• dibco1 2020 discusionfsm input40 en

last modified September 20, 2020 by facilitfsm

DIBCO1 initiative FSM/WSF | >>   

Discussion 2020EN  |  Index  |   



 |   @-1   @+1  |  Comment 
Dibco-seul-mini.png   EN - ES - FR - PT 

Dear friends of the International Council of the World Social Forum  Input40

The dispute, already historical,  within the International Council, between the WSF as an Open Space and the WSF with a more organic and active voice, has been present for years. At this point, after 20 years, it is clear the need to make the WSF call more complex to recover a space gained and to be up to the current circumstances and new challenges. The exchange that has begun to take place within the CI is very important, and welcome and today it is fortunately expanded with communications, proposals, online discussions and that seems very positive, because it takes us away from the pedestrian and aggressive way of discussions previous. It is undoubtedly a dynamic that we have to continue.

It is also urgent, as many and many of the IC participants believe, to restructure the IC, both in its composition and functions, and to enrich its existence with fundamental voices that have been absent or under-represented. It is true that this desire for change has begun to have space for discussion. The meetings planned by the IC for the coming weeks (September 12 and September 19, with global and regional networks and with those thematic Forums that have emerged in the heat of the WSF dynamics, expanding and enriching them) are very welcome.

This is undoubtedly an important moment, which will give us lights and inputs for future changes. And I think it is good to specify how and with whom it is possible to carry out processes of change that incorporate new presences and new horizons of transformation that correspond to the current civilizational crisis. The meeting called by the IC for September 12 is crucial for this.

For this reason, if we want to articulate with the most active, autonomous, and most radical movements in their conception of change and in their intercultural internationalist perspective, we do not agree on the invitation to the Puebla Group to the meeting on September 12, and we ask have this invitation reviewed.

The question we ask ourselves is whether we want the future perspectives of the WSF to be defined by social movements, from the strengthening of their autonomy, or for these perspectives to be defined by former political officials? Especially when several of them have had strong conflicts with indigenous populations, with feminisms, and with undemocratic procedures.

There are several examples, but I only put that of Rafael Correa, former president of Ecuador, who has had obvious and public conflicts with CONAIE - Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador - historical organization in the struggles for the defense of the territories, against of extractivism, Also in conflict with feminists and sexual diversities, in conflict with nature due to its extractivist vocation and its disrespect for the conservation of natural reserves, such as Yasuni Park, threatened by the deforestation brought by oil extraction. And for not having respected the new Constitution of 2008.

 This is a discussion that we would like to frame in the type of horizon of transformation, in the type of left orientation to which we want to contribute: without extractivism, without repression of indigenous, environmentalist, feminist organizations, without sexist jokes and with the capacity to renew or multiply their leaderships.

Finally, how will we approach, for example, the Ecuadorian indigenous people who are fighting a tough battle against extractivism, the defense of their autonomies, the change of model, if Rafael Correa is integrated into the dynamics of the Forum?

 These are not the type of people for change that the WSF requires today.


Gina Vargas - Articulacion Feminista Marcosur

Alejandra Scampini- Red DAWN.

Monica Novillo- REPEMDear members of the International Council



In relation to our letter and the reactions it has provoked, we think that it gives a lot to exchange, about where we put our accents, about why the extractive economy, without prior consultation, is devastating communities and damaging the ecosystem, about how we want to get out of this pandemic, if returning to the "normality" that has impacted so fiercely the majority of the population, and more to black populations, indigenous peoples, women ... But that will be another time.

 Now, on the eve of our meeting with the networks, we rather want to start from two premises:


1. The WSF is a space for organizations and social movements.

2. Political autonomy is a fundamental dimension of their capacity for organization, criticism, confrontation, political action for social transformation in the construction of another possible world.

One of the problems that we have learned in recent years in several countries where there were governments with which social movements aligned, was that in several cases social movements have lost their autonomy and critical capacity. In other cases, they have been repressed. This has had a strong impact on its ability to maintain its organizational and mobilizing strength of resistance and struggle. The critical political action of social movements, and their ability to elaborate the issues that are at stake in conflicts for social justice, is a central dimension in the correlation of forces that must be established in society and create favourable conditions for advancement. of democracy. When the political power of the government is democratic and popular, this is a fundamental support for this progress. When the governments are of the right, this political capacity of the social movements is fundamental precisely for the resistance and the confrontation against these governments.


It is a practical sense of the need and importance of the autonomy of social movements, which must be preserved in all forms of action and political articulation that are forged at the national and international level.


Left-wing political parties are undoubtedly fundamental political subjects in the struggle for democracy and social justice, especially if they do not resist their own internal democratization. But both parties and social movements have, and must continue to have, differentiated historical tasks.

Dialogue between Political Parties and Social Movements is only possible in those terms in which autonomy and the capacity for conflict are possible as a democratic praxis.

