Robert Savio, IPS

It seems amazing to me, that after five years (and what years!), some people think there is nothing to discuss about the WSF. If after a discussion we conclude that everything is fine, perfect. But we have to reach a conclusion after an analysis and a discussion, not through the logic of the Talmud, rejecting the idea of a discussion as a betrayal to the established truth. There are many ways to begin the discussion, and I shall take the more extreme one: a growing number of people and facts show the loss of strength and impact of the WSF along the tears.

1.Impact
There are many objective facts. The first one is the measure in the media. From four pages in the Financial Times, written in the second WSF by their star journalist Tom Lloyd, we only got a 4.7 inches column for the 2005 WSF. This last WSF, and the last European Forum, had a minimum or incidental presence in the North. In the South, we never had much presence because of the vertical characteristics of the information system that does not have a South-South capacity. But this year it has been worst. The other fact is that the system has taken control of our agenda, as in the last Forum at Davos. And we haven't taken even one action to report the superficiality of this change in the agenda of the establishment. And finally, in the political language, those who want to support the civil society as an element of analysis, are talking less about the WSF, and more about the Global Civil Society. There are many more facts, but this is not the right time to do a comprehensive analysis.

I want to point out that this reduction in the impact was first noticed by the friends of the WSF: the intellectuals, the ones that are recognized by the system, and take part in it, without letting it corrupt them. Saramago, Naomi Klein, Roy Arhundati, Eduardo Galeano, Ignacio Ramonet, and Emmanuel Wellerstein, have all expressed their worry regarding the reduction of the WSF's impact in the real world. The last to express his opinion was Samir Amin, whose letter (in French) I attached to this document. The declaration of the 19, in the last WSF, that so many controversies has caused, is only the top of the iceberg.

2.- Ptolemaics or Copernicans?
The real debate is between those who think the present formula of the WSF is enough, and those of us who do not think so.

The first ones think the growth of the WSF, either in numbers or in amount of related events (regional, thematic, and local forums), proves that a process has begun. A process that develops awareness and participation, showing that the formula is valid and successful. They think that this is so obvious, that we do not even need a discussion. We, the second ones, think that the real challenge of the Forum is not in its internal experience, which is not under discussion (actually, the V FSM was better than the other ones). We consider the WSF as a magic moment, of enrichment and extraordinary participation for attendants. But, we are more self-referent every day, and so busy doing our work, that we don't notice two essential challenges:

a) How to get the millions of people who do not come to the forums to participate, and how to inform them, to get out of our self-reference b) Our need to have a bearing on politics, on the institutions, on the real world, so that the "other world" is really possible.

To open a debate, I want to say that this self-reference ­that I would better call Ptolemaism, because it is an old debate­, has led us to tricky fields. Many people don't want to have a WSF every year because they are busy with other forums, and in their own institutional life. This does not change the fact that, in the real world, the WSF has lost its ability to keep up with Davos' pace, our benchmark. Either we like it or not, we were not able to keep up the original pace. From the outside, this is an important loss of pace. A significant fact is that 83% of WSF participants say they want an annual meeting. But a truly smaller group, to say it softly, decides on the contrary, based on its own reality and dynamics. As a result, we are now facing a very difficult experiment: the 2006 WSF. In simultaneity with Davos, there will only be an event in Caracas, considered by many as a juxtaposition of politics and the WSF, with a serious problem in the media. We still don't know what events will be carried out in Africa, and it seems that in Asia there will be an enlarged local-regional forum.

Result: we are all working in the same way, with a new problem: neither the International Secretariat nor the International Council shall have much to do with this process, and participation of those who are not going, and communication with them, shall be considered an even bigger problem. I think the only responsible thing to do, is for all of us to work so that the Africa 2007 WSF turns out as good as possible. Obviously, it will not be comparable to those in Porto Alegre or Mumbai; it will have another problem of image and perception in the external world. And then, if things continue to be the same, we won't have a WSF in 2008, the next one will be in 2009. And by then, which would the image of the WSF be in the collective imaginary? I'll let you answer this question, asking you to place yourselves outside, as external observers, for this reflection.

Moral: I propose that those who do not want to do anything, do not do it; that those who want to do something, do it; that those who want to do something, do not force those who don't want to do anything, to do something; and that those who do not want to do anything, do not force those who want to do something, to do nothing. But the lack of decision mechanisms, using any voting system, allows a small minority to block a big majority. And this doesn't seem logic.

