By Roberto Savio and - -
ROME, Jan 1 2004 (IPS)

At its January meeting in Mumbai, India, the World Social Forum (WSF) will reach its maximum expansion, writes Roberto Savio, founder and president emeritus of the IPS agency, and member of the International Committee of the World Social Forum (WSF). Each of the preceding three Forums greatly exceeded all expectations raised when the decision was first taken to hold in Porto Alegre, Brazil.. The numbers tell the tale: 10,000 were expected to attend in January 2001; 50,000 came. Attendance rose to 75,000 the next year and to 100,000 in 2003. More important than the number of participants was the galaxy of organisations of every type and level that came together to assert that \’\’another world is possible\’\’. The Forum provides an occasion of enormous gratification for its participants. The days are full of intense debate where no differences separate the rich and poor, farmers and intellectuals, men and women, and a stunning range of political positions are presented and countered. All leave with their commitment to idealism strengthened and deepened. And yet none of this succeeds in producing an impact on the political world and the international institutions.

At its January meeting in Mumbai, India, the World Social Forum (WSF) will reach its maximum expansion. Each of the preceding three Forums greatly exceeded all expectations raised when the decision was first taken to hold in Porto Alegre, Brazil, an alternative meeting to the Davos World Economic Forum. The numbers tell the tale: 10,000 were expected to attend in January 2001; 50,000 came. Attendance rose to 75,000 the next year and to 100,000 in 2003. More important than the number of participants was the galaxy of organisations of every type and level that came together to assert that ”another world is possible”.

But this movement has been ignored by the political system, which grows each day more disconnected from citizens in a democracy that is increasingly restricted and controlled by a class of political professionals. One need only note the response to the peace marches on February 15, 2003, which drew more than 100 million protesters around the world: Aznar ignored them, Blair declared that the participants were wrong, Berlusconi argued that the massive turnout claimed was inflated by the international communist forces, while Bush dismissed the phenomenon as a ”focus group”.

On the other hand, it must be asked why not one of these leaders saw his electoral support wither despite the millions protesting their policies. This phenomenon, I think, leads to the main problem facing the WSF.

The Forum provides an occasion of enormous gratification for its participants. The days are full of intense debate where no differences separate the rich and poor, farmers and intellectuals, men and women, and a stunning range of political positions are presented and countered. All leave with their commitment to idealism strengthened and deepened. And yet none of this succeeds in producing an impact on the political world and the international institutions.

If in the coming year there is no reform of the structure of the WSF, the forums may end up being of use only to their participants. Though the interchange of ideas and experience is important, it is essential to study how to operate within and to influence the institutional and political reality of which we are a part.

What has happened at the WSF is that in order to accommodate such a wide range of experience and approaches, a choice was made to skirt any attempt to adopt institutional or organisational structures. Yet the success of forums cannot be measured solely on the basis of the number of participants and their geographic expansion; it is also important to assess whether they are contributing to the realisation of the Forum’s founding conviction that another world is possible.

The movement faces three equally important challenges: participation (which eludes the political system more and more each day), mobilisation, and the design and implementation of plans for action and other responses to the innumerable disasters created by the neoliberal system.

It is impossible to meet these challenges at the WSF, where there could never be enough participants to make the forum really universal. In Porto Alegre, the majority of participants were Brazilians, and in Mumbai they will be Indians. Only deepening the current path, through the expansion of regional, national, and thematic forums, can the problem of FSM participation be solved.

The second challenge is mobilisation, which cannot be met simply by increasing attendance at the WSF. What is needed is what last February’s anti-war marches provided: an annual gathering around an issue that channels the common concerns of citizens and brings together the millions of people who are left out of national and international decision-making.

The third challenge is elaboration, which is certain to open up divisions between participants, who hold a wide range of positions. Just as it is easy to build a common opposition, it is very difficult to come to an agreement on alternatives.

In reality, there is an underlying fear of awakening the incipient antagonism between the first generation of civil society, which came into being to address questions of development (the treatment of women, the environment, human rights) and the second generation which evolved out of the fight against globalisation. The fundamental difference between the two is the latter’s greater radicalism.

I believe that debate on these questions is necessary and that eventually agreement can be reached on common platforms. The alternative would be a terrible waste: the degeneration of the FSM into a giant festival for the left and progressive — and little more. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: