Hard Questions on the WSF

A debate on the relation between the WSF and political parties and Governments

Jai Sen, CACIM, New Delhi
10 January, 2006, to the WSF list

Friends, greetings!

This note is to ask some hard questions about the World Social Forum (WSF) with the aim of raising debate on it, in the run-up to the world meetings that are coming up later this month. I ask these questions in the assumption of agreement that the WSF, with all its limitations, is still a significant world institution, in terms of world politics and even more so in terms of civil politics. It is something that we need to understand and critically engage with as it evolves.

This year (2006), the WSF is attempting a significant new experiment, a so-called ‘polycentric WSF (in Bamako, Mali; in Caracas, Venezuela; and in Karachi, Pakistan). It is set to take off, in two weeks, though one of the three locations (the Karachi one) is postponed until March. The Bamako Forum is to take place January 19-23, and the Caracas one January 24-29. (For ‘official’ details, see the official WSF website

The step of moving from single-centric fora to polycentric one is, taken as a step in the development of the WSF, as important as the holding of the forum outside Brazil, in Mumbai, India, in January 2004. Given this significance, and the significance of the WSF as an emerging world institution as an institution of civil politics, it is important to note, and perhaps of no small interest, that there is hardly any debate about the polycentric forum, either as individual meetings or as a collective. Even on the official WSF website, in its Library of Alternatives, there are only two articles; both are in Spanish despite the fact that the three fora are being held in English, French, and Spanish speaking parts of the world, and this distribution was presumably a very careful and intentional decision.

Compared with the storm of articles that the forum has generated in earlier years, this is stunning. What is happening? Why is there no discussion? Has the forum run its course? Within this context, there is a need to carefully look at, and debate certain specific patterns and questions:

To a degree decisively more than holding the forum in Mumbai in 2004, this year's forum (through the choice of locations) is evidently trying to open social and political space: in Venezuela, an apparent ally of anti-imperialist popular forces in Latin America (and now more so with the election of Morales in Bolivia and his visit to Venezuela and Hugo Chávez this past week), and in Pakistan, still formally a dictatorship with the army and a general in firm control (of state power, at least). What has the leadership of the WSF hoped to achieve by doing this; by choosing these locations for this major experiment? And what might be actual, possible outcomes of these events, in their respective countries and regions?

Although there have been other years when more than one WSF meeting has taken place within the same year (if we take into account more than just the so-called ‘world’ meetings, and include the so-called ’regional¹ ones, like the European Social Forum and the Asian Social Forum, and the ‘thematic’ ones, such as Colombia in 2003), this is the first time when a specific and presumably strategic decision was taken to hold a polycentric world meeting i.e., several meetings at the same time, spread across the world. One consideration was logistical, meaning that more people across the world will therefore have access to the forum (since it will be taking place closer to everybody in the world). Another consideration, perhaps, was to have an even greater and more widespread impact across the world. This latter dream is spoiled a little by having to postpone the Karachi Forum (because of the fallout of the earthquake last year), but the concept remains.

For this to happen, it presumably will require some degree of coordination between the fora that are taking place at the same time. In order for synergy to take place towards a more global assertion of civil (if not actually ‘popular’) power, and, at minimum, to have some consciousness that ‘the other’ is also taking place at the same time (almost). So we need to ask at least the following questions when assess the fora in these terms: is this year’s forum in fact going to help a much larger number of people gain access to the WSF? What ways are there for this synergy to take shape? Will this polycentric design in fact create a greater impact than the single world meetings?

Despite the sometimes trenchant and even bitter discussion on the manner in which the Workers Party in Brazil has influenced the emergence and politics of the WSF as an idea, and the dominating influence of political parties in the continental and regional fora (the SWP ­ Socialist Workers Party in the London European Social Forum in November 2004, and to a lesser extent, the Communist parties in the case of the WSF in Mumbai), the fact is the WSF’s Charter specifically prohibits the participation of political parties in the forum. There is very little discussion about the fact that the Caracas Forum virtually seems to be sponsored by Hugo Chávez and his government, and will probably be completely dominated by them; using it as a platform and a way of promoting his understanding of the Forum. (For a glimpse, see his speech to the Forum in 2005 - Mario Dujisin, January 2005 ­ Hugo Chávez, President of Venezuela : , January 31 2005,‘The WSF Should Have A Strategy Of Power")

On the other hand, some reports suggest that his practice of politics is enervating independent social movements in the country. One opinion about the WSF being held in Caracas is it is a shroud for such politics. (Rafael Uzcategui, January 2006, ‘WSF Caracas: Shroud for Venezuela's social Movements’) To the opposite of fighting it, the leaders of the WSF seem to be almost celebrating this profound contradiction of the very soul of the forum (in a carefully downplayed way, which makes it close to being cynical) because, one has to assume, they think that Chávez is on our side, but what are the ‘sides’ in this game, in these politics? And who is on which side?

These are serious questions. It is not enough just to innocently ‘go and take part’ in the WSF, and to then think or feel that you have been sold down the river when you are there (or even if you do not go, because all this is being done in our name, the name of so-called civil society, both local and global). In short: do you agree that the forum should, and can be organised by political parties and governments towards their partisan ends? If Chávez in Venezuela, then why not Musharraf in Pakistan?

In a way, what seems to be happening is a kind of a creeping coup within the Forum, in the broadest sense, of old politics over new politics. Even if you happen to agree with or be sympathetic to Hugo Chávez, or Lula, or the CPI(M) in India, if they can take over the forum, in their respective contexts, then why should other parties and politicians not do so in other contexts? Or is it really ultimately only a question of left and right (where left is right, and right is wrong), and that the ‘alternative power’ and influence that so many have said that civil movements can exercise is, in the final analysis, not relevant? Or do you have entirely different take on what is happening? If so, let’s talk about it.

There is not much time, only ten days. Let’s, therefore, use this time as best and as incisively as we can to understand what is happening, what the stakes are, and what are the likely outcomes.

Here are a few links and articles in relation to the Caracas Forum, both in favour of what is happening and critical of it. Let’s debate these ideas in this space, and also take them up as local discussions wherever you are, taking them as far and as wide as you can in this time (also within the forum/s, in case you are attending any of them). And please post any material you can find on any of the three fora, and on the WSF as it stands and is moving today.

Mario Dujisin, January 2005 ­ ‘Hugo Chávez, President of Venezuela: "The WSF Should Have A Strategy Of Power", January 31 2005, on
http://www.ipsterraviva.net/TV/WSF2005/viewstory.asp?idnews=170

Foro Social Alternativo - Alternative Social Forum, October 2005 ­ ’Alternative Social Forum - Caracas, January 2006’. Tuesday, Oct 18 2005, 8:13pm, fsa@contrapoder.org.ve. On
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1532

Irene León, June 2005 ­ ‘Hacia el II Foro Social Américas y el VI Foro Social Mundial policéntrico’ [Towards the 2nd Americas Social Forum and the polycentric 6th World Social Forum, in Spanish], June 20 2005, on
http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/dinamic.php?pagina=bib_irene_2005_esp

Carlos Torres , December 2005 – ‘The VI World Social Forum Caracas 2006¹. Monday 5th December 2005, on http://alternatives-international.net/article81.html

Rafael Uzcategui, January 2006 – ‘WSF Caracas: Shroud for Venezuela's Social Movements’, on http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=2063. Received on 4/1/06 9:05 pm, a-infos-en@ainfos.ca> wrote: Re: (en) El Libertario - WSF Caracas: Shroud for Venezuela's social movements.

(If anyone wants downloaded and formatted soft copies of the documents listed, let me know.)