Hi all,

[I didn't introduce myself yet to this list, so let's do it: I'm Jasper Teunissen and I was involved in the Global Square initiative at WSF2013 and WSF2015, wrote my thesis about the WSF (human geography, 2006, in dutch). I'm also active in a local social forum (Nijmegen) and participate in various grassroots struggles. I'm here as an obeserver, but I guess I can take the freedom to share my observations with you?!]

I find the questions quite suggestive and rethorical, reflecting a very specific desired outcome, which is in my opinion not helping an open, inclusive and fruitful debate. So here are some first short comments on the questions. I'm sorry it's in english only.

greetings jasper



1.       Questions to be answered:

-          Existence of the IC: has the IC to be maintained? Can it possibly be replaced by another kind of (representative/facilitating?) body?

I think the main reason for the ongoing impasse of this discussion is that 99% of the participants of the WSF events do not even know about the existence of the IC, since its meetings and communications are not public and separated (in time and space) from the many other realities of the WSF. That's why the same people make the same complaints about participation, commitment and functioning forever. And thus change will never come, and even if it comes, noone will notice!

-          Composition of the IC:

o   In the questionnaire of last year, most members said they want the IC to expand, but how?

§  With the ‘new’ social movements, if they want to come?

Let's ask: Why are 'new social movements' not willing or capable to join the current organisational structures of the WSF?

§  Have members to be categorized: active/associate/observers?

In any longterm activist initiative I've been involved in I have seen the possibility to step up and step down according to ones capacities as an important condition for continuity, any pre-established categorisation of roles could be disencouraging to add to the dynamic.
 

-          Functioning of the IC:

o   Should we abandon the ‘horizontalism’ for a more structural way of decision-making?

This formulation suggests 'horizontalism' is in opposition to a 'more structural way of decision-making'. I don't think this is a fair representation. The best method of decision-making is circumstancial and depends on the types of decisions that have to be made. If, for example, a task for the IC is to facilitate the decision-making on the date and location of the next WSF, I recommend a model that builds the widest range of support around the best option without dismissing the other options. For the record: I've observed several recent IC meetings and none of those came close to any methodology of horizontality, so calling the current practices of the IC horizontal only adds to the ridiculasation of the term. I'm not an ideological horizontalist, I just think that a diversity of methodologies is possible and essential for the evolution of movements. The WSF reflects that essence and should continue to do so.

o   Do we need a clearer structure so as to enhance transparency and accountability?

This suggests that a "clearer structure" will automagically "enhance transparency and accountability", while I think it's the other way around: operating according to shared principles such as transparency and accountability will result in a structure that is more clear to everybody!

o   Do we need a new version of the ‘liaison group’ for practical tasks, avoiding the shortcomings of the previous one?

If there is the need to form working groups, including a liaison group, they will rise. The question is who defines these needs, just the IC itself or all the organisers and participants of WSF events and processes? At the moment our group named TransitionCI WG is the only WSF working group I know about, the rest is inactive or invisible to me.

-          Objective and strategy of the IC (and here, also of WSF):

o   can we clearly word what our concrete objective is (beyond ‘surpassing capitalism/neoliberalism’ and, for the IC ‘facilitating’ the WSF)?

For the WSF: replace capitalism/neoliberalism by relationships based on equal/just/fair distribution of powers, knowledges and wealth. In my view, within the WSF capitalism and neoliberalism are clearly not marginalized, but just marginally replaced by alternatives.
For the IC: facilitating is just fine to me. Good facilitation of a process is an art. I have seen amazing facilitators at work in very small workshops at WSF events, they should be in the IC! Supporting and promoting the events, decide the date and location of the next WSF, evaluating the events, resolving conflicts - that is already an enormous task.

o   Can we discuss a strategy if we are  not clear on our objectives? We should remember our year long discussions on space and/or movement and/or action.

Leave the decisions on the actions to those who are going to do it. The IC should just stick to its simple objectives: provide continuity and (critically) support all initiatives of WSF event organisers and participants. My strategical priorities would be very practical: 1) put time, energy and resources in the organizing process of the WSF in Montreal (and all other planned WSF events in the coming years) 2) finally create a good functioning global website for the WSF 3) already start to investigate where and when the WSF can be located after Montreal, so the fire can be handed over properly.

o   Can the IC be/become a kind of ‘governance’ (sorry for the word, we found no better one) body for the WSF, with clearly attributed responsibilities and accountability?

Oh please, I have a better one. The IC should no longer consider itself the head of the WSF. It has been long enough now that the IC functioned like the ass of the WSF, an ass stupid enough to think it was the brain of the same body. It's time for the IC to stick to its task and become the feet of the WSF. Bare feet. And just walk where the heart of the WSF wants you to bring it.

-          How to re-politicize the IC?

I think the statement that the IC has to be 'repoliticized' is very tricky, because it really depends on what we mean by politics. As the Charter of Principles says, the WSF should "not constitute a locus of power to be disputed by the participants in its meetings" (rule nr 6), but it should be empowering struggles around the world which are of course political struggles...

o   Should we abandon the non-directive characteristic of the IC?

No. I mean, has the non-directive characteristic of the IC ever been embraced?

o   Can we organize more and deeper political debates on the world situation (as demanded by majority of members in questionnaire last year)

The so-called political analysis of the world situation and all the strategizing should be done by all the participants of the forum, and not be limited to the small and exclusive circle of the IC. So this is clearly not a task of the IC. The IC should not speak, but listen.

o   Should the Charter of Principles be changed?

 Yes, if there is a need to change it. I have some suggestions, but I can elaborate on that later.

-          Should the solidarity fund be re-instated in order to guarantee the presence of movements that otherwise cannot attend?

Yes, as long as it's transparent who gets what and who is making that decision.

o   Should IC-members pay a fee?

Yes, but on a voluntary basis.


Francine Mestrum schreef op 18-5-2015 om 21:16: