1. A Promising Process
The first European Social Forums (ESF) set the stage for the construction
of the European alterglobalisation movement and successfully centred political
debate on neoliberal globalisation. Since the first World Social Forum
(WSF) held in Porto Alegre in January 2001, the Social Forums, and the
ESF in particular, have become the most visible public expression of the
alterglobalisation movement. Basing themselves on the Charter of Porto
Alegre, which has become an indispensable reference, the Forums have become
quasi-permanent processes of crystallization of new forces and struggles
that were previously rather disparate. Prior to the Forums the latter
acted in dispersed fashion, promoting alterglobalisation in a precocious
albeit strategically unfocused way. Today, critical movements benefit
from a wide array of tools of struggle and common objectives. This crystallization
has been accompanied by geographic expansion. The first three WSFs in
Brazil created the conditions for the incorporation into the alterglobalisation
movement of powerful social forces from South America, notably the peasant
and indigenous people’s movements. The Bombay WSF in 2004 likewise
integrated Indian social movements into the global struggle. The geopolitics
of alterglobalisation thus mirrors the process of neoliberal globalisation,
though its scope is still less all encompassing. It is to be hoped that
the WSF planned for 2007 in Africa will play a similar role to the 2004
WSF in India. The global movement still needs to expand its reach to Eastern
Europe, the Middle East and East Asia. China remains outside of this process,
for an undetermined period of time. Completing this geopolitical expansion
of alterglobalisation will require the promotion and development of Local
Social Forums in a number of countries. LSFs are prominent organising
tools favouring the embedding of the Forum process. The same can be said
of the National Social Forums that have emerged in a number of countries.
This process constitutes a major step forward in the struggle against
neoliberal globalisation. Nonetheless, its future development depends
on moving forward to new stages, thereby avoiding the threat of exhaustion,
immobility and lack of creativity. In this respect, self-criticism and
criticism are indispensable components of the dynamic of the Forums. We
have to be lucid about the state of the process. ATTAC, acting as a movement
on an international level, has been committed since its inception to the
construction of the Social Forums. As such, it has a double obligation.
Firstly, to reflect lucidly and uncompromisingly on the insufficiencies
and some of the recently witnessed drifts of the movement. Secondly, to
stimulate new thinking and propose new forms of action designed to strengthen
and amplify the global movement. The WSF has already undertaken to reinvent
its formula in 2005. The success of this reshaping will be judged in January.
The same kind of effort must occur on a European level.
2. Mixed results
The ESFs have generated mixed results regarding their three main missions:
The ideational debate, the elaboration of programmatic proposals, and
decision making for common action. The ideational debates occurred mostly
during the preparatory phases of the Forums and were reflected in the
programs of the plenary sessions. Being based on consensus, decision making
is inevitably the result of compromises reached by the different forces
involved in Forum preparation. This sometimes leads to apparently unsatisfying
outcomes. Thus during the three ESFs held until now, the space given to
war and racism was particularly important, leaving aside other major issues
such as economic, environmental and social questions, or the problem of
European construction. It is far from clear that the resulting thematic
hierarchy reflects the views of the majority of the social movements involved
in the Forum. This can be empirically verified by comparing requests (for
seminars and workshops) with the final programme of the plenary sessions.
The contrast between requests and outcomes questions the functioning and
the modes of discussion of the European Preparatory Assembly (EPA), which
manifestly finds it difficult to sustain political debate concerning the
strategic priorities of the movement. True, this assembly is ’open’
in the sense that all can participate in it. However, it has become apparent
that some organisations are far more active than others are because they
benefit from permanent memberships, financial means and political determination.
This fact should push the EPA to promote greater representation of all
the organisations involved. Moreover, the EPA’s most active core
organisations have remained the same over the past three years. This highlights
faithfulness and continuity. However, it also points to limits given that
the movement requires expansion and the integration of new organisations
into the core. The EPA being the essential locus of political construction
of the ESF it is essential to enrich its democratic character, its representation
and its participation. This will no doubt require setting up a system
of financial solidarity. This is also true for the ‘Assembly of Social
Movements’. In the course of the Forums themselves, some useful debates
occur during the seminars and workshops. However, the plenary sessions
are often reduced to a juxtaposition of speeches prepared in advance and
to media focused rhetorical exercises designed to enhance the organisations,
which fought their way to the podium. Despite the real substantive debates
that occurred during the ESFs, the Forums had three failings. The first,
which became apparent after the fact, is the lack of guidance for the
plenary seminars and workshops. This muddles the event for participants
who don’t know if the objective is to confront analyses, exchange
experiences or build programmatic alternatives. The second drawback is
a total absence of knowledge accumulation. While minutes of various sessions
are inconsistently drawn up, no method exists as yet to identify key points
raised, to broaden public debate around them, or to deepen work in a sustained
fashion. Hence, we have no means to ensure continuity and to measure progress.
