Bridging the Divide: The Case of People's Global Action
by Lesley J. Wood • es: Notas sobre el chat de la AGP

In 1996, three thousand activists from around the world gathered in the humid rainforest of Chiapas, Mexico. Their hosts the Zapatistas described the vision that inspired the meeting:

"This intercontinental network of resistance will be the medium in which distinct resistances may support one another. This intercontinental network of resistance is not an organizing structure; it doesn't have a central head or decision maker; it has no central command or hierarchies. We are the network, all of us who resist."

Two years later, an unusual transnational coalition emerged. It was one of the most diverse, radical collaborations to develop in years, and one of the first to directly target the World Trade Organization (WTO) specifically, and neoliberalism in general. The founding conference of People's Global Action (PGA) was held in Geneva in 1998, at which 300 delegates from 71 countries hashed out a lengthy manifesto and hallmarks for collaboration. They were a diverse lot, from Sri Lankan fisherfolk and Brazilian peasants, to Dutch squatters and American anarchists. Together they laid out a framework that sought to be different to transnational NGO networks. They used their experience of local, national and transnational struggle to build an egalitarian coalition of diverse autonomous actors, effective for both mutual support and the global coordination of massive street protests against neoliberalism. The protests that would range from the shutdown of Seattle during the meetings of the WTO, to rallies and civil disobedience and blockades of McDonalds branches in India.

Over the next few years, hundreds of grassroots organizations from every continent would participate in the "global days of action" called by the PGA, and attend global and regional conferences. The PGA would build a communicative structure that linked a wave of direct action protests across the planet. United around their rejection of neoliberal policy and institution and their refusal to engage in traditional lobbying, the organizations that participated in the PGA appeared to have little else in common. Challenged by their differences in resources, organizational culture and coalition experience, and yet pressured to act, they resisted the 'iron law of oligarchy' to build a model that would remain both egalitarian and cohesive.

The case of the PGA suggests that in order to understand how transnational collaboration is sustained, I must look to the organizational sources of coalition structure and process, while also evaluating the impact of unequal access to resources on relations between participants. By recognizing the importance of both culture and power, I will be able to better analyze how such coalitions overcome the barriers to transnational mobilization, and utilize mechanisms of structure and identity to maintain collaboration and participation. Focusing on the sites where the diverse coalition members interact, I will look primarily at minutes and reports from the international conferences or convener meetings, supplementing these with interviews and surveys of participants. The PGA has succeeded in maintaining diverse, transnational ties between grassroots movements while coordinating large, confrontational actions. By understanding how they can achieve this, I can better understand the challenges to alliance building, and a route to the Zapatista vision, "a world in which many worlds fit."

Coalition Maintenance and Resource Inequality

Coalition Maintenance

Although People's Global Action formally calls itself "an instrument for coordination," and informally refers to itself as a network, it is more densely connected than the transnational networks formed around the women's conferences in Beijing and Cairo. It shares a common ideological focus and project, but stops short from becoming an "organization." Instead, it is structured as a coalition, a group of organizations and individuals working together for a common purpose.

Coalitions can allow movement organizations to share resources, build collective understanding, offer solidarity and increase their ability to reach shared goals. However, conflicts within coalitions can hamper their effectiveness. Such challenges often emerge over issues of power and inequality. As spaces for collaboration, coalitions must provide participants with an opportunity to participate and share in decision-making. As a result, a shared, 'neutral' space is often seen as crucial. But how does one create and maintain such a space for interaction amongst participants with wildly different levels of resources and experience?

Beyond goals and campaigns, coalitions can vary in terms of process and structure. Even the most rudimentary coalition requires someone to call the meeting, invite participants and organize the agenda. The initiators of a coalition can often have a disproportionate impact on the development of its membership, goals, structure and process by taking on these tasks. Sometimes logistical tasks are rotated amongst participants, but due to the challenges of much transnational organizing these tasks are often coordinated by some sort of central office. Sometimes such an office is supported through the shared resources of the participants, but often, the coalition will develop its own 'core funding' and identity.

In transnational coalitions, participants often speak different languages, operate within different national and local contexts, have distinct organizational cultures and histories, and come from movements as diverse as rural fisher folk in Bangladesh and Canadian trade unionists. Distance and access to technology are barriers to ease of communication and contact. Without a coordinating body or resources, such organizing requires a serious commitment from participants in terms of time, resources and skills.

The specific form and process of a coalition is rooted in the organizational and coalition culture of the participating organizations. These in turn are influenced by the power dynamics between participants, and through the interaction of the coalition with other institutions and relations.

