Transcripts
"The World Social Forum moves on"
by Benoit Borrits
Porto Alegre, Brazil
There has been a subtle shift from raw anti-capitalism to the primacy of democracy over markets
While the theme of the first World Social Forum (WSF) was the analysis of the effects of neo-liberal globalisation and that of the second, the search for alternatives to neo-liberalism, the third Forum this February took place under the banner of action against neo-liberalism. This was timely given the looming war in Iraq. This presentation should not, however, lead one to think that the WSF has become the centre of resistance to neo-liberalism, an event that would itself be a stage for action.
It is perhaps worth recalling the WSF’s Charter of Principles: the WSF provides a forum for debate between social movements who wish to resist “neo-liberalism, the domination of capital and all forms of imperialism”. The alternatives proposed at the WSF “aim to generate a vision of a globalisation that respects universal human rights, those of all men and women of all nations, together with those of the environment, a vision to be supported by international, democratic systems and institutions serving social justice, equality and the sovereignty of humanity”.
From the open character of this Charter, the WSF has over the last 3 years proved its capacity to unite several thousand organisations ranging from those that struggle against neo-liberalism, for the environment, in solidarity with the third world, to feminist, union, peasant, social economist and religious based groups. While not official delegates at the Forum, political parties are present as observers; their role is to listen to these social movements in order to translate into political life what is expressed at the Forum.
Strength in numbers
This third Forum surpassed its predecessors with more than 100,000 delegates. All those present who had taken part in the second Forum (which had gathered together more than 55,000 delegates) were surprised by the sheer size of the Opening Day March on January 23. Those marching included many new faces: alongside local trade unions such as CUT, CONAE and MST and ecological or alternative associations such as Greenpeace, ATTAC and Oxfam, numerous European and Asian trade unions were present (CSC from Belgium, CGIL and CISL from Italy and KTCU from Korea) and religious groups such as the Readers of La Vie, the Anglican Church of Brazil and a muslim group from Malaysia. After 3 hours marching (along a route that normally takes a half hour to stroll) the marchers descended on the Sol Amphitheatre for the Opening Ceremony.
Given the possibility of war in Iraq, the Forum opened under the image of peace. From the speeches and numerous Palestinian flags, it was clear that the Palestinian people’s right to self determination was a theme close to Brazilian hearts. This Forum will also be remembered for the significant presence of parliamentary representatives. While the theme of the Forum was action, no-one doubts that political struggle for another world forms an important part of the process of action. But if the politicians or representatives of international institutions often show themselves to be in agreement with social movements, we are often disappointed by their efforts to engage these themes in practice.
A new debate emerges
From many of the round table debates I witnessed, it seems that the debate over “sovereignty or another globalisation” has become “passé”. One of the strongest themes of the Forum was that of the primacy of democracy over the market. Everyone was in agreement that nation states should re-establish prerogatives vis-à-vis the excesses of capitalism and that this return to sovereignty should be counterbalanced by international democratic institutions permitting respect of fundamental human rights, which can come in a variety of forms, amongst which are civil rights, social rights and the right to possess a clean planet for ourselves and future generations.
That implies that we believe the right of developing countries to pollute must be limited. The real debate focussed on what new institutions could replace those already in existence. The International Court of Justice, recognised by 85 countries (but not the United States) is an example. One speaker proposed a World Citizens Parliament. It was interesting to see Mario Soares (from the PS in Portugal) declare this a “good idea”.
The gap between politicians and social movements was most apparent during the debates on financial crises and financial alternatives. While elimination of third world debt was discussed everywhere, no initiative that would represent real action was proposed. Even more worrying, the Brazilian Minister for Social Affairs, José Dirceu from the PT party, declared that the issue was not a problem of external debt but rather one of internal debt; it was Brazilian households who had accumulated the debt. According to him to cancel Brazilian debt would destroy Brazilian savings, which is not what his government was elected to do.
Recapturing democracy
It was also noteworthy that the debate over whether to destroy capitalism was absent: it has become secondary. Everyone agrees on the need to recapture democratic space from capitalism. From this common standpoint, some think that capitalism can be subjugated while others think the opposite; that a blow struck against neo-liberalism would and should sound the death knell for capitalism. The absence of open debate on the extent to which capitalism should be reformed did not, however, mean that there were not a number of workshops whose work was clearly anti-capitalist in its thrust.
Some, notably the mass media, tried desperately to instigate a debate between the World Social Forum and the World Economic Forum (WEF) at Davos. We saw Jose Maria Figures, Director General of the WEF and former president of Costa Rica interviewed on “Terra Nova”, the official daily of the Social Forum. Even more significant was the trip by Lula between Porto Alegre and Davos. However, Candido Grzybowski (organiser of the Social Forum) repeated during the closing press meeting that there cannot be a dialogue between the Fora because there is no representative of the Social Forum. The Social Forum is, above all else, a space for debate and nobody is authorised to speak in its name (this is the reason why there is no Final Declaration).
It is too soon to try to assess the impact of World Social Forum no. 3 and indeed one could understandably ask whether this is even possible. The proposals for action which came out of the debates will be made public shortly and we will be able to form an initial impression. Whatever the case, the succession of Social Fora over the last 3 years (be they on a World, Regional or Local level) represents a new political phenomenon which favours the emergence of a world citizenship and the creation of new relations between citizens and national and international institutions; no-one can doubt that these Fora are shaping the history of our world.
Benoit Borrits
benoit.borrits@wanadoo.fr
Benoit is a former chairman of Friends of LMD.
© Friends Of Le Monde Diplomatique
