by Katarina Peixoto, 27/01/2006, Carta Maior
This text was translated by Jordi Lopez, finalised by Ruby van der Wekken and Robyn Milburn

Amongst the different possible agendas that are trying to be constructed in this Forum, which is predominantly Latin American and very politicised, there is one that is provoking. One of the organisations which has actively participated in the WSF process, NIGD (Network Institute for Global Democratization), organised a productive debate starting with the all but modest call: do we need global political parties? Is this another case of delirium, of the countless optimistic speculations that occupy the Forum?

The Forum’s driving force is in the integration of peoples, organisations and struggles. From the Bamako events, and by virtue of the Latin American left expansion, some of the more radical Forum proposals are starting to move away from a mere optimistic speculating. One of the examples is the debate around the creation of a Latin American central union. Another is the massive presence of indigenous peoples; their organisations (mainly Andean) have been working in an integrated manner for a long time, and are now meeting here for new agendas, as Evo’s election and this years disputes (Peru in April, Ecuador in October).

These not at all irrelevant events can only be a legitimate postulation of political parties on a global scale whilst considering the two forces which mobilise them. First of all, the experience of the material, local, and communitarian struggles which, in the Latin American case, are marked by the peasants movements (as the case of MST, in Brazil), or indigenous peoples with the countless Andean movements. There is now an accumulation of this kind of experience in which the appropriation by its participants has a paradigmatic case, in the election of Evo Morales. This experience is always present at the Forum; organised in competitive and politicised social movements which represent a variety of resistances to the traditional partisan organisations that are bound by the electoral agendas defined by financial interests. The second driving force comes from the Latin American and European partisan left, marked by electoral defeats and by uprooted social movements.

As much the movements as the partisan left have been protagonising new experiences over the last years, also in occurrence of the WSF process. The weakness of the rootedness in the case of political parties, was added to the experience of real struggles in the construction of new demands to struggles that are not only varied but also deeply rooted in communities. The limitations of both forces have also become more clear along with the possibilities for the transformation of their own world, which is not always recognised be it by the parties (the Forum being considered as a purely instrumental perspective by some them), or by the movements (which reject the organisational form of parties up to the point of not willing to aim at the power). The Forum’s debate and juxtaposing of the issues in light of its future is an obsessive expression in the dialogue between these two forces.

Every obsession is tiring and always brings the frustration of an impotent march which keeps repeating itself. Teivo Teivainen from NIGD asked at the beginning of the discussion in order to legitimize global political parties as an agenda of the present, “ There is some frustration with the demands of civil society. Which kind of actors are in fact political actors which are part of these actions, and up until which point?” A response followed quickly: “the critics of political parties should be more profound,” said Henry Tito, from CEADES (Colectivo de Estudios Aplicados al Desarrollo Social y Fórum Social Pan-Amazonico), who took an adversary stance to the paradigmatic PT and Lula’s Government saying in an irritated manner: “we should start an indepth critic of Lula’s Government which is demoralizing social movements,” and this is in order to present their reading on the limitations that partisan organisations would go through.

Tito’s diagnosis is based on the accusation that political parties are an eurocentric product, organised on the basis of the nation state: “the eurocentric left, and the marxist political parties only succeed to think of representation within the confines of the State. The accumulation of capitalism comes along with the blood of the peoples. Capitalism is marked by whites and protestants, which is calling us scum as did the French Minister, Nicholas Sarkozy, when there was that arab rebellion”. The firing continued with an accusation of colonialism regarding the gas pipeline linking Venezuela and Brazil; this is a part of the IRSA (Iniciativa Para la Integración de la Infraestructura Regional de América del Sur). The latter is a program which is causing heavy criticism from the side of ecologists and environmentalists; in Latin America this is occurring mainly because of the “free trade” privileged prerogatives which preside over environment requirements.

For Tito, the colonial attitude he defines is not adequate with regards to the representation of social movements. As such, the forms of representation should not be partisan because they would be polluted from the beginning by the mark of domination. How far can one get with the popular indigenous organisations, however wide and universal they might be and however intercontinental they represent themselves? Tito is not exactly answering the question. The refusal of partisan representation rests on a very fragile argument, which, by the way, is not the privilege of an indigenous radical position.

ON WHAT THE PT INSISTS IN NOT UNDERSTANDING

Kjeld Jakobsen, PT’s representative, was invited to the discussion in hope that the experience as the secretariat of international relations of CUT(central labour union)would be of help in presenting the PT experience. It would be beneficial if the PT would stop perceiving the Forum as an instrument from a mere utilitarian perspective. This is regrettable, mainly, as Jakobsen represented in Teivo’s words “the one which had been considered by the Left in the whole world, the best party in the world”. The PT leaders’ answer did not address the issue of representation, but seemed to be stressing Tito’s pre-conceptual considerations instead of the current Latin American exigencies.

