Dying, or More Alive than Ever?
There are plenty of prophets of doom foretelling the death, or at least a deep crisis, of the World Social Forum (WSF), based on reports about organisational problems and a great fall in numbers at the 7th WSF, held in Nairobi in January
(by Analysis by Mario Osava, Inter Press Service)
Some champions of the WSF, in contrast, tend to exaggerate its alleged
triumphs, such as a decisive contribution to the election of left or
centre-left governments in eight Latin American countries, and the
inclusion of social issues on the international agenda.
But this global gathering of civil society, first launched in
January 2001 in the south of Brazil, could not have had the influence
attributed to it on the political current now sweeping the region. The
Latin American leftist movement arose from processes that are now
decades old, when grassroots and social movements swelled the leftwing
The first WSF in Porto Alegre also took place after the major
United Nations conferences on the environment, human rights, social
development, population, women, habitat, and even the U.N. meeting that
approved the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which mobilised tens
of thousands of heads of state, diplomats and experts between 1992 and
2000, giving civil society delegates a major voice in the discussions
for the first time.
The usual critics of the WSF, for their part, are forgetting
the recent history of diversification, or fragmentation, of social and
political movements, which destroyed the monopoly enjoyed by trade
unions, the class struggle and political parties in fighting the
injustices of capitalism, and added various forms of discrimination and
inequalities to be battled.
The WSF is a response to the need to overcome the dispersal of
the diverse initiatives and efforts that make up society, and to make
international connections between them, without using traditional
mechanisms of representation via elections or unions. It is developing
new ways of doing politics and creating a more participative kind of
Thus, the WSF may change its methods, how it organises its
meetings and even its name and its key ideas, but global civil society
will no longer be able to do without a forum for representatives from
all over the world to articulate and energise their struggles, exchange
experiences and reflect together.
The WSF is a new actor on the world stage. Its organisational
style is diffuse, but at particular moments it can reach a consensus
that has mobilising power, such as the 2003 demonstrations against the
war in Iraq. It is here to stay, and it plays a role in
democratisation. And it is searching for the best ways and means to
empower participants and get their voices heard.
The civil society meeting arose out of opposition to the World
Economic Forum, and proved that it met a need by gathering a mass
following, promoting wide debate and spawning new international
networks and campaigns, as well as local, national and regional
meetings. But there is nothing permanent about its present shape, let
alone its uniqueness.
There are pressures to convert it into a political instrument that would adopt resolutions and action plans.
Many activists and even members of the WSF International
Council are calling for decisions and action, arguing that the current
formula is causing immobility. At the 2005 WSF in Porto Alegre, a group
of 19 prominent intellectuals tried to change the WSF's course, by
proposing a "Consensus Manifesto" and inviting people to sign it. But
it fell by the wayside.
As an open space for free dialogue between civil society
movements, without any hierarchy and fully respecting diversity, as its
Brazilian founders intended, the WSF can absorb dissension, opinions
and proposals of all kinds. The participating organisations and
movements are free, and encouraged by the forum context, to unite and
mobilise around common proposals.
Francisco Whitaker, one of the founders, defended this
methodology in his book "Desafío do Forum Social Mundial: um modo de
ver" ("The World Social Forum Challenge"). He stood up for the Charter
of Principles which have defined the WSF since 2001 as an "open meeting
place for democratic debate," not a representative nor a deliberative
body, that is against the use of violence and neoliberal globalisation.
But the ambition of the WSF to strengthen connections and
mobilise civil society in order to build "another possible world"
implies huge challenges. Press coverage of the mega-forums declined
sharply once the initial novelty wore off, so a different way of
communicating with the people of the world is needed.
Less than 50,000 people came to the Jan. 20-25 WSF in Nairobi, barely
half the number of participants in each of the previous four years, and
half the expected number for this year.
The high registration fees limited attendance by poor
delegates from Kenya, fueling criticism of elitism by those who want to
make the meetings more accessible so as not to continue to reproduce
But surveys have shown that three-quarters of the participants at the
January forums are university students or graduates, indicating that
they are indeed an economic elite.
This is the reality, caused by long and costly journeys and
the fact that participants are mainly from the third sector (civil
society, non-profit and voluntary organisations).
The WSF International Council decided to postpone the next
global meeting until 2009, given the difficulty of self-financing
annual gatherings. This has added impetus to its would-be epitaph
Instead, in January 2008, major protests will be held around the world
during the World Economic Forum, the annual meeting of the global
financial and political elites in Davos, Switzerland.
An even greater challenge for the WSF is to overcome the
chaotic degree of diversity of its debates. There were 1,200 seminars,
panel discussions, dialogues and rallies at Nairobi: too many, although
they were half the number held at previous forums. This indicates that
the connections focusing actions and programmes are still not strong
The ideal number would be about 500 different events,
according to Cándido Grzybowski, another Brazilian coordinator of the
In spite of -- or because of -- the variety, there is a lack
of overall, holistic vision, and several struggles are being carried on
Environmentalists, for example, feel themselves to be "peripheral" to
the WSF process, in spite of the urgency of the issues they espouse,
and have developed their own ways of international networking.
In addition, little attention is paid to the political and economic
viability of the many proposals and causes, in spite of the slogan
"Another World Is Possible."
« zurück zur Übersicht