And for that it is necessary that each one has the ability to maintain dialogue, to build alliances, support and other forms of relationship, at the same time that they do not cross the borders that define the political and historical task of each of these subjects and that. it means maintaining the political autonomy, articulation and action of the organization.

That is what we expect from the World Social Forum and that is put at risk with the participation of partisan political forces.


Gina Vargas Articulación Feminista Marcosur

Alejandra Scampini DAWN

Mónica Novillo REPEM


xxx Dear, the WSF IC develops this rich process of listening and dialogue on a global level, until now with great success.

 The Puebla Group was invited to the 1st Extended Meeting of the IC on June 27 and confirmed its participation. It was also invited to the IC Meeting with Global Networks on this coming 12/09/2020, with the request to reserve an agenda for the 2nd Extended IC Meeting on 26 and 27.

 The Pueblo Group is already present in 14 countries and is composed of progressive national and international political leaders, governors and ex-governors, academics and social leaders. 

With all due respect to the colleagues' considerations, I would ask: 

What are the criteria to veto participation *in this process of listening and dialogue with the WSF IC* of an organization like the Puebla Group? 

Should we uninvite the Puebla Group? Would the arguments be this message from the women? 

Should we also re-evaluate the invitation, for example, to the Progressive International, which is composed of some common leaders of the Puebla Group?

 Below is some information about the Puebla Group. 


Carlos Tibúrcio.

 *Puebla Group has a presence in 14 countries after one year*


 With a presence in 14 countries, the Puebla Group has become one of the largest progressive blocs in Latin America one year after its foundation. 

This space for reflection brings together leaders from different latitudes who have in common the spirit of building and developing progressive proposals and alternative forms of government. It is a political project in permanent construction and growth. 

That is why next Friday, July 10, the members of the Group will celebrate its first year of existence in a virtual meeting in which the Progressive Agenda to overcome the crisis of the Covid-19 pandemic will be discussed. 

It aims to work on an unprecedented proposal of redesigning current market rules, democratizing society, strengthening the state and social participation, since the Covid-19 virus has highlighted the deep inequalities and vulnerabilities of societies. 

Since its creation, the Puebla Group has carried out several initiatives, such as the constitution of the Latin American Council for Justice and Democracy (CLAJUD), which aims to combat the use of justice as a weapon of political war and its effects on the democratic institutionality of the region. 

It also gave life to the Ibero-American Progressive Parliamentary Group (GPI), made up of legislators from 14 countries, which aims to give a legislative dimension to the Puebla Group's proposals. 

The Puebla Group has been able to establish political ties that have allowed, for example, to safeguard the life of Evo Morales after the coup d'état in his country, present proposals touching on the moratorium of the states, expand regional integration and promote legal actions of CLAJUD in Ecuador and Bolivia.

 This progressive organization also generated an active collaboration with organizations such as the G20 and the United Nations; it promoted seminars and lectures that addressed the different problems of the member countries.

 The Puebla Group was founded by more than 40 progressive leaders, including nine former presidents of the Republic, two incumbent governments and five former presidential candidates, as well as many congressmen and former foreign ministers from the region. 

The founders of the Group are President Alberto Fernandez, former President Dilma Rousseff and former Presidents Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, José Mujica, Rafael Correa, Ernesto Samper, Evo Morales, José Luiz Rodríguez Zapatero, Fernando Lugo, Martín Torrijos and Leonel Fernandez. The Puebla Group also includes former Foreign Ministers Celso Amorim (Brazil), David Choquehuanca (Bolivia), Guillaume Long (Ecuador) and Hugo Martínez (El Salvador), Minister Irene Montero (Spain) and former ministers Fernando Haddad and Aloizio Mercadante (Brazil), Carlos Ominami (Chile), Clara López Obregón (Colombia) and Daniel Martínez Villamil (Uruguay). Also present were former presidential candidates Marco Enríquez-Ominami (Chile), Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas (Mexico) and the above mentioned Fernando Haddad (Brazil) and former presidential candidate Verónika Mendoza (Peru). 

Also founding members of the Group are Senators Beatriz Paredes (Mexico), José Miguel Insulza, Alejandro Navarro (Chile), Monica Xavier (Uruguay), Adriana Salvatierra (Bolivia), Iván Cepeda (Colombia), Esperanza Martínez (Paraguay), and deputies Mario Delgado (Mexico), Karol Cariola (Chile), the second vice-president of the Chamber of Deputies of Colombia María José Pizarro, the director of IMSS Zoe Robledo, former senator Carlos Sotelo García, the under-secretary for Latin America and the Caribbean Maximiliano Reyes Zúñiga (Mexico), the former president of the National Assembly Gabriela Rivadeneira (Ecuador), the lawyer Carol Proner (Brazil) and Camilo Lagos, President of the Progressive Party (Chile)