• quotes and debate on WSF 2015

last modified April 26, 2015 by Tord

Thanks especially to North African commentators the discussion on WSF has taken a more radical turn opening up for changes in the future. These contributions are more comprehensive and radical in terms of democratic culture, resistance and alternatives than is common among contributions from the rest of the world. Together with the comments and proposals made from other places and more detailed discussions hopefully WSF in Tunis 2015 can become a step forward in the common effort to challenge the present capitalist and imperialist world order and building a sustainable relationship between man and nature embracing mother earth.  

Contributions to the debate about WSF in Tunis and beyond from Tugal, Rahmani, Chennaoui, Rahim, Savio, Sen, Teivanen, 
Kuruvilla, Barria and Björk has here been selected as especially of interest. Below you find quotes from the different contributions. a list with more than 200 contributions you find at World Social Forum in Tunis 2015 . One can claim there are several types of differences between the contributions. Jai Sen states that "we must also keep in mind, and bring into the discussion, the fact that there are also many people out there who feel that despite its shortcomings, the WSF is also still serving very important purposes, including being a crucible for the emergence and advance of movement; for instance, Tord Björk’s very interesting reflections on the Tunis Forum in his post on April 16, ‘228 links on WSF 2015’ – which is a radically different take from Mimoun Rahmani’s." At the face of it it seems as if the text I have been written assess the Tunis event as radically different from Rahmani. At the same time I rather see that it is Rahmani´s text that comes closest to my own view on the WSF process. 


Thus some clarity is useful when looking at the different contributions to the debate. This could be possible by structuring the differences that has been addressed. They could be listed as follows although they tend to be connected to each other: 

Is a change needed of WSF as the world has changed?

Is resistance and effective campaigning or building alternatives most important?

If there is a change in the world does it make dialog with political parties more important or is simultaneous opposition to both market and state important?

Is there a gradual hierarchy evolving inside WSF making more participatory and democratic necessary?

Should the change promote more Is the solution more strengthening of local social forums and an International Council representing social forum processes?

Should the open space formula remain or should WSF and the IC become a body for making statements?

Should the popular movements take more space for convergences and use WSF as central for campaigning on multiissues? 


Is a change needed of WSF as the world has changed?

Teivanen puts it bluntly: "in terms of creating a new kind of democratic world that the WSF Charter of Principles vaguely outlines, the period has been brief and without major transformations." Savio claims that there is a difference: "The loss of legitimacy of the political system is stronger every day. The inability of the system to resolve even problems for the survival of the planet, like climate change, have become common knowledge. The unprecedented growth of social injustice is now denounced by international organisations like IMF and the World Bank." Kuruvilla and Barria claims  that "the world has changed since 2001, but many of the challenges that led to the founding of the World Social Forum (WSF) in the southern Brazilian city of Porto Alegre remain. In the initial years of the 21st century, people’s movements were arguably on the offensive .... Arguably on all these fronts, progressive forces are fighting defensive battles – in defending the right to decent work, defending the commons, defending democratic spaces and defending social services." Björk states that a historic era has ended: "The global revolution in 1968 saw a split in two groups of political actors evolving. On the one hand left wing political parties aiming at bringing about convergence of different struggles and on the other hand so called new social movements fragmenting the struggle into specific single issues." With the help of WSF and the People´s Summit in Rio 2012 were the open space concept and NGO model was challenged by popular movements and a global movements strategy evolved by converging several key struggles. 

While the two first contributions focus upon different degrees of assessing the world as a phenomena separate from the movements 
Kuruvilla and Barria sees the weakness of WSF in the light of the weakness of the movement while the last contribution claims the opposite, here history and thus the world can be made by movements and Rio+Tunis became a turning point changing the way open discussion relates to action in a new way that will change the future. 

Is resistance and effective campaigning or building alternatives most important?

