Blogging the WSF

Mumbai, Jan 18 - Last night was a highlight of the whole WSF for me, a ZNet-connected dinner put on by Michael Albert, where I got the chance to meet folks who I'd known of, face-to-face, which was really exciting and powerful. Perhaps this is part of the complementary real-world face-to-face function of the WSF, complementing the digital world social forum made up by the activist section of the internet.

For example, having seen and admired tons of stuff written or sponsored by Rania Masri in the course of the last few years of anti-sanctions/anti-war campaigning, and having corresponded a tiny bit during that time, it was great to meet her at the dinner and fix up to meet to talk about Iraq campaigning today.

Several people I was hoping to meet are not coming to WSF after all, and that affects the value of my coming here quite a lot. Which is an interesting reflection on the power of face-to-face communication.

This morning I sat in on the beginning of a South Asian diaspora meeting, an extraordinary range of talents and interests and commitments in a room with about 30 people in it (mostly from the US - in fact they could have had a Chicago South Asian diaspora meeting all by itself - with a few from the UK). The point was made that South Asians have contributed a lot to the political activity of their countries of residence as well as in supporting movements back in South Asia (sometimes rather damagingly, as in the funding of far-right Hindu groups).

As Michael Albert pointed out in his blog, there are many many more people out on the streets than in the meetings. I think this may be in part because of the lack of Hindi translation facilities. I don't know. There are a lot of poor people from Indian mass organizations here (perhaps tens of thousands?) and the predominantly English-language fora are of no use to them. This is, I guess, a language issue and a class issue, as well as a resources issue (from the point of view of the organizers). Nevertheless, there is a sense of liberation in the air.

My growing sense, based on the experience of the different world being created on the streets and paths of the WSF site, as described in Sonali's blog, is that the WSF is, in part, an assertion of self-esteem and self-confidence on the part of the South. Yes, there is disorganization and there are delays, but there is an inescapable sense of massive achievement in creating this vibrant alternative open space. An achievement of the South, largely for the South.

Agreeing with this characterization (with qualifications) in conversation at the ZNet dinner last night, Jai Sen, for a while a member of the India Organizing Committee, questioned the lasting impact of the WSF. What are the political impacts of the WSF going to be - especially here in India? Earlier in the day,a Kathmandu journalist, not politically committed, had asked me what the point of this really was, since it was not protest directed at, or in the presence of, those who make decisions.

In today's edition of Terra Viva, a daily newspaper of the WSF (produced by InterPress News Agency with Oxfam funding), Roberto Savio, member of the WSF International Committee warns that, 'If in the coming year there is no reform of the structure of the WSF, the forums may end up being of use only to their participants', just 'an occasion of enormous gratification' for them.

I think this may be going too far, but it is certainly true that if there are to be lasting political consequences from each WSF, as Jai Sen was pointing to last night (he said that in the absence of such effects, the WSF might not be 'real politics'), there will have to be significant changes. I suspect that too often even the 'workshops' consist of too many speakers speaking for too long to tell the audience what it already believes. The South Asian diaspora meeting I just left (I would guess) may be almost unique in giving every participant the opportunity to speak as it started with an introductory go-round. The values of the WSF are participatory and grassroots, but the form of many (I would guess most) meetings is unilateral and top-down.

The question is whether the changes have to be in the structure of the WSF (I would guess so, in small part) or more in the culture and forms of organization inspired in and taken up by the various movements and groups and organizations holding events in the WSF Open Space. I think the latter is much more important, though the WSF organizing core can help to facilitate and build good practice, no doubt. What I detect in the call for the 'elaboration' of a WSF 'common platform' (Roberto Savio) is a rather worrying move towards transforming the Social Forum from an Open Space into a Movement or an Organization or a Coalition, which would, I believe, damage its value immensely.

The streets are noisy, there are constant parades and dances, there is bunting everywhere advertising meetings, posters splashed on every conceivable surface, this *is* a fiesta of resistance. And in the midst of this gaiety and hubbub, important connections are being made, organizationally and personally - sometimes at the same time. For me personally, I suspect that the South Asian diaspora network being set up today could be of lasting significance, for example. A lasting personal and political consequence of WSF 2004.