3.International Council and Secretariat
The Brazilian Secretariat has created the IC through recruitment. This was done putting organizations together without any other criteria than friendship, fame, or a labour relationship. It should be composed of international networks, with a clear presence in, at least, two regions of the planet. We only need to look at the IC to abandon this ideal. And that is the IC's image in the world: lacking legitimacy and representation of the will of the people.

The Secretariat, that after its Brazilian origin now is more open with the Indian participation, is considered by everyone as the deus ex maquina, that wouldn't give away its power, and uses the IC just as a consultative body. To this we have to add the total lack of communication with the external world, for which the IC meetings appear as closed mechanisms for decisions affecting everyone, but without any rules of transparency and information. This is what those of us who travel and talk to different people are always hearing. I'm writing this note after a meeting of the Tavola della Pace, in Perugia, some days ago, where a similar accusation was vehemently blurted out to me by a high representative of the self-reference.

4.- Myths
Now, we should take a look at some of the myths that live with us, and about which there is never an open and sincere debate.

First myth: Neither this Council nor any other can think of being the leader of the Movement. We have no delegation or representation. But I've never heard anyone claiming it. What is inexorably obvious, is that the IC has responsibilities towards the people of the WSF, and has to keep them informed. The IC and the Secretariat are the government bodies of the WSF, and only govern those who participate, not those who cannot participate. The decision to carry out a WSF or not, is a clear proof of the responsibility of the IC and the Secretariat towards the people of the WSF. But since we cannot try to lead the World Movement, we cannot try to practice politics and take decisions. We can't even talk about a strategy, because strategies are politics. As a result, the IC and the Secretariat take decisions that are called "techniques". This is enough to know how much apart we are from the real world, that could create this microculture full of fantasy. The decision to carry out a WSF is a political act of the first order, such as deciding against the war, or initiating a campaign on the elimination of fiscal paradises (that no one wants to initiate, because it would be a political decision and, so, not a task of the WSF).

Second myth: The WSF is an open space. Here, all debate and all rules need to be eliminated. Because this can only divide and we have to include as many people as possible. First of all, the WSF is not an open space: it's a space closed by many rules, established in the Charter of Principles that limit participation only to those who accept them. The lack of a clear acceptance of the responsibility of the IC regarding government causes the principles to be continually violated in the real scenario. It is enough to mention the principle that prevents the participation of political leaders in the forums, when actually what happens is all the contrary, from the very low levels to the top ones, Chiefs of States included. This has increased the image of a WSF depending on the local power without question. This is the reason of my proposal that no more than 40% of the Forums' budget comes from the country in which it is carried out.

Third myth: Voting does not mean to follow the old rule of 50 plus 1. It means to make decisions by an overwhelming majority representing the opinion of virtually everyone. It would be enough to have 90% of the votes to approve a vote, to be able to make a decision without a small minority, on behalf of consensus, blocking all others. After all, democracy, despite of the delegation and representation crisis, is still an essential reference for another possible world.

Fourth myth: In the movement, we are all equals, the ones participating on their own and the big federations of workers with millions of people. Actually, those who have resources participate in a different way than those who don't have them. They can participate very frequently in the process, and play a much grater role in the WSF. I say this as a representative of IPS, an organization that is, obviously, much stronger than other sister organizations. Moral: we carry out different activities during the forums (the TerraViva WSF Newspaper, the Information and Communication World Forum), that others cannot do because they lack the necessary resources. In IPS, we've had the policy of bringing all our colleagues in this fight process to our events. But we certainly could not have done this, since there is no rule of common development in the WSF. Here, I speak as an individual. I certainly have more contacts than other fellows that manage small organizations. In the last Forum, I chaired the "Quixote Today: Utopia and Politics" panel, along with Nobel Prize winners, famous writers, etc. It is not surprising that we had 5,000 attendants, in comparison to 80 or 200 in the other workshops. We are all equals, but some are more equals than others. So, without a policy of rules than promote alliances, we'll continue with the division that has been with us since the first Forum.

Fifth myth: By not talking about politics, we avoid divisions. I think differences are normal and healthy (and differences do not mean divisions). Differences are what make the WSF stronger. The things that unite us, the common enemy, exploitation, imperialism, neo-liberal globalization, can stand many differences between us. And, anyway there are already some differences. I attach a document on this issue that I've already sent before the Utrech meeting, and got not even one reply. And surely there was a reason for this. We are all stuck, in the name of a unit the existence of which would be tragic, and that we achieve by avoiding debates on where we are going and what we are. Our main sociologist, Boaventura de Santos, says that the WSF is a success because we are using a translation system between us. When communicating, each of us is obliged to translate his or her interlocutor in order to understand, and from this process the new political and holistic culture of the WSF is born. This is certainly not what happens in the IC. Discussing our vision of the world, and understanding the other, would be essential in the IC meetings, to close the process that represents the most innovative and constructive aspect of the WSF, that has created the integration process of the different components of the Movement, or the Global Civil Society, as we like to call it.

5.Efficiency
This takes me to the last point of my document. Either we like it or not, we must be efficient in order to create "another possible world". This faces us with many challenges. In my opinion, all of these challenges relate to achieving a higher level of organization, not a lower one. Only with more organization (solidarity fund, proactive actions, rules of priorities...) we can take the IC to those areas and sectors that now don't participate. Only with transparent and freely adopted criteria we can re-balance, improve, and make the IC more dynamic. This issue relates to another matter, not expressed but continuously muttered: the relationship with the Secretariat, and the division of tasks between the Secretariat and the IC. There is a debate in which some people want to eliminate the IC and adopt the experience of the European WSF as a model. I agree with those who suggest that every time we meet, we should also meet with the civil society of the country we are in. I also think we should accept local organizations as observers (but with no say, otherwise instead of speaking during three minutes we could only speak during one...) I wonder how it's not noticed that the European way of doing this, with meetings open to everyone and from which the European Forum was born, represents in our reality an Euro-centric process in which some people always participate while the poorer organizations cannot do it. The European case is clear: eventually, two or three countries provide continuity, and in these countries, only around ten organizations. It would be interesting to examine how many organizations or individuals have taken part in all the preparation meetings for the European Forum, and I will do it. This reduced group of fellows working full-time in the process leads to the self-reference I mentioned before, and to a non participative model. We need to, urgently, open a debate on the composition of the IC, its tasks, and the criteria of its members. We certainly cannot accept the principle of the ones that are already here, are here; and rules only apply to new participants. We can no longer ask the Bretton Woods institutions and the WTO for transparency and accountancy, and ignore these principles when it comes to us.

Finally, nobody wants to adopt extremely strict rules that avoid movement. Rules need to have more an ethical than a legal value, and must be subject to a continuous revision process, based on reality and on the world we are living in. But, the lack of rules, is a rule in itself, a rule that codifies injustices, paralysis, and lack of efficacy in our task as the governing body of the WSF and its process.

6.Communication
I will finish my paper mentioning the case of information and communication as an emblematic evidence of our ineffectiveness. We cannot have 1,700 journalists attending each WSF, of which at least 600 come from the media, and accept the highly discouraging results of coverage in the media in each forum. But, all the proposals we've made on how to provide content mechanisms for the "free and unprotected" journalists, have been rejected under the slogan: "nobody delegates to anybody". In my opinion, postponing the searching of a solution mechanism, at the decline of the image of the WSF in the world, is another supreme act of Ptolemaism. Another act of irresponsibility and selfishness is the that we haven't even tried to create a communication mechanism between the WSF and the huge amounts of people that share our worries, and would like to receive information about what happens in our forums. Not to say, that those who think the WSF is a process, not an event, think we have done nothing to communicate the experiences and visions of each Forum with the others that are carried out on the same year. In 2006, with this Kafkaesque invention of a forum in four countries (that, we have to remember, is not a design, but a commitment between those who want and those who don't), the lack of communication will be a schizophrenic process. But communication means organization, participation, and debate of ideas, the lack of which is emblematic. There is another myth: we don't need organization, since despite the errors, the movement rectifies them along the way and continues with its task. We cannot spend years fighting against the theory of the invisible hand of the market, and still think that we have another invisible hand that will solve everything. I challenge anyone to demonstrate that this will happen in information and communication.

I would like to finish with my moral: "to close an eye, you have to let an eyebrow down". That is, nothing can be done without doing anything. After five years, it's time to discuss and examine if this world we are living in now is better than the one in which the first WSF was done. I don't think so. And though it's obvious that the Forum could not solve the crisis of the law, and the strengthening of the power, the bad handling of ethics, of social justice, of equity, my theory, fellows, is that we need to get more into the real world, and see how we can participate in the world agenda. Closing an aye, according to physiologists, is a protective reflex. Opening an eye is a proactive reflex. Moral: let's open an eye and let the eyebrow up.

With friendship and respect,

Roberto Savio