Tugal is addressing the need for building alternatives while Björk stresses campaigning equally important as overcoming 500 years of oppression by going beyond Western developmentalism when looking for alternatives. Rahmani calls for a struggle against the capitalist system wich is not on the agenda and therefore the process is uncertain. Savio calls for more focused action: This IC would then organise itself to expand by incorporating more organisations, representatives of a large base (which would bring more to the fore social movements or organisations such as Greenpeace or Amnesty International, which have never joined because they did not find the IC a place to be). Such an IC could then carry out plans of actions, endorsed by the Forums, for taking positions on global issues in global events, such as the upcoming climate conference in Paris. Björk stressed that convergence of campaigning actually took place: "a core for further convergence was established" ... "the transversal campaign to dismantle corporate power organically rather then ideologically linking ... with climate justice ... the global struggle against water privatization, for land rights, for a just transition promoted by the trade unions, for small scale farming and for alternatives." 

Most radical in both directions are North Africans. Tugal by stressing the need to have an alternative that do not depend on the state or capital to produce at a mass scale. Rahmani by stressing struggle against the capitalist system as central. One could claim that those two positions match each other well or at least are compatible. Savios effective campaigning idea does not. Greenpeace and Amnesty are the contrary of struggling against the capitalist system. Greenpeace do not even allow for struggling against neoliberal solutions like carbon trading. Amnesty is by definition single issue and avoids addressing social issues since Nelson Mandela was not accepted as a person to campaign for his release in the 1960s until todays close relationship with US global governance strategies together with NGOs. It is hard to see a more extreme difference between that of Rahmani and Savio. Björk puts himself firmly in the middle very far from at least Greenpeace and Amnesty but advocating struggle for alternatives and for dismantling the power of corporations, fully compatible with Tugal but advocating anticapitalism in practice by multiissue campaigning and convergence rather than a monolitic attack against the system centered on anticapitalist ideology.

If there is a change in the world does it make dialog with political parties more important or is simultaneous opposition to both market and state important?

Teivanen and Rahmani with his reference to Sader stresses the need for recognizing a shifting situation. Teivanen states: "The emergence of left-leaning governments in Latin America and now also in Europe has made the strategy of changing the world through political parties that conquer the state more attractive to some sectors of global activism. It has also created more pressures to include parties as legitimate participants of the WSF." Savio also sees a change in the world outside: "What has grown is the disconnect between the Forum and the world that it wants to change. The disasters created by neoliberal globalisation are now evident to everybody. The loss of legitimacy of the political system is stronger every day. The inability of the system to resolve even problems for the survival of the planet, like climate change, have become common knowledge. The unprecedented growth of social injustice is now denounced by international organisations like IMF and the World Bank." But contrary to Teivanen and Rahmani he sees a solution in strengthening NGOs rather than political parties in the process. Tugal claims "Revolutionary mobilization is necessary not only to sweep away the meanest enemies of alternative economies, but also to keep alternative organizations free from marketization and bureaucratization." as a necessary step after more than a decade when WSF and public criticism has shown that neoliberalism does not work while several NGOs still "flirt with neoliberal techniques and discourse". Thus a change is needed more due to a lack of internal change of those involved in the WSF process rather than in any outside world which still needs a movement that fully challenge both the neoliberal state and the market. A position which also Björk is close to.

So when Teivanen, Rahmani and Savio calls for recognizing changes in the world by bringing in divergent new actors more central in the WSF process Tugal and Björk rather claim the need to bring about better movement convergence resisting and building alternatives opposing simultaneously state and market bureaucratization and thus bring about a revolutionary change much needed. 

Is there a gradual hierarchy evolving inside WSF making more participatory and democratic changes necessary?

Chennaoui and Ramin makes similar claims concerning lack of democratic culture in the WSF process. All the rest of the observers also shows some criticism and call for drastic or smaller changes. Björk claims something new is necessary acknowledging WSF as a decision making process building on the Peoples summit experience turning the convergence assemblies into stronger actors. Rahmani calls for something similar and the need to enable grass roots to participate better. Tugal calls for challenging NGOs more by combining fight against capitalism with building alternatives. This is a point that needs further elaboration. It can be noted that the People's summit in Rio was able to mobilize direct actions and several demonstrations during the meeting and in this way promote more ways to participate in the common event than only through open space discussions.  

Should the change promote strengthening of local social forums and an International Council representing social forum processes?