This situation is unquestionably fuelling a feeling that the Forums are
repetitive. The third failing, made apparent in London, is ideological
drift. Preceding Forums had successfully avoided this but there were expressions
of intolerance, exchanges of insults, and pseudo debates without democratic
contradiction in London. Responsibility for this lies with some sectarian
political groups and religious organisations, as highlighted during the
seminars on Iraq or in debates over the French law on religious signs
in schools. These drifts threaten the ESF’s existence and cannot
be allowed to continue.
The programmatic dimension (elaboration of proposals) was presented by
some networks, which are progressing in their forum work, thanks to some
carefully prepared seminars during preliminary meetings. However, the
ESF is generally not the central locus of their elaboration. The ESF could
be used to give them public visibility. Yet this doesn’t generally
occur because of the insufficient attention given to this dimension of
forum work in the conception and structuring of the ESF’s. There
are no moments when alternatives can be given political visibility. Among
some organisers there is very limited interest, sometimes none at all,
in the establishment of a ‘memory’ of the forums. This serious
insufficiency is presently being partially dealt with but its solution
requires the mobilisation of human and financial resources. In this context,
the establishment of a database of the various proposals emanating from
the three ESFs should become a priority objective.
Decision making on common actions has largely been reduced to setting
the dates of common global events (15 February 2003, 19 March 2005). Setting
dates is obviously important but clearly insufficient. The compilation
by the ‘Assembly of Social Movements’ of all the other international
gatherings decided upon by the seminars is useful (though no one verifies
their implementation) but not essential. The ESFs have not as yet created
the conditions for the launch and implementation of real European-wide
mobilisations.
These critical comments should not obscure the positive sides of the process,
notably the progressive federation of new organisations, as we indicated
in point 1 or, more importantly, their convergence. Movements that had
no contact among each other are learning to work together; misgivings
and hindrances are being removed; the potential for common action is growing.
3. The need for greater imagination
The above appraisal implies the need to completely restructure the process.
The FSEs have multiple functions, some of which are already known, and
others, which have become apparent through experience. But we have to
imagine them as a holistic process. Our objective should be to translate
this into reality for Athens 2006.
First, the European Social Forum should have a European and social focus.
This does not in anyway mean that it should ignore the rest of the world.
However, the Forum must have an operational character for the Europeans
and take into account their national and continental contexts. Otherwise
the Forum merely becomes a well-intentioned gathering.
The three dimensions we referred to earlier (ideational debate, programmatic
elaboration, and action plans) have to be elaborated at distinct moments
and articulated among each other, while leaving open the possibility for
convergence.
In addition to these three dimensions, the ESFs have five other necessary
functions:
The information and permanent reception of participants, many
of who feel lost in the maelstrom of stands, flags, etc.
Cultural and popular education.
Presentation of participating organisations to the public
(which often is not aware of them).
The ’political’ function, strictly speaking. To
overcome the current hypocritical situation in which some hegemonic established
parties in the organising committee are omnipresent, either directly or
through screen organisations, the latter, while recognised, must be allocated
a circumscribed space in the Forums.
Lastly, unification through mass popular gatherings such as
occurred in Millau 2000 or Larzac 2003, with moments of collective action
(demonstrations, meetings, music, and cultural events).
The above implies a necessary reform of the process of preparation of
the ESFs, with three major objectives. First, the EPAs must become a real
locus of decision making. Second, political debate must occur over the
orientations to be implemented during the Forums. Lastly, the EPA’s
functioning must be improved through democratisation, better representation,
and expansion. The creation of democratic and representative national
committees may be a means to favour these objectives. In this regard,
we have to question the usefulness of the Assembly of Social Movements,
since the EPA is already supposed to encompass the whole social movement.
The EPA should be the locus for deepening the debate, for the construction
of permanent logistic tools (financing, computerisation, etc.), and for
articulation with the national preparatory committee of the host country.
As far as the timing of ESFs is concerned, a biannual rhythm, alternating
with the WSF, is appropriate to avoid the dissipation of militant energies
and the exhaustion of the financial resources of the various organisations.
A European gathering of the different ongoing campaigns could be held
between two ESFs. Its aim would be to discuss the main mobilisations of
the movement a year ahead. ATTAC France believes that the future of the
ESF depends on the acknowledgement of these imperatives and their translation
into action through adequate preparatory structures.
The Board of ATTAC France, 20 November 2004.