by Anna Ylä-Anttila,
The writer participated the forum as a representative of Siemenpuu Foundation, Finland

The Caracas forum this year was anticipated to turn into a showcase of Bolivarian revolution and Chávez regime in Venezuela. El presidente surely did use the opportunity to his best advantage, but did not dominate the actual content of the forum.

It had been rumoured that Chávez would be investing up to nine million US dollars to the organising of the Social Forum in Caracas. No wonder local activists were afraid of his influence, and all the Latin American eyes were looking at how he would manage it. The young Venezuelan civil society, which was not simply satisfied with pro- or anti-Chávez activism, as often seems to be the case in the country, wanted to guarantee free conversation and put up an alternative forum, Foro Social Alternativo. In it, several local and indigenous leaders were participating, travelling by buses from everywhere in Venezuela, and sleeping in tents in the town. They were also part of the actual forum, but some of their workshops had been placed in same time slots and at venues with poor facilities. A coincidence? So instead of sitting in seminar halls, they took to the streets in a common parade and gathering on the 25th and 26th.

In the end they concluded, however, that the alternative forum was not an enemy of the WSF and it would not even have been necessary to organise, because different voices were allowed to be heard inside the actual forum. It just had to be there “to be on the safe side”. The Chávez agenda, despite being in the air all the time, could not restrain conversations held in the forum. The free transport, water bottles, event sites and security provided by the state (apparently for much less than 9 million dollars) did help the organisers a fair deal, and some of them declared gratitude to Chávez in seminars. To some Asian and African organisers this was a cause of envy: they would not get this kind of support from their governments. The Bamako forum received more funds from Venezuela than form Africa altogether, but this was not largely known or shown in Bamako, which did not have such a political content to it.

The Caracas forum was very political in nature and Chávez was consistently touched upon in conversations, of which many handled the new leftist orientations in Latin American leadership. In practically all the sessions I attended, there were heard both Chavista- and anti-Chavista-minded comments, from Venezuelans as well as foreigners. The leader divides the public, also in the forum.

Chávez did get overwhelming media cover especially with his two public appearances during the forum, and by taking public stand on it. According to Chávez, the forum should not turn into “revolutionary tourism” but take a firm stand on social issues it stands for. This was disturbing to some, but Chávez defended himself by saying that he is speaking as a citizen and wants to be included in discussions just as anybody else. Well, why not: the forum Chart of Principles states: “Neither party representations nor military organizations shall participate in the Forum. Government leaders and members of legislatures who accept the commitments of this Charter may be invited to participate in a personal capacity” (from Article 9). Then again, Chávez's hints in his speech on ending USA's imperialism even with military armament, does not quite match with this principle.

In his Forum ending speech, Chávez declared: “Socialism or Death!” One could contemplate on how this relates to the forum Principle 10: “The World Social Forum is opposed to all totalitarian and reductionist views of economy, development and history and to the use of violence as a means of social control by the State...”? At least Chávez's statement on representative democracy being false and élite would seem to suit this Principle that continues: “..It upholds respect for Human Rights, the practices of real democracy, participatory democracy, peaceful relations, in equality and solidarity, among people, ethnicities, genders and peoples, and condemns all forms of domination and all subjection of one person by another”. One could consider tv-show ¡Hallo Presidente! a rather unusual form of straight and participatory democracy. In the weekly show citizens ring to a live tv broadcast and share their problems with Chávez, who in turn calls the minister in response, telling him to do something about it. Or one could call it political interactive entertainment starring el Libertador (a name circulated from Simon Bolívar, the Latin American freedom fighter.) However, the people seem to like it. But no wonder the intellectuals of the country, even the leftist orientated, are not big fans. Still many of them seem to think that maybe Chávez is the best of the many bad alternatives, after decades of military dictatorships, unrest and corruption.

Chávez is an interesting media character and it is not a surprise he is dominating the media publicity we see and hear from Caracas. He does it skillfully, and does not put forward an image of a dictator. Still, this is much how he is presented here. Sometimes it is a pity. For example, in Finland, just about the only story on Caracas forum was on the dominating role of Chávez, and many important aspects and conversations go unnoticed. Naturally, they are not topics as easy to tackle as a character, who compares himself to Che, Lenin and even Jesus Christ and delivers free petrol to the American poor.

A side effect of the Chávez phenomenon is seen on the streets of Caracas, where products such as speaking Chávez dolls, Chávez watches, Chávez t-shirts, constitutions of the country in pocket size and anti-imperialist headbands are being sold. The vendors are likely to present the poor majority in support of the figure in their articles. In the fancy shops at Hotel Hilton lobby, you can get other kinds of items: for example, caricature Chávez dolls riding a donkey.