Who are the actors actually that make use of WSF and can revitalize the process? One way of making WSF more participatory would be to strengthen the linkage to thematic, regional, national and local social forums. This is what Sen address as important but few others. Interestingly Vijay Pratap also from India addressed the issue in the IC to promote local social forums which is planned in India. He received no response. Why so few place apart from India sees the need to have a firmer base at the local level of the WSF process can be discussed. Once upon a time there were 200 local social forums in Italy alone, now they are all gone as far as I know. Thematic social forums has had more of a success recently while regional and national social forums in several places has disappeared like the European Social Forum and national social forum in countries like Denmark. Here more or less all Danish popular movements and NGOs that could be seen as interested in the WSF charter joined but still there were no substantial influence on campaigning.Thus the Danish organizations explicitly avoided the open space formula and organized the Klimaforum09 instead with 50000 participants with a common declaration "System change not climate change". 

The greatest problem here is seeing WSF as part of a global open space process that can evolve at all levels as if other forms connecting discussion and action do not exist. Rahmani and Björk stresses popular movements that already have this democratic culture from the local to the global level. This may be compatible with some strengthening of social forums at different levels but not if social forums is seen as the only source for legitimating influence at WSF. 

Open space or convergence for decisions on action?

Here Savio and Sen brings the discussion to its climax. Sen by defending the claim that WSF is and should be an open space. Savio by claiming it has to make a choice, either open space or turning WSF into an actor that makes decision on behalf of a qualified majority or all participants, preferably also with an IC that can make decisions. Björk questions both Sen and Savios positions by claiming that describing WSF in Tunis 2015 as an open space is false as the elements of the culture of the Peoples summit established in direct confrontation with the SF open space formula shows that another WSF is possible. Thus is the dichotomy presented by Savio also unnecessary. The sharp criticism put forward by Rahmani against the way convergences of social movements has been marginalized shows that changes can take place that one could argue goes beyond the concept of an open space as the central culture of WSF. Instead could WSF be seen as a process were action orientation and convergence of both resistance struggles and building alternatives are the central culture with the help of an open space.  

Concerning the need for reforming the IC it seems as something everybody agree upon, only that as Savio states for what kind of WSF? A more representative body is put forward by several commentators, either by having organizers of other social forums appointing their representatives and/or by having more narrowly defined social movements and NGOs represented at the IC. Rahmani states the need for IC to promote grass root participation and convergence of social movements better while Savio rightly criticize social movement for making to little efforts in strengthening of the WSF while en takes the US Social Forum as an example how social forums can develop in a better way, a US model that was clearly felt during the convergence assembly emphasized by Björk. Thus it seems as reforms could be possible. Savio speaks clear about the need in two aspects. On the one hand the need for having a better democratic structure during and between meeting. On the one hand turning the IC into a decision making body for making statements. While the first suggestion might fit well into both Rahmani's Björk's and Sen's comments the latter receives more criticism. Further discussion is here needed. Is the proposals by Rahmani and Björk and way out of the patt situation turning WSF more into a convergence actor with the help of an open space a way to accommodate some of Savio's criticism? In that case it would be possible to put forward constructive solutions to how the IC can be reformed. 

Should the popular movements take more space for convergences and use WSF as central for campaigning on multiissues?

Rahmani and Björk both address this issue. Rahmani by pointing at several reforms needed to strengthen the role of social movements from the need to enable militants from the grassroots to participate to speak up against the way The Assembly of Social Movements "has been rendered meaningless by the strategy and methodology" which has been established. Björk by claiming that a convergence actually have started and taken a great step forward by using some of the methodology from the Peoples summit in Rio 2012. One could add Rahims criticism against. Savio more randomly address the need to involve social movements seeing more structured organisations as important while Sen on the contrary sees unstructured process as the key to make WSF more action oriented with a biological metaphor "cross-contamination, and where the contaminated then go forth and multiply" giving the formal democratic processes within popular movement organizations no central value.

