An exchange of ideas that took place in the context of the preparations for the WSF-related meetings in Durban, South Africa, and in reaction to the article of Roberto Savio (IPS) "World Social forum : the cradle of global civil society".

Matti Kohonen (NIGD, Tax Justice Networks, 24 July 2006, Social forum e-lists and to others.

If we are moving to a more rhetorical debate about 'what is to be done' like Peter says, then I'd have a few points to make about that.

First of all a personal note, I'm from a generation of political and social activists who have grown up with the WSF and Attac. The first political movement that I joined was Attac, though I had to start one up at the LSE in 2000, and then in London in 2001 to join it. Both have since died out, but Tax Justice Network lives, which I was part of starting in 2002. The place where I found a direction for my BSc and later PhD research was at the 2002 WSF in Porto Alegre where I though that the 'solidarity economy' is the way forward, and that is was distant enough from my campaigning ego in Attac/TJN that I'd avoid a burn out trying to juggle between campaigning and research. There are a lot of us, who pick up themes for their research or activism at social forums, protests (though they tend to be more demagogic at least in my experience in London, nobody gets an 'ahaa' experience from George Galloway speaking on the war in Iraq...), alternative parties, activist workshops, newspapers such as The Guardian, Le Monde Diplomatique, Arena (Sweden), Caros Amigos (Brazil) etc. The knowledge that is gathered becomes part of a critical understanding of the reality which then gives rise to concrete utopia for some of us who want to follow it. Many drop out on this stage since it's hard enough to find a job working for a critical utopia. However, the other problem with this schema is that there are still too few ways in which people can participate in the Global Justice Movement. Reading the Guardian isn't really participation. I think we are still relatively marginal, and things like February 15th didn't start a new artistic, literary, academic, journalistic or 'solidarity economy' culture (to think of ways in which it could become a lasting phenomenon). So it's not tipping over, it was a one-off. We need more such one-offs, a global peace rally would do it, another one for the climate and a third against 3rd world debt and for world public finances all in symbolic sequences.

The way people hear about the our plans to eradicate third world debt, make the financial system transparent and serve the needs of the poor gets out at places like (as Peter you also mention) the LSE Centre for Civil Society annual year book, but that book is poorly done, it's only Marlies Glasius out of the CCS who participated to the ESF in London or the London Social Forum collective which now is struggling since it doesn't meet. Mary Kaldor is involved in conflict studies and minority rights, but not linked to GJM in my view that much, only in spirit. If you want to find more internal analysis look at Jan Aart Scholte's work at the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation at Warwick University. He's someone I bumped into by accident at the WSFs, first in an airport bus in Porto Alegre in 2002, then at a visa queue in Bamako airport, though also in organised seminars. He organised one of the first academic workshops on the WSF in the UK that successfully brought both activists and interested academics together in the summer before the ESF 2004 in London. The culture of British academia generally is rather to observe and not participate, but in Warwick there was a spirit of a bit of change. I've been to two launches of the LSE yearbook, 2002 and 2003 and both made predictions of the Global Justice Movement about the next year being crucial to it, but not hitting at any of the internal debates, rather following external debates speculating on its future (9-11 and Marxist theories about political praxis by Lord Desai). Such year books are poor representations of the actual debates that go on in the movement in my view, there should be more research centres that are internal to the movement so that it could develop further the themes in an academic environment, and talk back to the activists to get more ideas. These 'organic' academics (as Antonio you coined the word for me once) are needed and there is indeed more of such a culture in Latin America and seemingly in Durban.

On the issue of political parties, the paradox for me is the concept of sovereignty that they represent. Economic transactions are beyond the nation state, Finland's financial system is regulated by Luxembourgish tax laws and Jersey trust laws. Heikki you are right to call for global political parties, because if we don't share the same polity with Jersey, Luxembourg, Monaco and Andorra (all states that in my map should exist at all) the unelected crooks in these places will continue to rule the world. These states should be integrated with big enough units of sovereign territories such as the UK, Belgium, France and Catalonia respectively so that the secrecy space, zero income tax, and other offshore practices could be debated in a wider polity, and challenged more effectively. Though a larger polity doesn't itself negate the practice of regressive tax laws, Estonia has zero corporate tax, Switzerland invented the banking secrecy, and the City of London I assume is the largest offshore market in the world (though again controlled by the Corporation of London, who represents only banks as there are no residents in the City of London square mile).

What if offshore centres opt out of starting branches of the global political party, can they remain the bogus states that they are now? (I don't like the word Pariah states, it refers to an outcast, something tax havens certainly aren't). Sovereignty also needs to be tackled again, and it should be limited for such territories, but putting strict reciprocity rules between sovereign territories (for example, no capital movements without automatic information exchange, no monetary union without integrating to the political sphere of the mainland). The Åland islands between Finland and Sweden are part of the polity of Finland, Jersey is a Crown Dependency of Queen Elisabeth II, there is a big difference between them in terms of representation and integration to a wider political space. As a result Jersey is a tax haven, and Åland, though some aspire an independent money and tax laws there, remains under sovereignty of the Finnish parliament. Also Jersey men and women, in the lack of reciprocity in tax treatment, have not been allowed to work in the EU territory, this in part has led to the popularity of Attac Jersey recently among the young people in Jersey, many of whom were present at the Tax Justice Network annual research workshop at Essex University (http://visar.csustan.edu/aaba/taxworkshop06.html)

