Blogging the WSF

Muscat, Jan 21 -  
That was the title of one of the main WSF-organized sessions in Mumbai yesterday. A huge panel of people, with speakers from Korea, India, Portugal, France, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa and Israel. Well, actually, the Brazilian was Chico Whitaker, the international secretary of the WSF, acting as chair of the meeting - in a very warm and human way.

Yesterday I read an essay by Chico Whitaker in 'WSF: Challenging Empires', the new collection edited by Jai Sen and others (it is a truly stupendous book, the first on the WSF phenomenon, and a great achievement of constructive self-criticism by the active global citizenry embodied in the WSF). The essay, circulated last spring, clarified the distinction between the WSF as a 'space' and the intention of some to turn it from that into a 'movement of movements'. A 'space' at the disposal of those who come into it, to use for their own purposes. A 'movement' on the other hand, has some element of leadership and authority (I'm interpolating here, don't have the book to hand), and has 'specific objectives' (this is his phrase). The space is not neutral - the WSF is against neoliberalism - but it has no specific objectives.

The discussion circled around this central issue, without advancing the debate, so far as I could see. It was highly abstract. Roberto Savio amusingly related how his suggestions for a change to the WSF process has had to adopt. His latest terminology is 'mechanism': we need 'mechanisms' for creating an alternative vision and strategy and plan of action to advance us towards 'Another World'. Christophe Aguiton of Attac France suggested that the debate over 'space' and 'movement' was over, resolved in favour of space. This seems a rather hasty statement.

One of the defining characteristics of 'WSF as space' is the principle embodied in its Charter, that there will be no 'Final Declaration' of the WSF, which might be taken as attempting to represent all participants.

Returning to the Chico Whitaker essay referred to earlier (which, incidentally, I think is a work of genius), one of the concerns identified in that essay is the growing (self-)importance at the WSF of 'the Assembly of the Social Movements', a creation of Attac, Focus on the Global South and other powerful elements of the WSF. Chico Whitaker notes that the organizers of the Assembly (a group of individuals and groups which overlaps with the WSF International Council, I am told) have managed to move the Assembly to the last day of the WSF. He warns that the Assembly's final declaration may come to be seen, at least by the media, as the expression of the WSF as a whole, and thus undermine 'WSF as space'. Groups and people may feel they must struggle to include their projects and agendas in the statement, and that the results of this contest may undermine the pluralism and mutual tolerance. (My apologies if this is a slightly inaccurate rendition of the argument - read the book!)

Well, that is precisely what happened the last two days. There was a tussle at the Anti-War Assembly over the final statement of that body (with an undemocratic procedure), in large part because that statement was going to be submitted to the Assembly of Social Movements (ASM). Then the Anti-War Assembly's statement was chopped to pieces after being submitted to the ASM drafting group. Then there was a relatively brief (but excruciating) tussle at the ASM over the final declaration, which resulted in no decision. Then the matter was referred to the 'steering group' which met this morning to consider all viewpoints and devise a new statement.

This is not democracy. This is not participatory. This is not consensus.

Firstly, what is the real value of the final statement? It was suggested to me that the main value was to make the call for 20 March as a day for international action against the US/UK occupation of Iraq. Why not, if that is required, simply write a call to action, and get signatures from every person and group attending WSF who wants to/is empowered to sign it?

Secondly, the processes used are frustrating and anti-democratic. Popular movements have developed two different, equally rigorous, methods for decision-mking in large groups. The standard model of the resolution, the proposer-seconder, the call for speeches for and against, taking a resolution in parts if necessary, and then a vote or referral to some other body. Then, more recently, the consensus decision-making process (which can be more elaborate but to take the essence) asks people who oppose a proposal to clarify whether they absolutely cannot live with it (the veto of 'block'), whether they have grave objections, but are prepared to stand aside in the interests of group unity, whether they have concerns which would modify the proposal, or whether they have queries or points of clarification which should be dealt with before making a decision. In 100% consensus, a single person's 'block' can stop a proposal.

Oscar Reyes, who I quoted yesterday, pointed out that the process used at WSF and ESF combines the worst of both systems, without the redeeming features of either. There is no rigorous examination of the case for and against. Equally, there is no attempt to empower and bring out the concerns of each individual present to create a better solution. What there is instead is a system of disconnected brief statements made by a random queue of people addressing different points one after the other, a process which gives supreme power to the chair/facilitator (as we saw with the anti-war assembly's 'telepathic' form of chairing).

We will make a better world, and we will make a better WSF, and we will make a better 'mechanism' for our movements.