Katarina Sehm Patomäki, NIGD

Do you remember that some time ago the New York Times named global civil society 'the World's Second Superpower'?

Many are those of us who have played roles in the successful processes such as the Ottawa mine ban convention, setting a stop to the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI) and in the process leading to the ratification of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2003. Most recently, the Nobel Prize Committee renewed their recognition of civil society by awarding Wangari Maathai the Nobel Peace Prize (2004).

But nominations, power and awards bring with them expectations and responsibility. When speaking of the abstract concept of 'global civil society' a very concrete space within the 'global civil society' comes to mind: I think of course of the World Social Forum process, a process that has emerged into the largest self-formed, autonomous and spontaneous gathering of civil society to date.

In many 'reports' from the WSF we hear and read about discussions and stands against neoliberalism, against communism, against war, against injustice, against patriarchy and gender discrimination, and even some discussions against 'reforms' per se.

But, the WSF was not created to be against issues covering the rainbow of political colours but rather it was created to be for something. My thesis here is that the WSF process is a process for initiating a process toward global democratisation.

How so?

Let me first define 'democracy' versus 'democratization'. Whereas 'democracy' can be seen as a given model of democracy, democratisation is perceived as an open-ended process. A process of democratisation is never 'finished' but constantly alive. As someone has put it "Democracy cannot be imported or exported, but rather, it should be supported".

Let us not be confused by recent events to the contrary. Not long ago, an armed solder firing off his machine gun still meant 'war'. Today, some sources try to convince us that a solder firing off his machine gun does not mean war, but rather indicates something positive. The soldier is actually 'spreading peace and democracy'.

I mentioned 'democratization' as a process as opposed to a(ny) given model of democracy. By being an open-ended process, a process of democratisation initiated through a few concrete steps leaves space for other subsequent reforms. But how do we then initiate a process of true global democratisation?

One way is to listen to the issues raised within the WSF process. The Brazilian Institute of Social and Economic Analysis (Ibase) in Rio de Janeiro have collected some statistics on events organised at the WSF III and they list over 80 events organised on the issue of water alone. In an IPS interview with Joseph Stiglitz the three most visible issues raised at WSF IV were listed as a call for a solution to the debt problem, an implementation of a tax on currency transactions and concern about the privatisation process in the world and notably those concerning water. During the WSF IV, Ibase carried out a survey inquiring about the WSF participats' priorities in 'building another world', which resulted in the listing of education and water as two prime issues of civil society organisations.

So, what if global civil society started to operate and organise according to a commonly agreed framework? Could we repeat the successes of the campaigns against an MAI and for the ratification of the convention of ban of land mines and the International Criminal Court?

We could begin by pushing for a solution to the indebtedness of the developing countries. Since 1982 when Mexico defaulted on its debt, and despite numerous calls from various high political offices, the international system for administering and managing the debt burden remains unchanged. Today, the debt burden is 2,5 times as high as it was in 1985 and in pure interest, the developing countries have paid international financial institutions, private and public creditors six times what they owed in 1985. These figures indicate that the debt problem of the developing countries is above all a political problem, as opposed to an economic problem. Solving the debt problem through an independent arbitration procedure can reverse this political control over indebted countries. Research by UNCTAD illustrates the urgency of solving the issue by indicating that the world will be shaken by a new debt crisis in 5-10 years, given that interest rates do not rise.

Secondly, a tax on currency transactions could serve as a first element in setting some democratic control over financial markets, it could also bring with it some stability of those markets and it could lead to a set up of a global fund. The democratic control over financial markets would also bring with it increased autonomy for states in their policy formulations.

Thirdly, by redefining the scope of the World Trade Organisation and by democratising its mechanisms for participation and decision-making, the WTO could function more democratically. The Intellectual Property Rights should be re-transferred back under the UN, and the General Agreement on Trade and Services should be renegotiated.

If these reforms and transformations were implemented - what kind of a world would we then be living in?

• Poor and formerly indebted countries would possibly be less prone to pressure and blackmail from the North and would be allowed space for political self-determination.
  

• UN reforms could be possible since countries in the General Assembly would be more equal in real terms
  

• The powers of the Bretton Woods Institutions could be radically smaller since the earlier financial dependency in the form of debts would no longer exist
  

• Trade regimes could be designed and implemented not only according to the agenda of the rich North. Trade regimes could be set up to take into consideration also countries exporting less developed manufactures.
  

• True reforms of the international system as opposed to merely cosmetic temporary transfers of funds would set good examples of concrete action where the majorities of the world would eventually be heard (people living in the South, young, women and non-white)
  

• A solution to the debt problem could possible provide first aid band aids on infected North-South wounds and thus prepare ground for further democratic reforms.
  

Further reforms, as in reforming the existing framework - or transformations, as in setting up something new - would then have to be prioritised following careful analysis on the state of our world. Not surprisingly, during the latest World Social Forum meeting in Porto Alegre in January 2005, 19 members of the International Council of the World Social Forum launched a 'Porto Alegre Manifesto'. The manifesto 'calls for agreement among WSF participants on a clear set of goals for world economic reform', much in line with the reforms and transformations listed above. The 'Porto Alegre Manifesto' was much criticized for the procedures according to which it was presented; all initial signatories are male, there is not much representation from younger of women's groups etc. But interestingly, as I gather, the content has not been much focus of the debate. Have you heard, or perhaps presented yourselves, comments regarding the substance of the Manifesto?

Earlier on, I mentioned 'responsibility' and 'expectations', adjectives accompanying success. Doesn't global civil society, the world's second superpower, owe to itself to launch concrete action around these themes?

I began by citing the New York Times. I'll conclude by citing the International Herald Tribune - while risking that the attentive participant will soon point out to me that the New York Times nowadays owns the International Herald Tribune:

In the International Herald Tribune, there was a cartoon describing the settings at a meeting of the World Trade Organisation. As usual, in the back of the meeting space, there were several interpreters' booths. On each booth, there were signs with English, Spanish etc with interpreters in them - except the last booth, where it said 'from words to action'. The last booth was empty because no one could be found to translate 'words' into 'action'.

Maybe the persons at the meeting sketched in the International Herald Tribune do not know what to do, how to get from words to action. Maybe it is up to us, as participants of global civil society, and as nominated second superpower in the world, to take action?

* This speech was delivered on 22 February 2005 at the seminar 'Why Global Democracy'? at the London School of Economics and on 23 February 2005 at a seminar on the future of global justice movements at the 'Framtidsbaren' in Malmö, Sweden.