THINKING TOGETHER            

This week we conclude the question-answer series regarding The World Social Forum (WSF).

To Join or to Gesticulate from a Distance

FOR all those who oppose imperialist globalisation today, and yet wish to distance themselves from the WSF process, a few lines from Mao, albeit in a different context, may be instructive:

“For the present upsurge of the peasant movement is a colossal event. In a very short time, in China's central, southern and northern provinces, several hundred million peasants will rise like a mighty storm, like a hurricane, a force so swift and violent that no power, however great, will be able to hold it back. They will smash all the trammels that bind them and rush forward along the road to liberation. They will sweep all the imperialists, warlords, corrupt officials, local tyrants and evil gentry into their graves. Every revolutionary party and every revolutionary comrade will be put to the test, to be accepted or rejected as they decide. There are three alternatives. To march at their head and lead them? To trail behind them, gesticulating and criticising? Or to stand in their way and oppose them? Every Chinese is free to choose, but events will force you to make the choice quickly.”

Yes, Mao was speaking in the context of a situation that was revolutionary in its potential. The WSF is being organised with no pretensions of such a backdrop. But the central issue is similar. Do we stand back and gesticulate when people are willing to come together and lend their might against imperialist globalisation? Are we so unsure of our politics, our positions, our ideologies that we feel afraid of coming together and risk being “tainted” by differing ideologies and positions? Or do we grasp the opportunity to lend our voice to the collective, to learn from others, and also to influence others? Not with a view to hegemonise. For the WSF cannot be hegemonised, by virtue of its very character. But to use the WSF space to build links that truly challenge the global shackles of imperialism.

Some, who oppose the WSF, wish to use the opportunity provided by the very same WSF to foreground their own positions. Is this not a contradiction in terms? For, what they wish to do is precisely what the WSF is designed for. Does it really matter if the physical space to exhibit our ideology is outside the physical space that the WSF provides?

There is one other criticism of the WSF. It is argued that the WSF is a deliberate attempt to water down the response to imperialist globalisation. Critics have attempted to link the birth of the WSF to the protests in Seattle, and have argued that the WSF failed to tap the “revolutionary” potential of the post-Seattle situation. Some have even argued that the WSF was a deliberate ploy foisted upon us by imperialism --- a ploy to co-opt the anti-imperialist and anti-globalisation forces. The criticism is flawed on two counts. First, the WSF is not supposed to give direction to any movement, revolutionary or otherwise. This is the task that movements have to take upon themselves, by assessing the nature of emerging potential for such movements. To say that the WSF is preventing the emergence of movements that oppose imperialist globalisation is to give credit to the WSF for something that it neither deserves nor proclaims. If movements are not emerging, those who are supposed to lead such movements need to introspect about the reasons. Second, can we seriously argue that the protests at Seattle were led by those who stood for radical alternatives? This would be a serious misreading of the Seattle protests, where the American labour unions and assorted NGOs played an important role. The protest at Seattle was a significant event, but by no means did it contain the seeds of a revolutionary upsurge.

The WSF process in India includes a large number of mass organisations and social movements, in addition to NGOs. In fact a positive gain for the process since the Asian Social Forum in January 2003 has been the participation and deeper involvement of such movements in the process. These movements do not require their credentials about fighting imperialist globalisation to be endorsed by sundry critics who choose to remain away from the WSF. But what is important to note is that large mass movements with a record of fighting against imperialist globalisation are looking at the WSF as an opportunity to link their struggles with the larger global struggle. Critics of the WSF need to reflect whether the fact that the largest mass movements see a space for themselves in the WSF is an indication that they have all compromised their “radical” or “revolutionary” credentials or whether this is an indication that the WSF is being seen as a platform that can lend strength to struggles against imperialist globalisation.

Need to Take Stock

It needs to be underlined that the WSF emerged not out of a single planned process, but out of a large number of processes. These processes brought with them varied experiences and perceptions regarding the response to imperialist globalisation. In fact, when the first WSF was organised in 2001, it had not been planned that it would become a regular event. As the WSF has grown in size and influence, it has naturally thrown up a number of questions regarding its future direction.

Today the World Social Forum process needs to take stock of where this huge exercise is leading. Many participants at the Forum in 2003 felt that the Forum is becoming too large and unmanageable, putting inordinate pressure on resources, and losing a sense of focus. The Forum is already having to respond to the need to further broaden the process and ensure larger participation of people from different parts. The last three Forums in Porto Alegre have seen participation of larger and larger numbers (15,000 in 2001, 50,000 in 2002 and 100,000 in 2003) but the participation from Asia and Africa has remained small --- a couple of thousand for two continents that represent two-thirds of humanity. This was the background of the decision of the International Council of the WSF to propose that the 2004 forum be held in India.

An exercise in decentralising the process was initiated since 2002, which led to the organisation of regional and thematic forums. Some of these too were huge successes, like the European Social Forum in Florence in September 2002 and the Asian Social Forum in January 2003. Today a large number of regional forums --- European, Asian, African, Mediterranean, Caribbean, North American, and many country forums --- are being organised regularly. Much of the vitality of the WSF is derived from this and not necessarily from the global forum. In the International Council meeting of the WSF in January 2003, many members articulated the need to consider whether the WSF should continue to be held as an annual event. Many also felt that the huge size of the global event, while lending strength to the opposition to imperialist globalisation, also tends to inhibit fruitful interactions that can contribute to the development of concrete alternatives.

There are also differences in perceptions regarding the way forward in terms of designating roles for political processes and movements, on the one hand, and that of NGOs and issue based or “non-ideological” movements (that is, not firmly rooted in specific ideologies), on the other. The WSF process has thrown up a dynamic in the interaction between these, and there is a certain amount of tension in this dynamic --- with each feeling that the “other” is trying to hegemonise the process. Many also feel that while the broad contours of opposition to imperialist globalisation is emerging, more planning and attention should go into detailing specific alternatives to current policies and trends.

These and many other issues will have to be addressed by the WSF process. It is by no means a perfect process. But, perhaps, if we wait for a perfect process to be handed to us on a platter, we shall wait in vain. Let us work with the process to make it more inclusive, more equipped to confront the challenge posed by imperialist globalisation.

(Concluded)