The WSF needs to seriously discuss its relationship with political parties and states

Carta Maior, 26.1.2006, http://cartamaior.uol.com.br/

For Teivo Teivainen, Director of the Program on Democracy and Global Transformation at the University of San Marcos in Peru, it is not possible to seriously discuss the building of "another world" without facing dilemmas of the state, power, and political representation.

By: Marco Aurélio Weissheimer

[This document is a translation of an interview that originally appeared in Portuguese in Carta Maior on January 26 2006, titled ‘FSM precisa discutir a sério relação com partidos e Estados’; see http://cartamaior.uol.com.br/. Translation by Flávia Falcão and reviewed by Eduardo Tellechea, of Porto Alegre, Brazil; finalised by Jai Sen, of CACIM, New Delhi, India, and reviewed, revised, and approved by Teivo Teivainen. Our thanks to Flávia and Eduardo for their time and effort! [JS 08.02.06]

CARACAS– The Americas event of the World Social Forum (WSF) held in Caracas, January 2006, has made the relationship between social movements, political parties, and governments a key issue. The experience of the Chávez government and the sympathy it has gathered from social movements in Latin America, as well as, the changing political landscape in the region from the election of many left-wing governments, have turned this agenda into a necessary debate. Furthermore, the discussion on what could 21st century socialism be, represents a political and theoretical challenge for the participants of this process (that began back in 2001) who want to build "another possible world."

Chair of the Network Institute for Global Democratization (NIGD), an organisation he represents in the WSF’s International Council, Teivo Teivainen (Finnish, but living in Peru) believes that the Forum needs to overcome the depoliticisation that it has continually faced, "the WSF process has been facing difficulties in answering a question whose answer should offer us much more than just repetition of 'another world is possible,'” he says. The question is “how is this other world possible, and how can we get to it?" Such questions, for Teivainen, need answers that go beyond a depoliticised understandings of civil society, “a politics-free concept,” and can overcome the near-absolute dichotomies that have been constructed between social movements and political parties.

In an interview in Carta Maior magazine he exposes, the most important political challenges in the present phase of the WSF, the challenge of relating them to the debates on Latin-American integration and the building of a new socialist paradigm for the 21st century. When asked what this new socialism should look like, Teivo says that its most important feature should be the radicalisation of democratic practices.

Carta Maior: In your opinion, what are the main political challenges that the WSF faces now that its sixth edition is taking place?

TEIVO TEIVAINEN: One of the main challenges that the WSF faces these days is how to move beyond the certain lack of political involvement it has been experiencing until now. The WSF process has been facing difficulties in answering a question whose answer goes beyond simply repeating that "another world is possible." The question is: "how is this other world possible, and how can we get to it?" Such questions need answers that go beyond depoliticized ideas of civil society. We are today living a situation in which, more than ever, the relationship that the Forum has developed with states –particularly with Venezuela, this year– is a reason for much polemical debate. At this point, we have a dilemma to solve. On the one hand, I share the idea that the Forum has to become more political and take the question of relating to political actors, actors that include political parties and states, more seriously. On the other hand, I also share the doubts and fears about the possibility that the relationship with the state will eventually cause too much state intrusion into the Forum, affecting the Forum's autonomy. This, I believe, is the most important dilemma that the WSF will have to face in Caracas.

CM: At this year's Forum, the question of involving states in the process of building another paradigm of relations between countries and peoples has grown much stronger in Latin America, due to the election of many Left wing and progressive governments. In what ways does this new political landscape influence the dilemma that you just mentioned?

TT: Comparing the political situation that existed when the first WSF took place in 2001 to the situation today shows that Latin America's geopolitical situation is considerably different, especially in regard to its relationship with the United States. We may say that the old Monroe Doctrine, according to which Latin-American countries were supposed to follow politics imposed by the United States, faces a point of rupture. This scenery opens a new perspective for Latin American integration, and for processes of social transformation in which, naturally, the WSF is involved, since the integration process is not only for states, but also, and principally, for the peoples of Latin America. In this sense, the Forum faces one of the most important difficulties for the development of this process: how to articulate political action by social movements with the integration processes that take place between the governments.

