Hard questions on the WSF

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

10-19 January, 2006 on NIGD and DEBATE lists
Compiled by Ruby van der Wekken

The debate was opened 10 January 2006, by Jai Sen, with his message entitled "Hard questions on the WSF" to the WSFitself list. In his message Jai Sen questions several issues which he believes were left unadressed in the period leading up to the polycentric WSF 2006, such as, the significance of the polycentric form of the WSF of this year. The main issue concerns the relation between the WSF and political parties and governments.

Jai asked, "do you agree that the forum should, and can be organised by political parties and governments, without moving 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 its broadest sense, of old politics over new politics. ..."
Read the full text of Jai Sen's message and the questions he poses

Teivo Teivainen replied to Jai's questions on 16 January writing "while I share many of the doubts you and many others have about the role of governments in the WSF process, and in particular that of Hugo Chávez in the Caracas WSF, I feel your way of formulating the issue may be based on what I consider an overly depolitisiced (or “naïve”) understanding of “civil society”".
Read the full text of Teivo Teivainen's reply to Jai

Immanuel Wallerstein joined the debate on 16 January writing, "the question of how political parties relate to movements that are not political parties (what some call social movements, others the civil society - with all the confusion these terms have come to generate) is not a simple one. Personally, I have never understood why political parties could not attend the WSF on the same terms as any other organization. As long as the WSF is not an organization that passes resolutions, elects leaders, etc., there is no inherent danger. Nor should we kid ourselves about the support that sympathetic governments can offer."
Read the full text of Immanuel's contribution to the debate

Jai Sen returned to the debate on 17 January in his reply to Teivo and Immanuel, he writes regarding 3-4 raised issues: the question of principle - the power of ethical practice, questions of politics: autonomy, and power-to versus power-over, Left v Right? But this is not the only axis, and: is ‘opposing neoliberalism’ still the key question for the WSF?

A 19 January reply from Teivo Teivainen to Jai Sen ended this debate; it is incorporated in bold italic lettertype within the text of Jai Sen’s 18 January response. Preceding his comments, Teivo puts upfront a provocative question: "do you really think the WSF and the global justice movements should relate to the government of Evo Morales in the same way we should relate to the government of George Bush?"
Read the full text of Jai Sen's in reply to Immanuel and Teivo, as well as the reply from Teivo (in bold italic)