LeMondeDip:CHANGED LANDSCAPE THE CAMPAIGN FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
MichaelP
Le Monde diplomatique -- November 2003
Another world is possible
___________________________________________________________
Social forums form a federation of resistance to neoliberal
policies, and the Second European Social Forum in Paris this
month may help to build a Europe not governed wholly by finance.
By FRANGOIS HOUTART *
* Frangois Houtart is head of Centre tricontinental, a
resources centre for counter-globalisation movements, which
publishes the magazine Alternatives Sud, Louvain-la-Neuve,
Belgium
___________________________________________________________
SMALL cotton producers in West Africa, subsistence farmers in Chiapas or
Ecuador, landless peasants in Brazil, the poor in Bangkok, water users in
Bolivia or Sri Lanka, women supporting families by casual labour, the
long-term unemployed, modern nomads and migrants: all are subject to the
same laws of value but all are now vulnerable. Some because of the
relationship between income and capital, others because of financial and
legal mechanisms. Economic globalisation has changed these systems because
of the preponderance of financial capital and the weight of debt, because
of fiscal paradises, high interest rates, structural adjustment
programmes, damage to welfare states and World Trade Organisation (WTO)
rules. Subcontracting has increased; deregulation, and with it shrinking
social protection and sometimes incomes, is the norm.
Thirty years of attacks on work and state to facilitate the accumulation
of capital (following the principles of the Washington Consensus) and 10
years of triumphant neoliberalism since the fall of the Berlin Wall have
changed the landscape of the campaign for social justice (1). At first
such campaigns were fragmented while economic decision-making became
increasingly consistent and powerful. Fragmentation was exacerbated by
failures and problems that stripped the traditional opposition forces of
credibility. Real socialism failed, leftwing opposition parties were weak
and hampered by their vertical structures, communist parties died out and
social democracy was compromised. Despite this, people from all sections
of society came together enthusiastically. With the fusion of two models
of resistance - old movements (mainly unions) and new players of the 21st
century - the counter-globalisation movement has emerged (2).
New initiatives began during the 1990s, including People's Power 21 (an
alliance of Asian movements), the anti-neoliberal summit organised by the
Zapatistas in Chiapas, the Other Davos (3), and Attac's international
meetings in Paris in 1999. Besides the aim of opposing the policies of
those in power, there gradually emerged the idea of creating a
counterweight. Beside the mass assemblies of Seattle (1999), Genoa (2001)
and Cancun (2003), the World Social Forum (WSF) in Porto Alegre provided
an alternative summit to the World Economic Forum in Davos.
It was not easy to bring together so many heterogeneous resistance
movements. Though the basis of these gatherings was set out in the WSF's
charter, the campaign against neoliberalism and the search for
alternatives encompasses people from very different geographical,
sociological and cultural backgrounds. This diversity is both a strength
and a weakness. There is a worldwide tendency to reject organised resist
ance in favour of spontaneous initiatives, popular with many young
participants.
Since 1999 two distinct initiatives have brought tens of thousands of
people together. There have been protests against major worldwide
political or economic conferences - the World Bank, the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), the WTO, the European Union. There have also been the
more institutional social forums, from the WSF to continental, national or
local meetings. These are now an established political fact. It makes
sense for resistance to neo-liberal globalisation to continue on the usual
model of demonstrations and counter-summits. But there are questions about
the nature, aims, workings and future of the social forums. Debates are
raging on all these issues, more precisely defined as time goes on. It
would be impossible to develop an alternative political agenda without
contradictions or tension.
Some call it the movement of movements. In fact the word forum is better
suited to these events, where people meet, discuss and think (4). There is
no majority voting at meetings, which do not produce closing statements or
even instructions. These are the practical consequences of having
heterogeneous participants; anything else would lead to paralysis or
break-up. There are no chairmen or steering committees, just a
secretariat, plus an international council for the WSF.
This catalytic role has its downside. Participants can come up with
suggestions, as at Porto Alegre in 2003, when they had the idea of
demonstrating against the impending war against Iraq (5). That makes it
hard to define political objectives. But what effect could such objectives
have? Of course, the general objectives defined in the forums' charter
provide some focus for the assemblies, but there are major differences of
opinion over what is wrong with the current system and what alternatives
to propose. To rage against the machine is one thing; to mount a serious
campaign against it another. Solutions put forward range from humanising
the capitalist system to replacing it with an entirely different
philosophy. Still, the fact that such an inclusive movement has managed to
build up a collective social consciousness worldwide is an achievement. It
has replaced Margaret Thatcher's "There is no alternative" with "Another
world is possible".
But you can't change the world with a slogan. Action remains essential and
political effectiveness indispensable. This is the reason behind the
constitution, within the forums, of a council incorporating unions,
agricultural workers' movements, Attac and other organisations, whose
representatives take up positions collect ively. For similar reasons,
there has been a limited, cautious opening up to mainstream politics.