As it is only states who have the right to make law, than small offshore states that run in a feudal way (like Jersey, Sark, Monaco) or with the support of the local electorate (as Barbados) are making the rules of the global economy, with help of the KPMG, Citibank, etc. If the global political party project doesn't address these boundaries of sovereignty it won't work. Instead of global political parties, federalism of making larger sovereign units could be the way to eliminate many problems of cross-border activities such as tax evasion and tax competition. A Caribbean Federation could eliminate the offshore centres there, a stronger African Union in Africa, a Pacific Fedaration in the Pacific, but as the EU demonstrates offshore spaces seem to have a way of convincing their right of existence as either fully independent or sovereign territories.

Furthermore, I find interesting things from African political parties linking up with their Diasporas, and homeland politics practices by such foreign resident nationals. Some foreign branches of the Ghanaian National Democratic Congress (NDC, the Party of J.J. Rawlings for those who remember him) for example, have close ties to the German Social Democratic Party on the local level. Ghanaians are better cosmopolitans, Giles Mohan from Open University argues, than most Europeans as they have a unified state for various ethnic groups within the state, a workable Yugoslavia if you want to transport it to the European context. I should note of course that most African countries don't manage this ethnic mix very well, ex-British colonies in general have local fiefdoms as a legacy of indirect rule, and the French ex-colonies have strong men (in the Napoleonic fashion) who keep places like Cameron in peace (though they blow up like Ivory Coast eventually). So African examples like Ghana is the future of cosmopolitanism, don't look at the European parliament as it doesn't have much sovereign authority. Europe is very tribal unlike Ghana ;) Giles gave a paper on it at a 'Researching Ghanaian Networks' workshop that we organised at the LSE in February, and he has a publication about it forthcoming. For those who like the presentation I can dig that up too.

So back to 'what is to be done', I've made a concept paper for a process to make a declaration for World Public Finances at the Nairobi WSF. You can comment it as a blog in here: http://worldpublicfinances.blogspot.com/

I propose we make several declarations at the Nairobi WSF that borrow the methodology of open space, which if you look at it doesn't forbid it being used to make a declaration, only proclaiming to represent everyone is not allowed in principle number 6. And principle 7 says that declarations can be made and the WSF will circulate them widely. Each strand or thematic group in my view should call a first seminar where campaign issues, political proposals and statements are collected. And then another seminar is planned for those who want to put together a declaration out of the content gathered at the first seminar. The wording can be a mix of calls for co-ordinated action, and proposals for change of international legal conventions, or starting up new international institutions or organisations. The session on World Public Finances in the Bamako WSF, collected action points and proposals from a to n, as listed in the blog above. We didn't plan any declarations there, but that step could be taken in Nairobi if we organise two seminars as I propose.

The WSF goers should create voices, but it needs not be a unitary declaration, a series of such 'open declarations' would do the job, as long as that declaration is taken out of the forum for lots of signatures and open for amendments at the WSF in 2008, or other social forum if deemed necessary.

I think the grievances of the WSF-goers vis-à-vis traditional political parties are well placed, equally the distancing from Trotskyite politics (in the context of fronts and secret committees knowing better than the membership what needs to be done), and concern over marginalisation of women and minority groups. Take the worst treated ethnic minority in Europe, the Roma, they have just about 0 representation though they number about 8 million in Europe. I attended a Roma conference organised by a colleague PhD student of mine at the LSE sociology and there it emerged that there is no such thing as Roma representation in the European Parliament (though a few friendly MEPs exist). This would be a challenge for any European wide political party in Strasbourg, though none of them seem to care. I think the Roma are doing worse than an average Ghanaian 'illegal' or legal immigrant in Europe, as at least they have the high commissions, branches of national political parties and homeland associations to turn to for representation and identity. There must be about a million of Ghanaian born people in Europe.

If politics resembles a patriarchal family business (political families rule in many countries, not least the USA), or a demagogues anonymous meeting (Chavez, Mugabe etc.) then who is interested? Why should I be interested in parties if I know that they don't control (or don't want to control) actions that fall in between nation states (such as the climate or financial transactions). I'm much happier without a party book in this case. I'll happily engage with parties to discuss and raise concern over these issues, but not join them in the current climate as they don't take their role to spearhead change. Radical politics for now sits in the open space of the WSF, minority rights movements, the campaigns who bring the cross-border elements of globalisation to the political arena (Attac, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace etc.) and in the 'solidarity economy' where people are inventing a new economy based on past experiences of the co-operative, worker and community movements. I'll stay with them for now, and work to enhance their knowledge creation capacity with links to academic institutions. Finally we need a renewal of social theory, which is stuck with modernist (political party, national welfare state, trade union, parliament, capitalist enterprise) institutions of representation and power.

New political assemblages and 'parliaments of things' where we understand that objects and nature influence agency (as Bruno Latour notes though he doesn't discuss globalisation) need to be created. A 'global solidarity economy' with its own institutions and internal regulation, challenging the WTO, growing out of the fair trade and Southern 'solidarity economy' and rural rights movements would be an equally great achievement of the GJM as the global political party.

Regards to everyone and this discussion is enjoyable,