By Tasos Papadimitriou

Getting a grip

I personally found a lot of the criticisms against the London ESF rather ridiculous. Alexandra Palace was almost compared to Bastille, the registration fee (slightly over the price of the transport pass it included) was deemed as sign of its corporate character, and the GLA funding as the irrefutable evidence of its subordination to sell- out bureaucrats.
Florence received support from the regional government and Paris was hugely funded by the right-wing French government and four municipal authorities. As far as I know, that didn’t become an issue. The sheer scale and the infrastructural and organizational requirements of the ESF demand big sponsors (it wasn’t exactly British Aerospace, was it?). It would be much more consistent to denounce outright such gatherings on all those grounds, than to propose completely implausible alternatives.

The wider issue, of course, here is the alleged exclusionary, top-down, undemocratic and bureaucratic way the whole process was organized. I don’t pretend to understand the full dynamics of it and my involvement in the preparation has been partial, but I fear that a lot of people spent the preparatory months chasing spectres. True, left to their own devices, there are organizations (no, I won’t say the name!) that might like to exert much tighter control over the process. But, if anything, this movement has developed an organic intolerance of such practices. Crude manifestations of hierarchy are almost instinctively rejected and everybody knows that.
 Moreover, as things stand, the ESF is too open, decentralised and diverse - I would even add inconsequential - to be hijacked or manipulated in any meaningful way. [In some other respects, it is not open enough, but I’ll get back to that later]
One must try really hard to find an issue that is not included in its agenda (comparative thematic emphasis may subtly indicate current preoccupations within the involved part of the movement but it is much more random than the result of following a line imposed from above), and no decisions are taken. Control what and why exactly?
It is not conspiracies in corridors and back rooms but indirect exclusion due to lack of resources and information as well as creating an alienating environment that we have to worry about. And constant bickering is doing nothing to enhance and widen participation.

The Greek political landscape, full of its own landmarks of in-fighting, can almost guarantee the potential for similar antagonisms in the next ESF (you can trust us on that; we can deliver!). Let’s save our energy for the real challenges.
The European Preparatory Assembly
While sharing the concerns about the role of Local Social Fora, we must not forget that the ESF is not a national event/process and it is on the European level that decisions are taken. Quite often in the run up to London, decisions were taken here, only to be overturned in the European assembly. I don’t see the choice of the host country as particularly important, and I could also argue that having the ESF in a country without a high level of grassroots mobilization could kick-start and facilitate such a development (even within the wider region, e.g. the Balkans, Central Europe etc).  
 The point, therefore, is to enhance democracy, representation and diversity on the European level and enable grassroots groups to get fully involved. Big organizations are advantageously resourced to participate consistently while smaller groups miss out on that empowering process. On-line discussion and consultation can go some way in addressing this imbalance, as could a more inclusive co-ordination on the national level.
 
What is the ESF for?

 The potential for multiple positive outcomes (whether we see the ESF as a process or as an event) is all too obvious. However, this potential is partially (and that’s a serious part) unrealized due to what seems to me as a double failure.
To put it crudely, the ESF serves neither as a recruitment fair for the movement nor as a laboratory for the development of its arsenal. These two functions are not mutually exclusive. The forum can accommodate both, as long as a lot of work is done in two directions.
First, outreach. The ESF needs to appeal to constituencies that are not instinctively drawn to such an event. I don’t think that the average Londoner, let alone the British public, was even aware of something happening and the media, with the exception of The Guardian which was a sponsor, virtually ignored it.  The forum’s diversity, vibrancy and festive atmosphere make it too good an opportunity to capture people’s imagination instead of just preaching to the converted.

Second, the formulation of concrete alternatives and strategies. The forum can not of course act as a representative legislative body or decide on a political programme. What it can act as, though, is a bright platform on which the very diverse analytical work that has already been done on specific issues and strategies can be brought together, debated upon and synthesised when possible. The point is not to come to a consensus; that is neither possible nor even necessary. What’s important is that ideas are analysed and contrasted, their advantages and drawbacks clearly elaborated, their starting and finishing points thoroughly mapped out. It will then be the task of the forum to publicise and champion this process and its outcomes as widely as possible, to put them out there as serious and concrete points of reference for the movement to draw on in present and future struggles.     In practical terms, this could take the form of choosing a couple of issues each time and then having an opening plenary that will map out the process, a sufficient number of seminars that will tackle their different dimensions and a final plenary where the various approaches and ideas will be presented and debated upon.

This will hardly be a straightforward, easy or simple path. Blood will be spilled over the choice of issues. A lot of work is needed before and during the forum to break down each topic, maintain inter-connections within a coherent framework and enable synthesizing procedures. A significant amount of preparatory work will be demanded by advocates of diverse perspectives. The necessarily centralized nature of such a process will be anathema to many, but, for example, the overall number of centrally planned sessions within the ESF doesn’t need to increase. Everybody recognizes the need for concrete analyses and alternatives; this is one way for the forum to contribute to that aspiration.

Tasos Papadimitriou
University of Kent at Canterbury
Email: tasos@email.com