Though wary of being manipulated, the movement believes that such contacts
are necessary for the proper representation of its proposed alternatives.
Nevertheless the question of how the forums should interact with political
parties - if at all - is far from resolved, and attitudes are likely to
change during the World Social Forum in Mumbai in January 2004.
The forums' structure reflects their nature and their goals. Their
diversity requires them to be highly inclusive and flexible but their aim
demands coherence and efficiency. The forums are a movement of mass
participation, unlike the elitism of Davos. This is a great strength. The
big weakness is the constant risk of a collapse into enjoyable anarchy.
Until now the balance has been maintained thanks to a shared awareness of
the adversary's aggressive nature, to a spirit of tolerance within the
movement and, in the WSF, to the Brazilian organisers' intelligence.
At the birth of the first communist International, Marx and Engels faced a
similar situation: there was a variety of organisations with different
levels of social awareness, with unions, illegal in many countries, in a
minority. Their goal was different: to bring the working class into the
international political arena. Yet the founders insisted on avoiding
authoritarianism, top-down decision-making, or adoption of positions not
agreed upon across the whole movement. Later, when the International's
structure became ver tical and authoritarian, it broke up.
The social forums face internal and external problems. Internally, they
bring together workers' unions of different political orientations,
alongside many other social movements, each with its own culture of
activism. NGOs are also part of the movement, and there is a danger that
they could dominate the debate through their substantial personal and
financial resources. Individual and institutional agendas influence the
speeches and debates. And the proliferation and size of the WSF and the
continental forums (100,000 people at Porto Alegre, 40,000 at Hyderabad,
40,000 at Florence) create logistical and financial problems.
Millions of dollars are needed for the budgets for such projects, mostly
coming from the partici pants' registration payments. Public authorities
made a vital contribution to the infrastructure needed in Brazil, Italy
and France, but this will not be the case in India. And international
foundations have provided funds for the preparation and organisation of
the forums (6). But it is uncertain if such financial assistance will
continue at the same level, or if numbers of participants will go on
growing: the forums may be much less crowded in future.
The dominance of the middle classes and the poor representation of the
working classes can be seen in the movement's language and sometimes in
its ideology. Some accuse the forums of articulating a reformist view,
which is that of the majority of participating organisations. But more
radical positions are also represented, and the wealth of knowledge,
analysis and ideas expressed allows shared social consciousness to
develop. The need to create a strong global pole of opposition has
facilitated alliances that would previously have been unthinkable, with
some radicals recognising that short-term change must be reformist (just
as long as it doesn't stop there).
External problems are also important. The system has found ways of
defending itself. Bureaucratic nuisances are on the increase, penal
legislation is being changed and activists are grouped with terrorists. In
some countries social movements are being criminalised. On a more
insidious level, the system undermines the movement by co-opting its
terminology, altering the meaning of concepts like civil society, partici
pation and the fight against poverty, and by involving campaign groups and
NGOs in develop ment programmes funded by the World Bank, or in
international meetings such as Davos.
The media tends to present the events as cultural curiosities,
concentrating on colourful details or, where there are demonstrations
against major decision-making powers, concentrating on violence committed
by a minority or, as in Genoa in 2001, the result of police provocation.
Behind outbreaks of violence there lies a genuine debate between
moderates, keen to ground the movement and attract many participants to
reach critical mass, and others who, exasperated by the system's capacity
to absorb opposition while continuing on its destructive course, favour
the use of force.
But beyond these problems a great step is being taken. A project is being
worked on that, while not ready yet, could be a reality in the future.
What kind of society do we want? What kind of education, health,
transport, media, agriculture? The all-encompassing market, with its
undesirable side-effects, is no longer the only way. This conviction must
be translated into alternative medium- and long-term goals, in economics,
politics, society and culture.
For this to happen, symbiosis between social movements and politically
engaged intellectuals is crucial. The next WSF in Mumbai will further
internationalise the movement, releasing it from the Latin American and
European dominance of Porto Alegre. But how to bring the movement's
alternatives into the political arena at a local, continental or global
level? It cannot be done through one party with a monopoly on the truth,
but by a convergence of different political players, through new forms,
permanent or occasional. The social forums, which are neither an
activists' Woodstock nor fifth International, are now the assemblies of a
changing society.
________________________________________________________
(1) Laurent Delcourt, Bernard Duterme and Frangois Polet, "Forces et
faiblesses du mouvement des mouvements", Politique, n0 28, Paris, February
2003.
(2) Christophe Aguiton, Le Monde nous Appartient, Paris, Plon, 2001;
Thomas Ponniah and William F Fisher, Another World is Possible, Zed books,
London, 2003.
(3) Frangois Houtart and Frangois Polet, L'Autre Davos, Paris,
l'Harmattan, 1999.
(4) Chico Whitaker, notes for the debate on the World Social Forum, WSF,
2002.
(5) On 15 February 2003 these demonstrations brought together over 15
million people around the world.
(6) Details of funding at www.wsfindia.org