The following notes, based on a collective debate that
took place in Rome on November 8th, aim at disseminating a number of
considerations and proposals of change regarding the organization and
development process of the European Social Forum, prior to the extraordinary
meeting of the European social movements, which will be held in Paris
on December 18th and 19th.
1.
The London Social Forum has already been a matter of debate and its
events have already been discussed in great depth and length; the overall
conclusion derived from both positive and negative feedback is that
there is a necessity to reassess the whole preparatory phase as well
as the final one. The list of targets, as defined during the London
Social Movement, against war, neo-liberalism and racism cannot be achieved
alone by the regular meetings, they need to be incorporated into activities
as part of the European networks with the scope of creating an ‘auto-reform’
within the boundaries of the Social Forum. The preparation and the “managing”
of the European initiatives - already decided in London - must be brought
to common responsibility and, in Paris, we need to define methods, contents
and workshops to achieve these goals.
Until now we highlitghted the “event” of
the Forum, which is still a fundamental element, and the prapatory process
has been considered as a mere organisational matter; this must not be
the case, the preparatory meetings should be the place where networks
and their members become protagonists of the Forum’s development,
and decide and coordinate the European campaigns. The boundaries of
the Forum are there not only to provide a platform for ‘public
speech’ but also to work on objectives, campaigns, plans for implementation
and mobilisation of strategies: in short put words into actions and
practise what we preach.
What we have witnessed up to now, is a decision-making
process based on meetings that represented national realities only.
As a consequence, the European networks had little influence, while
the role of the “local” delegates and organizing committee
was excessively predominant; the obsessive attention toward the speakers,
as if they were issues of high relevance and prestige; a deadline of
meeting which is too short (yearly) are an obstacle to the project and
the effective organization.
2.
The process of organisation and management of the forum must be European
and not “delegated” to the guest organizing committee, except
for the inevitable “national” features; this must involve
all the realities, which share values and goals and want to set up debates
and exchange their expertise. The method of approval in the decision-making
process must be preserved; our relation with the authorities cannot
influence any stage of the preparation and development of the Forum.
3.
A new link is emerging between plenary meetings, workshops and theme
discussions, that are organized by networks, and there is also a more
explicit relationship between the Forum seen as a great “space
for learning” and a place of discussion and organization of networks
and struggles. The social Forums, inlcuding the first held in Porto
Alegre, were born as public spaces for the creation of alternatives:
this is a process, of course, but this role must be strongly renewed
as the necessary result from the link between the “space for learning”
and the “organization of networks, campaigns, struggles”;
between social movements and politics; between the experiences and capabilities
of activists and intellectuals, who want a different world.
This double role, not easily manageable, is to be treasured
and can be fuelled if the networks, the associations, the local Forums
and the movements are involved in the organisation of the ESF from the
very first day. In such a way, plenary meetings and workshops can be
the “cultural projection” of the themes they carry on. This
is an ineluctable step, if we want to avoid the domination of the Forum
by the leaders of the social movements, who can also play the role of
cultural education and information; therefore, it is necessary to have
qualified persons involved in the plenary meetings and workshops. “No
global” and experts must find their own space to enhance the role
of the “space for learning” again. The exponents of networks,
associations, trade unions can have their more natural placement in
Forum’s meetings and thematic workshops that are organized by
netwoks, supposed to be integral parts of the Forum, without being excluded
from considerations and moments of education; also the debate on specific
themes between political parties and movements can be the occasion for
common efforts and possible confluence of ideas.
4.
The approach to workshops and plenary sessions has to be focused on
the “things to do”, the organized campaigns, the thematic
networks; so a third level in the forums is then required: the level
of the united “thematic meetings” (education, HS, temporary
workers, migrants, public services, jobs etc.) from which manifestos
and struggle initiatives might come out;
A balance between Forum’s function of “space
for learning” and place of networks and struggle organizations
is needed, so that the very meeting of social movements can become the
final place where speakers are principally, though not exclusively,
the representatives of meetings and workshops. The meeting of the social
movements can be no longer a “separate world”, but the final
place of the Forum, where people decide on the proposals (also thematic
proposals), which have come out from the plenary meetings, seminars
and workshops: this would enable us to write the final document and
agenda, not as a result of an exhausting mediation, but as an expression
of public discussions and efforts of mobilization that would have already
gained the support of the networks.
5.
The introduction of various forces in single countries cannot be delegated
only to the structures of the organizing country, whose “grievances”
make sometimes the decisional and organizing phase difficult. This appears
decisive also in Greece, where important TU, political and social areas
are still out of the ESF process, and we have to act so as to have them
in the “Athens process”. In this sense, it is important
to bring the proposal made in London in again, i.e. to create –
and we need to start ritgh now, on the occasion of the Paris meeting
- an European delegation of the ESF, which is able to involve the most
significant greek components that aren’t included in the ESF,
into this process.
6.
The extension of lapse between a Forum and another (from one year to
one year and half) is well accepted: maybe we could also agree for two
years (with a regular deadline in spring), maintaining a travelling
preparatory meeting every 3/4 months, with decisional and operative
features, that can serve as a “dissemination campaign” for
those countries, which are not involved in the ESF process yet.
More than a hundred thousand people were present at
the three European Social Forums: events such as these do not often
occur in the political history. They have created new spaces and ways
of participation, in which the old differences between elaboration and
social practice, between political, TU and social areas have gradually
disappeared, making room for values, ideas and participation, and creating
communally new expressions of “making politics”. It’s
our common responsibility not to squander all of it.
The work group for the meeting of Paris - Italy