CM: Another outstanding issue on this Forum's agenda is the debate on socialism for the 21st century. What kind of socialism can we conceive for the present century, considering the socialist experiences of the twentieth century?

TT: For me, socialism is a project of radicalisation of democracy. I think it is vital for the future of humankind that we fight for democratic spaces and values. One dimension of this project is about overcoming economist ideologies and capitalist power. This means doing our best to create a post-capitalist world. Obviously, there is a great lack of debate on this subject now. Taking into account the socialist experiences that actually took place during the twentieth century, the most important challenge is never to believe that, once the state is conquered, the most important objective is achieved. If so, other struggles –those carried out by the feminist movement, the anti-racist movement, the defence of sexual diversity, and for Native-American people's rights– become subordinated to the defence of a single subject, the subject that has been traditionally defended by the Left.

The contribution of the Forum to this issue, until now, has been to assert that every struggle is important. Sometimes, however, for my taste, this leads to a relativism that is too fragile, where all we can say is that the feminist, anti-racist, and other struggles are equally important in the struggle for another world. I believe that the present moment demands a learning process within different movements, so that we can think -in a political, strategic, and democratic way– that in given situations, some struggles may be more important than others, and support them. It will be very interesting to follow the development of Evo Morales' government, in Bolivia, in terms of what kind of hegemonic reaction he will face, and how social movements will react. If we think in terms of the Forum’s contribution to this, until now it has been important to open the debate on the question of how the construction of a 21st century socialism can be one in which the different dimensions of the world’s democratic processes have to be taken into account, without subordinating them to a single historic subject. On the other hand, we need to seriously consider the fact that we live in a capitalist world and, if we want to create a socialism that will overcome capitalism, we need to discuss how to face this capitalist power, and how to articulate different movements and dimensions of our struggle in this task. Therefore, we cannot only take a relativistic position that merely repeats that we are against every form of fundamentalism and that every struggle is equally important. It is necessary to strategically think how we will build this other world.

CM: What stage is this debate at, at the international level?

TT: 21st century socialism is a key issue for discussing our relationship with states, also in the sense that we need to identify a project with a global dimension. I agree with those who believe that it is necessary to think, debate, and build new global institutions. Socialism in only one country is not possible. But the debate about a socialist project on the global scale is still in its infancy. My organisation, NIGD, and I are involved in this debate, by analysing different proposals for the world's democratisation, which social actors can support these processes, and which forces oppose them. This debate is important, among other things, in order not to feed illusions. For example, discussing a reform of the United Nations without taking into account the disciplining power of world financial capital is a major illusion. A radical transformation of the world cannot be born from there.

Thinking strategically about the power of financial capital is a fundamental task for the struggles related to external debt, financial capital taxation, and the defence of greater autonomy for different states. It is necessary to think about these issues so that it can become possible among states, social movements, and different actors, to build a process of world transformation, and create a new sort of democratic institutionality, one that is not conceived as a “World State.” To build 21st century socialism, we need a new global political institutionality, and new concepts of political agency.

CM: This relationship between the spheres of state power and the WSF has been controversial since the beginning of the WSF movement. It also involves a relationship with political parties. If we look back, since the beginning of the WSF process, the debate about the relationship between social movements, NGOs, and political parties has it advanced, or has it remained at the same point?

TT: At the beginning of the WSF, the relationship with the Workers’ Party (PT) in Brazil was obviously, fundamental. When we analyse this, we need to take into account the particularity of the Brazilian context, where more than in any other country, there was a left-wing political party that was hegemonic among the social movements. In that Brazilian context of 2001, it was easy for the organisers of the Forum to avoid debating the relationship with political parties, because the PT, to a certain extent, was already inside the process. When the Forum went to India, where there was no political party like the PT, so hegemonic and so admired by the social movements, there was a more intense debate about the representation of different tendencies, and different political parties. Now this debate has emerged much more strongly in the Forum process.