Jakobsen said, first by way of protocol, that the PT had never been the best left party in the world; it has been a good party and still is. He pointed out, regarding Lula’s Government actions, that Lula interrupted FTAA negotiations (true), strengthening MERCOSUR, something he remains dedicated to (which is also true). He also stated that one of the problems in a further integration is the possibility of Brazil being taken as imperialist by the Latin-American countries (which is a delerium). Afterwards he then pinpointed that changing Brazil is difficult (hardly a surprising statement) and that the left believes in a role for the State in international policy-making (true). Regarding the PT’s experience, and above all its crisis, which is not an unknown issue to the Forum participants; not a word.

Called to speak on the most organized and victorious Latin American Partisan experience, the PT remains silent as to itself. The same silence, by the way, is present in the material distributed here, by the national board of the party. Everything happens as if the Forum participants would not like to know about Lula, or about what is going on in Brazil, and above all regarding what are its privileges at this Forum, (regarding the PT, this is simply not true). If this attitude, a little alienated, is not exactly new, it does not cease to be a way to keep a distance from the social movements vitality, as well as feed the “fetishised rage” (in the words of Teivainen) against the political partisan representation from the movements side. A kind of solemn and proud affirmation occurs of a resignated condition; whether being local, ethnical, or being formal and confused without distinguishing a privileged sphere within the parties, but seeing them as advocating a state, on whose conditions they operated, as in the case of the PT board.

THE LESSON OF THE ITALIAN COMUNIST REFOUNDATION

A good way of responding to the conflict with which the ‘Forum Obsession’ is fed, is in the affirmation of the lucid Francine Mestrum’s (ATTAC Belgium), “due to the political parties crisis, we “went” to the movements, but this has a risk, as it leads in a neoliberalism direction, if Trade Unions and the World Bank will not consult the parties, nor the social movements”, which she said with a brilliant clarity on the stakes of this dialogue which is impossible for those deaf to the voices emerging from reality. Instead of the fetishisation of participation, the seriously discussing of what representation could be, in Teivainen’s words, “deserves attention and this is not idiotic optimistic speculation. And not because the presence of parties or movements presence at the WTO rounds would solve the problems of the world, but, above all, because the WTO is not only tackled in the form of states, as the states themselves are politically confined by the financial dictatorship, whose anti-democratic agenda stimulates resistance in the form of resignated and sometimes enraged localism, or of only rhetorically left parties.”

The experience of the Communist Refoundation in Italy deserves attention (because its potential in Latin America is obvious) in order to evaluate what is happening in this Forum, beyond the unorganised performances of some. For Marco Berlinguer, from the Transform! European network, a kind of movement arm of the Refoundation this is a partisan organisation which is very conscious of the degeneration of the political system and which speaks and debates seriously about the urgency of political refoundation. What is the method, in this example, by which the distance between representation and vitality collapses? According to Berlinguer, “the Refoundation worked from the beginning with the alter-mondialisation movements. We have had the idea of being on the forefront and that we should penetrate the movements. And we believe that from this mobilisation a new kind of subjectivity emerges with practice as a priority. It’s very clear for us that we are living a radical turnaround in this historical moment. We are also very seriously bearing in mind that the means and aims are intrinsically linked, without any power concentration, and in order to overcome the problem of transnationality, one of the main points is the crises of the nation state. This is why we founded the European Left Party (May 2004).”

What would be the answer to the conflict which gives rise to the obsession that emerges in a privileged way in this Forum? Berlinger answers, “we need to elaborate new forms of organization, with new ideas of horizontality and flexibility, but which are able to create a new strategy and a more efficient political action”, with which he gives an example that not all repetition is indifference or resignation. The Refoundation example is not, as could be perceived, about an Initiative confined to the electoral agenda. That would not be the way to build an alternative, but to become consumed by the economical avalanche, as Mestrum registered lucidly. The example is of a radical commitment with today’s policy requirements, as history is made from now onwards and will be told from now backwards. This historical consideration is the only bridge to learn ways to legitimise political representation.

It is true that a lot of water will have to go under the bridge. It is also certain, however, that Latin America is going through a moment which offers great possibilities, real and vital, for this kind of constructing. At stake is not only a coarse parallelism that could be interpreted as ingenuousness. It is not because financial capital organizes itself internationally that parties have to organise themselves internationally. The problem is more complex than that and certainly involves the transnationalisation of the dominant interests and the dominated. Above all, it implies the possibility of a kind of protagonism of the left which tries to go one step further, with regards to integration. The relationship of Chavèz and Morales, the indigenous of Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, and Colombia is not a mirage. It is a reality.

If every repetition, as Deleuze says, on one occasion is taken as the occasion to think, with eyes to see and in recognition of other knowledge, about the destiny of representation. Then, who knows, the left parties may find some of its lost oxygen, and movements some denied power.