Organizational and Coalition Culture

Organizational culture defines the way different community organizations answer the questions "Who are we collectively?" and "How do we operate?" The form of coalitions depends in part on the collective answers to the question - "How do we work together?" The answer to such questions impacts the shaping of collective coalition identity, the character of group bonds and the shared practices of mutual responsibility and obligation. (Clemens 1996)

Paul Lichterman found that different communities answered these questions in ways that corresponded with their cultural histories. When groups differed in how they answered such questions, coalition building faced additional challenges. The form and structure that social movement organizations adopt often correspond with pre-existing forms of social organization. (Morris 1986) Models of coalition building of the participating organizations will affect their behavior within and perception of others within a new coalition. If a group has set up and participated in a particular style of coalition in the past, and benefited from it, they will feel more comfortable with that style. Participants will be comfortable with a particular level of formality, style of decision-making, level of equality and centralization, and speed and tone of inter-organizational interaction.

Differences on such questions can hamper the building of an effective coalition. Coalitions are supported through building trust, shared values, and common interests. (Rose 2000) These are harder to obtain if groups have significant differences in organizational culture. Such differences can contribute to misunderstandings, as each side interprets the actions of others according to its own framework. (ibid.)

While the organizational culture and coalition histories of participants can explain the alternatives coalitions consider, they cannot explain why particular organizations consistently dominate coalitions without evaluating the role of resource inequalities between players. Caplow theorized that coalition formation is determined by the relative amount of resources controlled by particular actors. Indeed, even in a decentralized coalition of well-intentioned radical movements, inequality of resources can facilitate the dominance of resource-rich participants over a coalition.

Resource Inequality in Transnational Coalitions

Resource inequalities within a coalition affect its practices and participation. Access to financial resources can allow organizations to travel to conferences, commit time to communication and involvement, and facilitate access to communications technology. Financial resources may also be tied to the opportunity to develop skills in group process, communication and media - all which may directly or indirectly influence coalition partners. Resources can allow participants to interact more frequently, resulting in increased opportunity to define the coalition, its goals issues and conflicts. In general, due to global systemic inequality, individual activists and organizations from the Europe and the US or Canada have far more access to such resources than others. While such inequities may be partially offset by strategic interventions by infrastructurally established southern organizations, in general, northern activists are facilitated in coalition activity.

Such differential access to resources has contributed to a divide between northern and southern movements that is one of the biggest challenges to transnational coalitions. This divide is difficult to overcome, as ties between participants are fragile, and the opportunities for building trust rare. Northern domination or the "problem of mutual influence" is widely recognized in NGO networks. When engaged in strategies that depend on Northern leverage over transnational institutions, northern partners are more likely to dominate alliances, and this, correspondingly, hampers effective partnerships.

This plays out in the development of campaigns that serve the needs of northern participants more effectively than southern ones. A survey of participants in a transnational environmental NGO suggests that information on global environmental campaigns is more difficult to integrate into to local campaigns in south countries than northern contexts. Also, unsurprisingly, southern affiliates found financial considerations more of a barrier to transnational cooperation than northern affiliates.

In more informal, high-risk social movement alliances like the PGA where there is little predictable direct payoff for engagement, coalition partners who are not able to participate fully may simply cease involvement. As in any coalition, participants who are systematically ignored, have their priorities devalued, or marginalized will leave. When this happens, coalitions lose their diversity, and increasingly, their effectiveness. Much like coalitions at the local level, overcoming the effects of inequality depends on the possibility of building and sustaining trust and commitment between diverse groups.

People's Global Action

"There is no center anywhere that could hope to organize and oversee all this mutual thickening of ties. It would be like trying to instruct a forest how to grow." PGA Bulletin 5, February 2000, UK Edition

People's Global Action is the largely unknown coalition that linked northern and southern activists and allowed them to mobilize in such an effective way for the massive street protests against the WTO in Seattle in 1999.

Beneath the street protests lies a decentralized network of diverse local social movement organizations. Bringing together Indonesian fisherfolk with Italian squatters, the PGA appears to have succeeded in being both domestically contentious and transnationally coordinated. Conditions observers have noted, are difficult to fulfill. Over 1500 organizations, from peasant movements to trade unions, have converged at regional and three international PGA conferences and/or participated in five "global days of action" between 1998 and 2001. These local actions, coordinated for the same day have ranged from the occupation of banks and businesses to riots and rallies and marches coordinated to coincide with meetings of international institutions like the WTO, IMF and World Bank. As well, activists from Asia and Latin America have traveled as "educational caravans" in Europe and North America, and a loose coalition of 94 core organizations from 43 countries has emerged whose primary aim is "to offer an instrument for co-ordination and mutual support at global level for those fighting "free" trade." (See Appendix A)

The PGA are unusual because they have developed a structure and a process explicitly aimed at avoiding northern domination of the coalition. As a result, the PGA has at times, limited participation by northerners in conferences and organized the coalition so that resource-rich participants would not be unfairly advantaged. Many activists knew from experience that the survival of effective transnational alliances depended in part on the ability of social movement organizations to develop solidarity across the north-south divide. In most transnational advocacy networks and solidarity movements, southern partners are often dependent on northern participants for leverage and often, for resources. In NGO networks, southern movements often play "Junior Partner", vulnerable to the whims of head offices in Europe or North America. While many of these alliances utilize northern power to benefit southern partners, they may leave internal power inequities largely unexamined.

In reaction to what they perceived as "paternalistic NGO's", the PGA participants worked to build something different. Freiderike, a German participant explained; "What matters a lot to me, is that it is the only international network where the movements from the south are represented in a way that corresponds to their importance, not like an NGO sponsoring the south or something."

While the PGA does not define itself as an 'organization', it holds a distinctive organizational philosophy. The PGA's fifth hallmark explains its approach to structure, "An organizational philosophy based on decentralization and autonomy." Its defining features include no membership, no resources, and minimal central structures. No one may represent the PGA, nor does the PGA represent any organization or person. Each continent can organize itself as it feels appropriate, but must provide an organization which acts as a contact point for the global network. While one participating organization volunteers to be the 'Secretariat' office, its role is purely administrative - the forwarding of mail etc. The only central decision making body is the Conveners Committee composed of representatives from organizations and movements of each continent. The composition of this committee must show a regional balance, and a balance regarding the areas of work of the organizations and movements that conform it.

This decentralized model made strategic sense for this combination of participants. Ecuadorian peasants could not gain entry into global institutions or receive influxes of resources by allying with Dutch squatters, but they could build a tie with those who would be willing to try and disrupt these institutions in global centers. As the goal of the PGA was the alliance of diverse, radical movements, there were few guaranteed benefits with a more centralized model. In contrast, a more centralized model risked a coalition office and budget that could be dominated by those who had contributed the most resources and had the most effective means of communication. Centralized decision-making would speed up the process of collaboration, but might pressure groups to quickly commit to or abandon the project, making it a less flexible and adaptable tool for coordination between movements with different priorities and processes.

The model they chose was similar to one used in local grassroots organizing. It depended on rotating organizational 'conveners' or representatives, working together to coordinate shared activities like conferences and days of action, and supporting information sharing between movements and organizations. Like many informal coalitions, the PGA operated without a head office, budget or formal mechanisms. This was not such an unusual structure at the local level, but at the transnational level it faced additional hurdles.

The choices around how to organize transnationally do not emerge purely from ideology, nor from rational cost-benefit analyses. These models emerge through the interaction of participants' organizational experiences and cultures, constrained and enabled by internal and external power dynamics. While rhetorically, participants in the PGA may agree with the vision set forward by the Zapatistas, the participating organizations draw from their diverse organizational cultures as sources of organizational structure and process.

And yet, the origins of this formal, decentralized structure and process cannot explain the ongoing debates, shifts and adaptations within the PGA. While structured as an equally shared project of all continents, some convening organizations have not been able or willing to maintain their participation. Instead, from the founding conference, resource inequalities and its effects have influenced its evolution. They have contributed to an ongoing tension around northern domination, reflected in debates around numbers of participants, decisions around organizational process, and the role of the informal European-dominated 'support group' which has helped with the logistics of conferences, the maintenance of communication infrastructure, and fundraising.

North-South Differences in Participation

In each continent, the participants in the PGA have reflected regional histories and organizational cultures. Strongest in Latin America, Asia and Europe, there is mobilization on every continent. The main movements from "south" countries have been large, peasant or indigenous organizations, some of whom have experience dealing with other transnational coalitions. In Asia, the most active participants have been the anti-dam movements in India, and the massive farmer and peasants unions from India and Bangladesh. In Latin America, large indigenous and peasant movements have consistently convened the region, including the Zapatistas, the Sandinistas, Bolivia's anti-privatization campaign and Brazil's Landless peasant movement. Recently, young, urban anarchist collectives from Brazil and Argentina have become more involved. In Africa, the Nigerian Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People has participated from the beginning, and the landless movement from South Africa has become recently involved. The indigenous Maori movement in New Zealand have also been active participants.

The participants from 'northern' countries are more often social-anarchist, radical environmental and direct action groups, whose formal organizational affiliations may not be as enduring. London's Reclaim the Streets, London, Spain's MRG and Italy's Ya Basta! have consistently been involved both as conveners and participants in the informal "support group". Interestingly, North America is one of the regions least involved in PGA discussions. While Canadian involvement and organization is strong and consistent, the main actors have been the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, and la Convergence des Luttes Anti-Capitalistes, a key organization in the protests against the Free Trade Area of the Americas in Quebec City in 2001. In the US, the main impact of the PGA has been through the global day of action tactic which has been organized in many cities by the Direct Action Network, a network central to the Seattle protests who modeled themselves on the PGA hallmarks. While the largest organizations in the PGA have been from south countries, as the anti-globalization movements in the north have organized successful actions around the summits, they have "earned their place at the table". As Olivier, a Swiss activist deeply involved in the PGA, reports about the third international conference in September 2001, "Everyone at last understands that northern groups have their own struggles and perspectives and do not exist only in solidarity with southern struggles."

When I examine the differences between northern and southern participants in the PGA, I can better understand how relations of power and resistance play out within the coalition. The vast majority of active organizations in the PGA participated in both conferences and days of action. However, all of those core organizations who only participated in the conferences were from south countries, and all the organizations who only participated in days of action, were from north countries or Africa.

This somewhat crude finding appears to agree with analysis of other transnational networks. Jackie Smith found in her study of Earth Action that the southern participants placed more value on the importance of international networking for supporting their local work than northern participants. Northern direct action activists who are less likely to represent established organizations may not find international conferences appropriate or necessary to their grassroots work. African activists, on the other hand may not be able to participate due to lack of resources.

In general more organizations from south countries participated in conferences than organizations from northern countries, with the exception of the encounter in Spain. (See Appendix B) In contrast, more organizations from northern countries participated in the global days of action than those from southern countries. This may reflect the differing organizational culture and coalition experience of participating organizations in the north and south and their relative access to resources. However, I must be conscious of these differences when examining the challenge of and response to northern domination of the coalition.

Convergence in Organizational Culture

In order to explain how and why the PGA has been able to maintain an egalitarian structure in a coalition with such diversity, we must look at the organizational culture of the participating organizations. How organizations in the PGA answer the questions "who are we?" and "how do we organize?" contribute to the development of organizational form and culture of the coalition.

Interestingly, there appears to be at least rhetorical convergence of organizational culture. A significant number of past and present conveners from both north and south describe their decision-making processes as directly democratic or non-hierarchical. In India and Africa, the emphasis is on direct democracy, and participation, whereas participants from Canada and the UK emphasize their lack of hierarchy. Even those movements who use more traditional representative forms of organization see themselves as "People's Movements" that work for change in coalition with others.

A founding convener, the Karnataka State Farmers' Association of India involved in developing the hallmarks, explains;

"This means that the final objective of its work is the realisation of the 'Village Republic', a form of social, political and economic organisation based on direct democracy, on economic and political autonomy and self-reliance, on the participation of all members of the community in decision-making about the common affairs that affect them."

Such a grassroots approach is also found in the northern participants such as the current North American convener such as La Convergence de Luttes Anti-capitalistes, from Montreal Canada.

"The CLAC is autonomous, decentralized and non-hierarchical. In favour of direct democracy, we encourage the involvement of anyone who agrees with this statement of principles. We also encourage the participation of all individuals in working groups, in accord with their respective political affiliations."

One of Europe's most active participants, Reclaim the Streets from London, UK explains;

"Reclaim the Streets is not a send-off-the-cheque, sit-in-front-of-the-spectacle organization. It's a participatory disorganization....We try to run things in a non-hierarchical way using consensus decision making."

A significant proportion of the founding conveners were from movement organizations that stressed direct democracy and non-hierarchical modes of organization. However, some others, including trade unions and massive peasant movements are more hierarchical, including the Movimento dos Trabahaldores Rurales sem Terra (MST) of Brazil or Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) a nationwide federation of Philippine organizations of landless peasants, small farmers, farm workers, subsistence fisherfolk, peasant women and rural youth which has "effective leadership over a total of 800,000 rural people comprising roughly 9% of the Philippine agricultural labor force. It has 55 provincial and 6 regional chapters nationwide." . Interestingly, even those "people's movements" that operate most hierarchically, are still interested in working with other organizations, as they are notable for their emphasis on local, national and transnational coalition building.

Convergence and Divergence in Coalition Building Culture

Despite similar emphases on participation in their organizational culture, northern and southern participants in the PGA have radically different experiences with coalition building. The northern activists, often from less formal organizations, have used local coalitions as their main form of mobilizing direct action, but have less experience with formal transnational coalition building. Many of the southern activists, with their larger, more enduring organizations, have established organizational protocol behavior for local, national and transnational alliances.

These differences in experience influence the coalition interaction of PGA participants. The direct action coalitions in which the northern activists specialize are short-term, large and flexible. Often groups participating in the coalition are small, informal and temporary, coalescing simply for a single action. While the southern movements participate in similar coalitions on a campaign or action level, they have more experience in longer term, more formal coalitions, where legitimacy and accountability is more important.

Many of the peasant movement participants in the PGA also participate in other transnational coalitions like Via Campesina, the network of peasant movements. Like the PGA, it structures itself to maximize autonomy, and follows a grassroots model of decision making,

"It is an autonomous, pluralistic movement, independent from all political, economic, or other denomination. It is integrated by national and regional organizations whose autonomy is jealously respected... The Conference is the highest policy decision-making body and holds meetings every three years, rotating location among the regions."

While the PGA itself rejects lobbying as a coalition tactic, many of the larger southern movements have experience with transnational coalitions through ongoing partnerships with northern NGOs through which they engage in lobbying. For example, the indigenous organization from Ecuador CONAIE, has worked with international environmental organizations to stop oil drilling. The movement against the Naramada Dam in India has also strong links to international NGOs.

However, some southern participants in the PGA clearly distinguish between their work with some NGOs and their work with the PGA. At the recent Cochabamba conference, a "Campaign Against Paternalistic NGOs" working group was initiated. As well, Brazil's Landless Workers Movement (MST) carefully separates the section on "NGO partnerships" and "People's Movements" on their web page, placing the PGA with the latter.

While northern movements are familiar with short term, informal, action oriented coalitions, and southern movements with more formal, lasting ones, they are likely to have different expectations about the ways movements should work together. The PGA's model of a decentralized coalition is a result of both successful experiences and a reaction against frustrating, unsatisfactory relationships. By understanding the divergent templates of the model, points of conflict within the PGA will be easier to understand.

Divergence and Domination

Northern and southern movements have developed the PGA for more than six years. However, like any coalition, there have been points of tension. These tensions are a result of the interaction of organizational cultures and experiences, within an environment shaped by inequality of resources.

This has emerged particularly around two main issues.

  1. Participation by northern activists
  2. Organizational process

1. Participation by northern activists

One key challenge to building an equitable transnational network has been the disproportionate participation of activists from Europe and North America. With more resources, northern activists are able to participate more easily and frequently, as individual participants and as coordinators of the PGA process. While the PGA has developed mechanisms to attempt to maintain egalitarian participation, northern and southern activists approach this challenge through their own organizational culture and coalition experience.

Because northern activists often have access to more funding and fewer travel restrictions they can travel more easily to participate in the conferences. This disparity may then interact with different norms of participation and behaviour. At the second international PGA conference in Bangalore, India in 1999 this was seen as a particular problem. Northern activists who didn't represent sizeable organizations apparently dominated the discussion, inadvertently silencing delegates of peasant movements representing hundreds of thousands.

As in other transnational coalitions, domination by northern participants is an ongoing challenge. Desiring more equitable relations within the coalition, PGA conveners from both north and south agreed to limit the number of delegates from northern and western movements at the 2001 conference in Cochabamba, Bolivia to 30% of the total delegates.

In addition to the number of participants, some northerners have played a role which some see as tied to the northern domination of the coalition. Since Geneva there has been an informal group of European activists who have taken a particularly active role in organizing the logistics of the PGA network. At each international conference, they have helped the conveners set up the logistics of the conference, and helped to organize facilitation of meetings. While formally, they are often excluded from decision making, they have been involved in influential logistical coordination including fundraising, putting together newsletters and organizing the web page.

Despite its usefulness, northern and southern activists agree that there is some tension around the role of this support group. Some fear that its informal nature would lead to an invisible, and unaccountable hierarchy. Initially ignored, its existence and role was formally recognized at the 2nd International Conference in Bangalore India. Since this point there has been debate as to whether it should be seen as a temporary necessity, or as a necessary innovation. At the 3rd International Conference in Cochabamba, Bolivia, the support group was focused on again, this time not for its existence but for its makeup, and there is discussion about how to diversify its "membership".

Northern and southern activists differ around the form of and solution to disproportionate northern influence. Some of the northern conveners have argued that the support group has been needed thus far, but believe that this represents a weakness in the decentralized PGA structure. Others insist that the committee must be eliminated. Many southern conveners don't see the support group itself as a problem. They argue that if the conveners are not able to fulfill their role, the support group must step in to ensure continuity. Increasingly, they both argue that the role of the support group must be more formal and explicit.

These different perspectives are reflected in the suggestions for resolving the issue. Where northern movements seek to find structural mechanisms to limit the level of northern domination, southern movements emphasize the development of shared understanding and commitment. They want relationships with the north that are not dependent or patronizing, which recognize differences in experience and culture. Interestingly, this difference in defining the issues corresponds with one identified by Richard Delgado in the civil rights movement where he found that many whites believed that any inequality between blacks and whites is due either to cultural lag, or inadequate enforcement of currently existing beneficial laws -- correctable through education or enforcement. For many minorities, the barrier is the prevailing mindset by means of which members of the dominant group justify the world as it is, that is, with whites on top and browns and blacks at the bottom. (Delgado 1989)

2. Process

Decisions around organizational process have also been a key site of struggle for the PGA. Differences in organizational culture and coalition experience have interacted with issues of resource inequality to frame debates around decisionmaking process, and its formality, legitimacy and accountability. Examining the way these debates develop, allows us to understand how the PGA responds to challenges to sustainability.

The way a meeting is organized can affect the ability of a coalition to function equitably. Because northern participants have had the resources to arrive at conferences early, some have argued that they have had a disproportionate influence on developing the meeting process. In some cases, members of the support committee, who often help to develop the agenda, have proposed consensus decision making as a process, but the means by which this takes place is controversial. At Cochabamba, some Latin Americans argued that the imposition of the formal consensus process was "imperialist". One participant explained,

"People stood up and said, the whites, the northerners, have been dominating this. They've been dominating the way we've run our meetings, and just by the nature of how those meetings are run, our points are excluded because they don't fit into that structure."

Differences in organizational culture become visible in debates around formal organizational process at the conferences. Northern activists are worried about being seen as overly concerned with formal process, even though the process is intended to create an environment for full participation. In part, the northerners are accustomed to operating in response to debates about the 'tyranny of structurelessness,' a central issue in Anglo-American social movements in recent years. Rachel had been involved as a convener in creating the agenda for the Cochabamba conference. She wryly commented; "We're obsessed with democracy, which is important I think, but its seen differently in different groups."

These differences were clearly expressed around the Intercontinental Caravan, organized by European PGA participants in 1999 that brought 400 activists, primarily from India, to Europe. Plagued by conflicts and organizational woes, European caravan organizers were frustrated with what they saw as the centralization of information and lack of process. This participant explained;

"there was a cultural dimension to the increasingly acrimonious debate about hierarchy and centralization. In Europe, decentralization and non-hierarchical organization are an important part of our political consciousness, but in Asia great leaders are expected and revered."

At the same time, the Indian organizer was frustrated that European organizers had threatened to cancel the caravan, and were unconcerned about issues of organizational legitimacy.

"When once we take a decision, we execute it at all costs. This particular discipline of ours is what makes us lose confidence in you. And confidence, if it is damaged once, is difficult to rebuild again.. If there is any change in the promised program, we as "leaders" would not be able to move them even an inch in our future activities... I cannot write anymore on this, because I am myself losing confidence in all of the European groups' functioning.. Try to be responsible revolutionaries!!!!!!!"

This fiery passage reflects different ways of understanding the meaning of the relationship. Both north and south want the PGA to operate more "effectively". The convener from Bangladesh agrees that PGA's weakest feature is its organizational process. However, it is unclear whether there is agreement about what the organizational process of PGA should look like. Northern activists emphasize the need for technical solutions such as formal structures, southern organizers emphasize the need for mutual respect while avoiding patronizing attitudes. In discussing what the PGA needs next, conveners from the north argued, "we need clear and more efficient structures or a slower process involving the movements better." In contrast, the conveners from Latin America rarely speak explicitly about the need for structures and processes. Instead, they speak about the content and meaning of the relationships and how they are tied to the identity of the coalition. At the conveners meeting they argued, "There are different visions for different realities, understood by daily life. PGA has to attempt to express this divergence in convergence, then we can co-exist in agreement."

Divergence Summarized

When coalitions face barriers to effective action or collaboration, they look to their experience and organizational culture to find strategies for succeeding. Often, demands for effectiveness encourage organizations to centralize structures and processes. However, when the coalition is attempting to overcome power inequities and maintain diversity, such a strategy may be self-defeating. In the PGA participation and organizational process are the main points around which northern domination is debated. Different organizational cultures and experiences have contributed to distinct analyses of both the problem and its solution. Whereas northern movements seek to overcome northern domination through emphasizing the development of formal processes and structures of relations in order to build trust, southern movements do not see formality as a solution, instead emphasizing sustained trust building through shared spaces, commitment, and mutual respect.

There is nothing essential about these differences, nor is the emphasis on structure or tolerance necessarily irreconcilable. Organizational culture and systemic inequities have contributed to these divergent analyses. However, it is by looking at the ways the PGA has worked collectively to develop trust and commitment despite such differences that we will better understand the possibilities for coalition maintenance in transnational coalitions.

Mechanisms of Identity and Structure

"The international of hope. Not the bureaucracy of hope, but the opposite image and, thus, the same as that which annihilates us. Not the power with a new sign or new clothing."

The PGA wanted an international "instrument of coordination" that would be different to earlier alliances that reproduced relationships of dependence and paternalism. In order to limit misunderstandings between diverse movements with different interests, such a coalition would require mechanisms to build trust and shared commitment. (Rose 2000) The PGA has used the organizational culture and experiences of its participants to develop mechanisms that intervene and interrupt the unequal consolidation of power.

These mechanisms are:

  1. Formal evolution of identity
  2. Decentralization of structure

Formal Evolution of Identity - Mechanism 1

From its foundation, the PGA chose to build its collective identity around "living documents" that would be formally revised at each gathering. Jean Grossholz, who participated in the initial process to write the manifesto explained how women, native people, farmers, labor activists, and environmentalists worked in small groups to develop their position, gradually drafting an acceptable framework which was brought to the larger body of activists.

"And then the final day of the meeting, the drafting committee went back to the whole body and we went line by line over the manifesto... Then, what was supposed to happen, at the next meeting... they would take that manifesto and they would rewrite it. And it would be constantly in the process of being rewritten. And that was the idea that somehow or other we would then have this, what would you call it, global consensus. And it would constantly change. And it would be the focus and the direction of the international meetings."

Intentionally or not this formal evolutionary approach has provided a mechanism for re-articulating, and strengthening the collective identity of the PGA. Such a process used debates around identity as an opportunity for participants to challenge any perceived consolidation of power. At the same time, participants can build trust by reworking the basis of their collaboration in new ways. I will look at three important moments since Geneva where the PGA has revised its answers to the questions 'who we are, how we operate, and what we're against.'

At the second international conference in Bangalore, India, participants wanted to rearticulate the answer to the question 'who are we?' They wanted to distinguish themselves from a different movement against neoliberalism, made up of; "far-right groups, political parties and reformist NGOs", and make an analysis of patriarchy more central to the PGA's mission. As a result, a new hallmark was adopted which made explicit the PGA's rejection of "all forms and systems of domination and discrimination including, but not limited to, patriarchy, racism and religious fundamentalism of all creeds. We embrace the full dignity of all human beings."

The hallmarks have also adapted the framework which describes "how we operate". In Cochabamba, a decision was made to remove the word "non-violent" from the hallmark around tactics. A third change redefined the definition of "what we are fighting" in the hallmarks from targeting the "WTO and free trade" to "a rejection of feudalism, capitalism and imperialism, all trade agreements, institutions and governments that promote destructive globalisation."

These changes came from both a desire for a desire to "respect diverse strategies", and recognize different realities within the coalition. Like the changes around tactics, the hallmarks integrated different regional priorities. North America was interested in being explicitly "anti-capitalist", while Asia needed to identify feudalism as a relevant system. The definition of non-violence differed in each region. To clarify their relationships, they removed the source of confusion and incorporated the phrase "maximizing the respect for life" . As a result, both were incorporated, creating a collective identity which reflected both difference and unity.

Such processes of collective identity formation operate within many institutions. What is interesting is the use of this formal process in combination with a decentralization of structure, allowing it to both build trust, and resolve issues resulting from resource inequality.

Decentralization of Structure - Mechanism 2

Continued decentralization is a mechanism aimed at resisting the consolidation of power. For example, concerns that international gatherings required too much centralization and resource accumulation, prompted a recent move to emphasize the role of regional gatherings over international ones.

In response to the concern that a single process for choosing regional convenors was inappropriate, the PGA again moved to decentralize, making regions responsible for developing their own process. This mechanism of continuing decentralization allows a constant challenge to any central authorities, supporting increased horizontal communication and dispersing power to multiple hubs, and thus limiting potential or actual northern domination.

This decentralizing mechanism is a feature of both growing and faltering organizations. And the risk of increasing decentralization is the dissolution of the coalition. In combination with identity reconstruction, it works to allow both trust building and diffusing of power.

At each international conference, coalition participants have developed shared spaces to re-visit and revise the manifesto, hallmarks and organizational structure. At each conference they have responded to fears and observations of the consolidation of power by decentralizing decision-making.

These mechanisms have had two related functions;

  1. Rearticulate and strengthen the collective identity of the PGA
  2. To challenge power hierarchies within the organization through decentralization, localization and structuring participation

These processes have allowed the PGA to respond to the challenge of northern domination within the coalition, around issues of participation, process and tactics and build the trust necessary for ongoing coordinated action.

Conclusion - The State of the Union

Whether smashing a McDonalds in Genoa or occupying land in Bolivia, movements participating in the PGA increasingly see themselves as part of a connected global struggle against neoliberalism. For almost six years, this "totally crazy project", the PGA maintained an egalitarian coalition and continued to build trust between north and south despite the challenge of domination by northern movements, and its subsequent effect on southern participation.

This domination becomes an object of debate around issues of participation and organizational process. The gap between northern and southern movements even extends to the answers to the question "what is to be done?" Northern movements call for formalized "clear structures and processes" to challenge domination, while southerners emphasize respect and commitment within "spaces for coordination".

Despite deep challenges, the PGA has managed to avoid the "iron law of oligarchy" and maintain a relatively decentralized non-hierarchical coalition. How did this happen? The answers to the question are rooted in the interplay of organizational cultures, and resource and power differentials. Part of the answer appears to lie in a recognition that the debates over coalition form and process are often rooted in challenges around the distribution of power itself. (Clemens 1996; 206)

Mechanisms of decentralization and identity reconstruction have allowed the coalition to be maintained despite organizational challenges. And so, the differences are engaged largely with goodwill. As one Nicaraguan convener explained in September 2000; "Southern movements are not trying to tell the North what to do, we recognize similar attempts to connect struggles in the North. PGA needs ways of sustained action and spaces for constant sharing. You are our companeros - we need to get beyond differences and work even better for the long term."

This continued willingness to engage in the coalition is a sign that the PGA has not totally failed at creating a shared space for transnational coordination. Indeed, by consistently decentralizing power and re-articulating the collective identity, PGA has utilized two key mechanisms for responding to domination by northern participants.

We have long understood that local social movement coalitions require good communication and shared access to decision-making and power. These requirements are more difficult to achieve in a transnational context where deep divisions of wealth and culture separate diverse movements.

To build trust across such chasms is difficult. The PGA is an unusual coalition in both its diversity and its decentralization. It faces formidable obstacles. However by looking closely at the ways participants explain their collaboration, we can see how coalitions reconcile their different organizational cultures. How conflicts and solutions are defined through histories of coalition building, and how strategies for enduring collaboration are influenced by resource inequality and its effects. Culture and structure alone cannot explain the success or failure of transnational coalitions, but by incorporating an analysis of power, resistance and inequality, we can better understand the ways which movement coalitions like the PGA seek to enact the slogan "our resistance is as transnational as capital."

Appendix A - Hallmarks of People's Global Action

  1. A very clear rejection of feudalism, capitalism and imperialism; all trade agreements, institutions and governments that promote destructive globalisation;
  2. We reject all forms and systems of domination and discrimination including, but not limited to, patriarchy, racism and religious fundamentalism of all creeds. We embrace the full dignity of all human beings.
  3. A confrontational attitude, since we do not think that lobbying can have a major impact in such biased and undemocratic organisations, in which transnational capital is the only real policy-maker;
  4. A call to direct action and civil disobedience, support for social movements' struggles, advocating forms of resistance which maximize respect for life and oppressed peoples' rights, as well as the construction of local alternatives to global capitalism;
  5. An organisational philosophy based on decentralisation and autonomy.

Appendix B - PGA Timeline Event Date Participation Location

First International Encounter for Humanity and Against Neoliberalism July 27th - August 3, 1996 3000 people,
43 countries
5 continents
Chiapas, Mexico

Second International Encounter for Humanity and Against Neoliberalism 26th July - 3rd August 1997 Thousands,
50 countries,
5 continents In cities across Spain

Founding Conference of the PGA 23rd - 25th February, 1998 300 delegates
71 countries
5 continents Geneva, Switzerland

Global Day of Action
G8 May 16, 1998 25 countries
Intercontinental Caravan May-June 1999 600 representatives of Indian and other movements in Europe Cities across Europe
Global Day of Action
G8 June 18, 1999 26 countries
2nd Conference of the PGA August 1999 100 delegates
25 countries
3 continents Bangalore, India
Global Day of Action
WTO November 30, 1999 29 countries
2nd American Encounter December 6 - 11, 1999 Belem, Bolivia
Neither men nor women - gender workshop April 2000 Chiapas, Mexico
Regional Conference - Asia September 2000 Dhaka, Bangladesh
Conveners Meeting September 2000 Prague, Czech Republic
Global Day of Action
IMF/WB September 26, 2000 43 countries
Regional Conference - Europe June 2001 300 people, 80 groups Milano, Italy
Regional Conference - North America June 2001 150 people Amherst, Mass, USA
3rd Conference of the PGA September 2001 250 delegates
33 countries
5 continents
Cochabamba, Bolivia
Global Day of Action
WTO November 9, 2001 41 countries

References

movement discussions | www.agp.org | www.all4all.org