I think that limiting the Forum by not permitting the participation of political parties is somewhat artificial. There are some political parties that behave like social movements, and some social movements that are more bureaucratic and hierarchic than many political parties. This dichotomy is an illusion. The justification for the exclusion of the parties is the idea that the Forum represents a new political culture. But this new culture -one that can generate social transformation- needs to be well thought out, and also reflecting what kinds of political actors might emerge from it. Working with dichotomies such as, political party/not political party, in my opinion, does not correspond much to our reality, especially in terms of the challenges that will face those who try to change the world. To that end, political parties are important actors, and this is why we need to overcome illusions of an absolute dichotomy between civil society and political parties.

CM: There is an idea associated with this issue expressed in the title of a book by John Holloway, Changing the world Without Taking Power. Do you believe that it is possible to change the world without taking power?

TT: No, it is not possible. To change the world, it is necessary to take power, but taking power cannot mean only conquering the state. In this sense, Holloway's slogan is a welcome antidote against projects that concentrate only on taking state power through political parties despite all the dilemmas that this method has revealed. Still, saying that it is possible to change the world without taking power is false. It is dangerous poetry for social movements to follow. We need to face the issue of power. One of its dimensions is conquering state power. But perhaps a much more important dimension is about the struggles that aim to overcome different centres of power, of capitalist power, and of political, cultural, and economic institutions. Holloway, in his book, starts by saying it is possible to change the world without taking power, but in the last page, he concludes he does not know what then needs to be done to change the world...

I participated in a debate with Holloway last year, in the Porto Alegre WSF. When asked about what in his view would be the institutions of the future, he said two things: First, his vision of the future does not include institutions, and second, that this does not matter because the only thing that matters is the struggle here and now. Even if Holloway’s insightful analysis contains many valuable elements, I believe that this particular idea is false and dangerous. It is absolutely necessary to think about the future now, and also about the future institutions that will be needed. If we want to replace the existing capitalist institutionality, we must imagine and construct an alternative institutionality, one that can be socialist only by being radically democratic.

A comment to the interview with Teivo from Moema Miranda, Ibase in Brazil, and the WSF secretariat, to the NIGD list on 8 February 2006
Translated from Portuguese by Ruby van der Wekken and revised by Moema

Dear, dear friends,

Reading the good interview with Teivo for Carta Maior, it became more clear to me that one of our main challenges to deepen and intensify the fraternal debate inside the camp of the WSF has to do with the comprehension we have of the concept of "politicizing" ... as far as I understand it, all the people, movements and entities that take part the WSF want (and have always wanted) to politicize - or re-politicize - the process... I never heard any one ever say that he or she would want to "depoliticise" this space. Or, in other words, the "depolitization" is always "a category of accusation", used by all those against possible (or real) adversaries.

But for us, the more urgent and relevant question seems to be : how to make emancipatory and transformative politics in the 21st century?? Based on what principles of political action ?? Who are the actors recognised and known as "the politicals"? How can the WSF process contribute to our diverse struggles agains neoliberalims??

I do not believe that simply saying that the WSF is "depoliticized", because it has come out from an ambiguous concept of civil society, helps us to address the really important questions. As we know, it were not the "NGOs" that invented this idea... the concept of "civil society" comes from Hegel and at least here in Latin America, it was brought into the scene and into the vocabulary of the left influenced by Gramsci. I don't believe it helps much to antagonise or disqualify any type of action or issue that claims to be a polictical one simply because it does not take place or fit in the spaces and formats classically defined as "political" by the marxist left!!

Well, I believe the theme is very interesting... and to follow up would be of help to all of us... the text of Antonio Martins, that you have certainly read, treats this theme in a way that I find interesting - it is in Portuguese, and I am sending it attached for you who do not yet have read it.(Ed - please find the article of Antonio Martins ..That Another World is Possible further on in this newsletter)