Civil Society, Europe, Headlines, World Social Forum

Q&A: &#39Everybody Leaves the Forum Happier, Wiser and Stronger&#39

Interview with Roberto Savio, member of the WSF International Committee

ROME, Jan 9 2008 (IPS) - Roberto Savio is probably among the best informed insiders at the World Social Forum (WSF). He has been on its international committee since it was created in 2001, and since 2003 he has been coordinator of the &#39media, culture and counter-hegemony&#39 thematic area.

He founded the Inter Press Service (IPS) news agency in 1964, as well as other news and information organisations, always with an emphasis on the developing world. He is now IPS President Emeritus. He is co-founder of Media Watch Global, based in Paris, and Chairman of the Board of the Alliance for a New Humanity, a foundation promoting the culture of peace.

Savio speaks with IPS Editor-in-Chief Miren Gutiérrez about the future of the WSF.

IPS: The World Social Forum (WSF) is an anti-globalisation movement, using the term &#39globalisation&#39 in a doctrinal sense, not a literal one. But the WSF is a global phenomenon…

Roberto Savio: The WSF is not a movement against globalisation; it is a movement against the kind of globalisation which is based only on the values of market and profit. That is a globalisation spawned by the Washington Consensus, the call for a New International Order made in the late eighties by the International Financial Institutions and the U.S. Treasury Department.

It also coincided with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and an unprecedented return to unilateralism in international relations, based on hegemony, military might, and the idea that the interests of the U.S. were automatically the interests of humankind, as President (George) Bush declared several times. The result of this kind of globalisation was to marginalise the United Nations, international law, and the call for social justice, sustainable development and other values which are enshrined in the constitutions of practically all countries.

Those who identify themselves with the WSF want another globalisation, where social justice, participation, democracy and people are also values. It is significant that when we started in 2001, we were considered a fringe movement; even by then President of Brazil. Now, seven years later, nobody defends any longer the Washington Consensus. The damages it did worldwide have prompted the IFIs to do some significant corrections, and even the Bush administration is having several changes of route.

And the next U.S. president, whoever he or she is, will subscribe to the Kyoto Agreement. And I find significant that this Pope, who can hardly be accused of radicalism, has spoken in his speech for the Epiphany about the dangers of this globalisation.

IPS: The WSF tends to meet in January, when its &#39rival&#39, the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos (Switzerland). The date was chosen to try to overshadow the WEF. How far do you think the WSF has imposed issues on the WEF agenda?

RS: The coincidence with the date of the WEF was not to overshadow it. At Davos a few thousand very powerful people meet, and nobody can overshadow that concentration of power. We just want to express our deep disagreement about the legitimacy of decisions taken in a venue where people gather because of their power, not because they have been delegated by anyone. And make clear that there are hundreds of thousands of people, without that kind of power, but who are the real citizens, who want a different world.

If you just go through the various agendas of the WEF, you can clearly see how after the establishment of the WSF, the WEF has brought into its agenda social themes, the environment, sustainability in economic growth, which were simply not there before. Also, several NGOs have been invited, but basically for cosmetic reasons. Nothing has changed really in their interpretation of the world.

IPS: The first WSF was a discovery: it made it possible for people from around the world to gather together and express their non-mainstream views. What is left from that first, fresh gathering?

RS: From the first WSF, what has been left is that the people who go to a Forum come out strengthened in their views and values, meet tens and tens of thousands of people who believe that a different world is possible, and go back to their activities, advocacies and social campaigns with the feeling that they are not a local effort, but part of a very large movement.

IPS: Also in Porto Alegre, the second and third WSFs had thousands of delegates, and attracted speakers like Noam Chomsky…The fourth, though, moved to Mumbai. The attendance was expected to be 75,000 and it overshot by thousands. Cultural diversity was one notable aspect of the forum, together with the decision to take a stand on free software. Then in 2005, the WSF came back to Porto Alegre. Was it a good idea to change venues?

RS: This is a complex question. To remain in Porto Alegre would have made life easier, because of the large support of the citizens of that State, which provided thousands of volunteers. It would have also given a more consistent brand name, like Davos did for the WEF. But it would have limited international participation. We had not enough Africans and Asians, because of the cost of travel. So we went to Mumbai, where Asian participation was enormous, with less Latin Americans. It went immensely better than anybody expected, because it made the fragmented Indian civil society sit and work together, and this unity is still there, and is one of the great legacies of Mumbai.

