentation on the possibilities of resistance, and the general alternatives. It was during Porto Alegre 2002, and in 2003 when the Forum became a scene of articulation, for example, for the continental campaign against the FTAA, the multiplying initiatives against the WTO. Also, certain definitions were formulated, such as access to water is a human right.

At that moment it was possible to envision a new phase in which generous statements, a little abstract at times, could be translated into concrete mobilisation. I can foresee the moment, based always on the principle of voluntary adhesion and horizontal coordination, where we can give in to the impulse to boycott certain transnationals (as Arundhati Roy proposed in Mumbai), mount an international campaign for the reduction of the work day, or provide free access to AIDS medications (financed, for instance, by a tax on the profits of transnationals).

In other words, I believe it is possible to think of international action that will capture terrain from capital, and liberate certain social dimensions from its control. This would have an enormous effect; it would demonstrate that this post capitalist, social logic is possible. Of course, I don’t think this will be fully materialised in 2006, but I perceive a progressing maturity, and a larger comprehension of the fact that in order to confront the system, gentle discourse is not enough. It is necessary to conceive concrete alternatives that will be capable of demonstrating, to many people, the viable possibility of organising in another manner.

NOT SECTORIAL RECUPERATION NOR SELF SUFFICIENCY<

Q:We spoke of the potential of the WSF process, is it also important to recognise what are the main risks of the decentralised forums of 2006.

A: I believe the risks of the WSF continue to be the same. First, the attempt to gain a sectarian hold on the forum; the WSF is the expression of a new form of politics. People, equally the young and the historical fighters, are increasingly more conscious that politics goes beyond simple party representation in parliament. People want to be continuously involved in the transformation of their reality and of the world, not just once in a while during elections. I believe that left politics should understand this logic as a positive tendency of emancipation, and anti-alienation. Of course, there is resistance. There are those who seek to monopolise representation, and to control the Forum.

The other great risk is that of self-sufficiency. To celebrate what has been achieved to this point and forget that there is much more to do before these new forms of seeing the world and politics meet and can be translated into action in favour of a new society.

Q: In this decentralised model, is there not also a risk of fragmentation in the debates of social movements?

A: The polycentric or decentralised WSF was a compromised solution reached by WSF International Council in response to the debate around the periodicity of the forums. This formula might have certain inconveniences, but I don’t believe a risk of fragmentation exists because the WSF is transforming itself more and more into a process, and is not simply being an event or a meeting. Those who participate in the WSF are more and more aware that one needs not wait until January to articulate actions. This is done regularly, through the internet and other media. The Forum will increasingly have a more symbolic sense. It is not necessary to participate in a decision of articulation. If I am in Karachi, and my network organises activities in Caracas or Bamako, nothing impedes us from coordinating, formulating proposals, and joining actions.

Q: Everything seems to point to the main participation being concentrated in Caracas. Is there a risk of having the Forum at two velocities: a fast process in Latin America, and slower on the other continents?

A: I don’t believe that we can aspire, at this moment, to a homogeneous development of social struggle in the world, and I don’t believe this would be advantageous either. The dynamics of social movements and citizens are very much related to the dynamics of both local and national agendas. This phase cannot be transgressed artificially. On the other hand, the struggles of some can serve as stimuli and examples for others. The moment will arrive when large campaigns are coordinated internationally, but that’s not going to happened in the coming days. On the other hand, I am not sure whether Latin America, today, is some kind of avant-garde of social struggles. There are important phenomena, but then what of Europe where large scale mobilisations against the war took place? Or Asia where there have been protests by hundreds of thousands of people.

THE REPERCUSSIONS OF THE CRISES OF THE BRAZILIAN PT

Q: Going from the global to the national, how extensive will the repercussions from the actual crises of the workers party of Brazil –and taking into account the key role of the Brazilian organisations played in the origins of the WSF- be in the conceptualisation and preparation of the WSF in Caracas?

A: In the medium term, I am convinced that the crises of the PT will have many positive effects in Brazil. It will serve to demonstrate the limits of a tradition that is solely based on the institutional struggles and political representation. The political leaders often see social movements as actors to “accumulate forces,” but for them, the real change occurs when the left conquers the power of the State. Worst still is that many social movements often understand that this is their role and essence. The weakening of this conception could open space for the emergence of the autonomy of citizen’s actions, but of course this is neither for sure nor guaranteed. This must be worked towards. There is also the opposite hypothesis: that the crises of the institutional left can open the way for the acceptance of defeat, paralysis. I myself believe more in the first hypothesis. But the best way to secure this, is to be conscious that it is not something given or regulated, it takes work to convert this hypothesis into reality.

Q: What is the role of the 8 Brazilian organisations that were at the original WSF, the “founders” of the current process?

A: The 8 organisations that initiated the WSF have now been together for 6 years. If we have played a role in the new process, I believe this is for two reasons. First, we never intended to control it, or to direct it in favour of a particular party. At the same time we have guarded it so no one else could either.

This consciousness of the disputes has had a revolutionary effect, according to my judgment. Organisations go to the forum in a disarmed manner. The energy, which is so often in the logic of the leftists, was lost in internal conflicts –in the labour of proving that each “line” was the most consistent, the most radical- can now be directed towards joint actions. It is interesting to see how this new culture is conquering space, with people starting to “listen” before “arguing,” while also realising that this is much more agreeable, except of course for the fundamentalists. I believe that we continue to have two functions, one constant, and one more varied. The 8 organisations sort of “guarantee” an equilibrium by preventing any sort of capturing. It is a paradox, but in a certain way this guarantee is the product of a certain weakness. Whoever analyses the 8 organisations will come to the realisation that they could never aspire to be the “political directors” of the WSF. First, because we have no international dimension, and second, because we have no unity. The interesting thing is that with time the “Brazilian group” has become more aware of its role as a guarantee, this has led to a significant reduction in tension within the International Council, especially in the last years.

The stimulation of an upcoming, new political culture would be impossible without creativity and disposition towards risk. I believe this characteristic is another attribute of the Brazilian group. We did not invent a lot; almost all the attributes of the WSF have been, in one way or another, practised by some other movement, network, mobilisation, or NGO, but we have had the courage to put them together in a set which has enabled the configuration of the system.

Mistakes can be made. I believe for instance, that we must pay close attention to the realisation of the polycentric forum, and evaluate its results rigorously. But the great victories of the social forums were its acts of bravery. Some examples are: the invention of the formula, basically made in 2000 and consolidated into the Charter of Principles of 2001, and the decision to move the WSF to Mumbai in 2003. Another victory is its creativity, and that has been developed in an uneven way. I believe we were able to propose new, evolutionary proposals in the first year (between April 2000 and March 2001). Something similar happened between October 2003 and January 2005 when the methodology of the WSF was renovated, constructed (2004), and put into place (2005). This is when an intense tension existed between those who defend plurality as a basic and essential element of Porto Alegre, and others who were more worried about the difficulties of going from discourse into action. I believe that that the idea to stimulate the agglutination (joining ed.) of activities and the designing of common action, –always based on diversity and horizontalism- as well as the voluntary character of this proposal, was the right way to resolve the tension.

Q: What do you hope for the WSF 2007 in Africa?

A: I see it as a great challenge, but at the same time, an opportunity for a step forward. Africa is the main victim of capitalist globalisation. The material, political, and social conditions are, without doubt, the most difficult. The overwhelming majority of countries live under the adjustments dictated by the IMF. There is practically no formal democracy or basic civil liberties. In many regions, AIDS and other pandemics have limited life expectancy to 40 years. From most capital cities there is no land passage to Nairobi; flights will cost somewhere near 2000 euros, and will fly over Europe.

At the same time, more than 20 countries have realised national, social forums, and Africa is able to awake us, better than any other region, to the solidarity of those that struggle for a new world. Is this sufficient to guarantee Nairobi 2007?

I believe it is possible, but to do this, the WSF must “turn itself inside out” once again. Nairobi must not be a touristic outing. To awaken the mobilisation of African civil society and international solidarity, it will be necessary to present transformative and possible alternatives. As always, this must not be done through the “organisation” of the forum, but rather by its participants. I can imagine, for example, that a coalition of networks related to the affirmation of the right of access to water could create studies on what would be necessary to guarantee, in say in 10 years, the access for all African inhabitants to clean water, and the same regarding the distribution of free medicine (as in Brazil) for HIV carriers. In Parallel, those that work with the concept of World Public Finances can think of how to finance these actions, for instance, by way of a tax on transnational profit.

I believe it is possible to construct Nairobi 2007 with this synergy of efforts; always based on self-organisation, no dictation. More and more I am convinced that this method will allow us to overcome capitalism, and construct a new world.