World Social Forum Wrap Up
By Mike Rhodes | Wednesday, Feb. 01, 2006 at 7:49 AM | www.indybay.org
The sixth World Social Forum (WSF), which brought together tens of thousands of participants from throughout the world, concluded on Sunday, January 29 in Caracas, Venezuela. In spite of a couple of logistical bumps in the road, participants were overwhelmingly positive about the outcome at the WSF.
The word used time and again by US participants to describe the experience at this year's WSF is hope. The opportunity to meet with other participants from 140 countries around the world reinforced the forum's theme that Another World is Possible. Laura Wells, who is a Green Party candidate for Controller in California, saw hope and was inspired by the fact that Venezuela used to be a two party system, but now Hugo Chavez, who describes himself as a socialist, and is outside of the two party system, is president. Wells said "a series of incidents happened in this country that led to a radical change in government." She believes that conditions can change in the United States, as a result of one crisis or another, and that we need to be ready to seize the opportunity. Building the Green Party and running for Controller in this years election, when viewed in the context of the huge changes taking place in Venezuela and South America, is a strategy that makes more sense to her now than ever before.
Many participants at the WSF were inspired and hopeful that the winds of electoral change will blow Northward. One panelist, at a workshop on Latin American social movements, said he was hopeful that the left would win the presidential election in Mexico this July. With left, indigenous, or socialist leaders elected in Chile, Bolivia, Uruguay, Venezuela, Brazil, and Argentina there is a great deal of enthusiasm and hopefulness that the trend will continue. Most U.S. participants could not help but be excited by this string of electoral victories and how that might effect the political situation in their own country.
With tens of thousands of participants at this year's WSF in Caracas (there are no official numbers at this time) there was a wide range of experiences. Most participants were only able to attend two or three events a day out of the hundreds taking place. In addition to the workshops on issues as diverse as learning about Latin American social movements, environmental justice, or building a low power FM transmitter, there was something for everyone. Yet, many participants realized there was a political undercurrent, which developed into a question about the purpose of the WSF.
Originally, the purpose of the WSF was to serve as an alternative to the World Economic Forum held by the powerful institutions of globalization, like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. But, a dialog has emerged at the WSF asking if it is enough to simply bring everyone together for five days of discussions and networking or should the forum attempt to develop a strategy to confront globalization and to build a more just world? This question was discussed at some of the meetings but there is no definitive answer yet.
In addition to the tension surrounding the purpose of the WSF, there is also an emerging division between two different sectors of participants at the forum. Conference participants from Non Governmental Organizations (NGO's) tend to view their role as "helping" the poor, while most grassroots activists who are a part of social movements see the need for structural economic change as being an essential part of the transformation process. The contradiction was most clearly illustrated in workshops and events about the situation in Haiti. Grassroots activists from Haiti, who support exiled president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, were surprised and disillusioned to see Camille Chalmers from the Social Hemispheric Council on stage with Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, during his principle speech to WSF participants. The presence of Chalmers at the table with Chavez was viewed as giving legitimacy to those who participated in the U.S. engineered coup that exiled Aristide. Grassroots activists wanted to know why they were not invited to have a representative at the table, but those that legitimize the coup did.
US and Canadian Haitian solidarity activists, grassroots activists from Haiti, and other WSF participants are also upset that the Brazilian Government, whose president is a leftist, is sending troops to Haiti (through the UN) to maintain order. A demonstration was held at the Brazilian embassy to protest that countries intervention in Haiti's internal affairs.
But, representatives at the WSF from NGO's working within Haiti see things differently. According to a report from one workshop, anti-Aristide participants disrupted a question and answer period by refusing to give up the microphone as they attacked the Aristide government as being illegitimate. Some of these NGO's receive funding from conservative US interests (with ties to the CIA) and are seen as undermining legitimate solidarity efforts both in Haiti and at the WSF. There is a clear conflict of interest between the NGO participants who attempt to foster good relations with the (illegitimate) Haitian government and those from grassroots organizations who oppose the coup and are struggling to build a more just society.
The organizers of the WSF provided some statistical information from last year's forum in Porto Alegre to help us better understand who participates in the forum and why. They found that 49.8% of the people at the WSF said the reason they attended was for the exchange of experience among the participants. 47.9% attended because they wanted to contribute towards a fairer society. 42.4% came for the democratic debate of ideas and 20.6% came to contribute towards the formulation of alternative proposals to the neoliberal model.
A large percentage of participants (88.1%) agreed that organized civil society should take part in formulating governmental policies (but 3.4% of participants disagreed and a surprising 8.5% were indifferent). 87.4% of participants believe that organized civil society should criticize and pressure government to change policies. But, who are the 4.2% of the participants who disagree with that statement?
It is interesting that 10.2% of the participants at the 2005 WSF in Porto Alegre disagree, when asked if they thought the process of globalization means the concentration of wealth makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. 15.4% agreed that globalization means more opportunity for all, rich and poor.
Participants were asked where they considered themselves on the political map. 60.1% thought of themselves as left, 19.8% were center-left, 4.5% were center, 0.6% center right, and 1.6% were right. 13.4% of the participants had no opinion about where they are at on the political map.
When asked about what process should be used for building "the other possible world" the WSF talks about, 90.4% said the road should include strengthening the mobilization of civil society on the global, continental, national, and local level. 72.3% said the path to building "the other possible world" should include the democratization of governments, 59.3%said it should include direct action, 59.2% said it should include the democratization of the multilateral organizations (the UN, WTO, World Bank, IMF), and 13.5% believe the road should include direct action with the use of force.
The WSF clearly has the ability to bring progressives from social and political movements, intellectuals, and grassroots activists from all over the world to come together as an alternative to globalization and the neoliberal agenda. The question is - can the WSF shift gears and move the left to develop a unified strategy and tactics that will counter this system which has created so much inequality, poverty, and war? Perhaps the better question is - does the WSF even want to move beyond providing an opportunity for people to come together to discuss issues and network?
If the WSF continues to bring 100,000 people together each year and give them hope and inspiration, that is a good thing. It is unknowable whether attempting to develop a strategy to counter US imperialism would improve the WSF or if the effort would be divisive and lead to the organizations ruin. What we do know is that the next WSF will be held in January 2006 in Kenya, Africa.
For more information about the World Social Forum, see
http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.brEarlier Indymedia articles and photos from the 2006 WSF in Caracas, Venezuela from Mike Rhodes are available here:
First article:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/01/1797969.phpSecond article:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/01/1798504.phpThird article:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/01/1798948.phpOther Indymedia articles about the WSF:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/01/1798251.php
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/01/1796387.php
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/01/1798263.phpwww.fresnoalliance.com/home