IPS: In 2006, for the first time, the WSF was held in different cities, including Caracas (Venezuela), Bamako (Mali) and Karachi (Pakistan). In January 2007 it was held in Nairobi (Kenya). This year "actions" taking place on Jan. 26 won&#39t be organised at a particular place, but by thousands of autonomous local organisations. Isn&#39t this peripatetic wandering diluting its global impact and coverage?

RS: For the same reason, it was a great success, with over 200,000 participants. You cannot bring those quantities into a single place. The fact that one of the three venues was Mali creates for the first time a mobilisation of African civil society. Like in Asia with Mumbai, Nairobi forced African civil society, which was very local, to take a holistic view.

The WSF is a great laboratory of experience. The need for the larger possible participation has made us think of different formulas. This year, we have called for something never attempted before: to summon a wave of local mobilisations, so that during the whole day, as the Sun moves over the planet, citizens will gather peacefully to debate, share and demand a different world.

This unprecedented event has one problem: visibility. We have been informed already of nearly 400 events worldwide. We do not have the media power to show them, and demonstrate that this is a world movement, and that we are many and different, and we are everywhere. We will try to do so, with very limited means.

Our entire communication budget for the 2008 WSF is close to 100,000 dollars; not enough to open a butchery shop. But it will be interesting to see how the media reports on this event, which, by itself is quite a story under any professional criteria…If nothing comes out, we may think that the problem is not if we merit being news or not, but that there is an evident bias…We will see.

IPS: The WSF site says that it is "non-confessional, non-governmental and non-party". In Porto Alegre, though, it was sponsored by the local government, led by the Worker&#39s Party (PT). In 2001, the town was experimenting with an innovative model, which combined traditional representative institutions with popular, direct participation. At the time, Brazil was also in a moment of transformation that later would lead to the electoral victory of the PT candidate Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. What do you think of the involvement of political parties in the WSF?

RS: Our charter of principles deliberately excludes political parties form the Forums. In fact, this is a very complex issue. Political parties play a decisive role in shaping societies. Our bottom line has been to not accept funding from parties, and exclude speakers who would speak on behalf of a party.

In Porto Alegre it was citizen support that made the town authorities give logistical, not financial, support. In Mumbai and Nairobi, for instance, we went into two towns run by centre-right parties, and yet they did cooperate, again because of the support of citizens. But we never did receive financial contributions from a party as such, and I hope it will continue in this way.

The most blurred case has been Caracas, where the government through a local NGO gave a lot of support to the Forum. But, significantly, the Forum did ignore the calls from President (Hugo) Chavez for a politicisation of the movement.

IPS: Inside the WSF, there are different groups, some advocating a more centralised, coherent approach. In spite of this, the WSF site says that it "proposes to facilitate decentralised coordination and networking among organisations engaged in concrete action towards building another world…The World Social Forum is neither a group nor an organisation." On the other hand, some inside the movement have criticised it for attempts to become a central decision-making venue for dissident groups, a sort of substitute for the bygone Communist Internationals.

RS: The question of a real structuring of the WSF as an institution in some way has been a central debate. Some, including I, think that we don&#39t need to create a kind of old party system. But we need to structure ourselves more, set up rules of governance, and especially reach the outside world to present our views, and the results of our debates and proposals.

Many others do not want to change the original formula. The WSF is a meeting space where people gather, discuss, exchange. They also believe that the &#39tent&#39 should be as large and inclusive as possible, and that once we start adopting a platform not of participants, but of the WSF itself, we would be reducing the space of the tent.

I think that there are themes, like the stupidity of war, the need for social justice, defence of the environment, the need for a stronger gender agenda, respect for indigenous people, and many others, in which there is unanimity, and it would make a great impact if the movement would push and campaign for the creation of those platforms to influence governments and institutions. But there are many who think that the political institutions are part of the problem, because they are becoming less and less inclusive of citizens, and more and more mechanisms of power and self reference…

This debate has not been solved. And will accompany us for a long time. In my view, the fact that we cannot push for platforms, because we must remain only an open space, dilutes our power of implementation in a world where there is an urgent need for a change. But the WSF is made by many views, and we must accept those others.

Whatever we do, the impressive fact remains that when we meet, everybody leaves the Forum happier, wiser and stronger. Maybe, this is the essence of the WSF, and we should not expect more.