Rahmani and Björk is not only fully compatible with each other but Rahmanis points can be seen as necessary to fulfil the popular movement convergence that now took place ad hoc. One can even claim that if a historic shift took place as Björk claims than what Rahmani states on strengthening the role of social movements is essential to scale up this historical shift. The notions made by Rahmani and Björk could also be compatible with parts of what Savio states although the former put the main emphasis on convergence assemblies and Savio on the IC. Sen point on contamination is directly in contradiction to put an emphasis on formal democratic decision-making in popular movement organisations as a key to understanding how decisions in different assemblies and workshops during WSF can be implemented. The cultural kind of dissemination that Sen calls for is of course of great importance and compatible with strengthening the role of popular movement organisations, but the idea that to "contaminate others in the diverse parts of the world ... and where – as we all know – this process of multiplication is exponential" is a model for change were formal democratic processes are seen as lacking the kind of magic exponential force that only contamination can bring about. At least this can be seen as one interpretation of what Sen states.



Cihan Tugal: Those who want to build and those who want to fight, The World Social Forum with a North African Twist

http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/21294/those-who-want-to-build-those-who-want-to-fight_th

In one exceptional panel, the calls to fight against capitalism and to build alternatives to it were combined. The generational divide that marked other North African presentations was not there either. People of all ages, men and women, quite energetically participated, not only through questions, but often by intervening (kindly or rudely) in the presentation. ... 

The cross-generational and cross-cultural energy in this room was both promising and frustrating. It demonstrated the presence of a feisty spirit ready to confront transnational capital and shoulder the burden of replacing it with a concrete alternative. But it was disappointing in that the alleged alternative was not really one. I asked: “Why should the state be the motor of development?” We have seen in the past that statism can be as oppressive and inegalitarian as capitalism. Why put all our eggs in one basket again? In response, the speaker modified his sentence by saying “the state should be one motor of development among others.” ... 

As long as we depend on the state or on capital to produce at a mass scale, these small experiments will remain marginal, or worse, will get incorporated into market or state mechanisms. The NGO activists might be uninterested in anti-capitalism, but only at their own peril (at their own peril as NGO activists—certainly, there will always be more lucrative careers in a neoliberalized NGO universe). For the survival and generalization of the principles that many (if not all) NGOs hold dear (sharing, reciprocity, equity), we need a new economy at both the regional and global levels. This is impossible without fighting transnational capital (and national big business), which would be the big loser(s) of such a transition, and would therefore deploy all possible resources to block it. 

The WSF has been around for more than a decade, and so has public criticism that lays bare the ills of neoliberalism. If most (even relatively more non-neoliberal) NGOs can still flirt with neoliberal techniques and discourse, this shows propaganda and direct action are not enough. Anti-capitalists too have to engage new venues to win these fence-sitters over. .... 

Here we come full circle to our starting point. Revolutionary mobilization is necessary not only to sweep away the meanest enemies of alternative economies, but also to keep alternative organizations free from marketization and bureaucratization. ... 

The WSF has, over the years, clearly communicated the message that the source of the problem is neoliberal capitalism. What needs to be done next, globally, is getting out the message regarding what counter-globalization activists are for, not just what they are against.

The abuses of the World Social Forum: Towards the end of the process? Mimoun Rahmani ميمون الرحماني : 

http://tlaxcala-int.org/article.asp?reference=14499

It is clear that the World Social Forum is currently in crisis, as well as its International Council. It was recovered by the supporters of a "liberalism with a human face!", those who see the Forum as a simple event. The struggle against the capitalist system is not on the agenda and is not a common agenda of the various components of the dynamics of the WSF. The future of the process is therefore uncertain! ...

In addition, the WSF has never managed to actually be a forum for movements to express themselves. Only structured organisations are able to finance the travels of a few militants. There has been very little attention paid to the grassroots.

The Assembly of Social Movements (ASM), which was the last minute of the WSF in the early years, and calls at each edition for action days and mobilisations worldwide, has been rendered meaningless by the strategy and methodology established by the IC. It is now marginalised and placed at the same level as other convergence assemblies! The idea was to break the momentum of the ASM which positions itself concretely in the field of alternatives to capitalist globalisation. And social movements themselves have contributed to this by their withdrawal and disinterest, including some major international movements that had initiated this dynamic.

Social movements, especially those that make up the ASM, and the various movements fighting for global social justice, are called to more coordination and cooperation for the common struggle, even beyond the WSF, to strengthen the fight against capitalist globalization for a more just and equitable world. 

 Rahmani refers to the criticism of Emir Sader against WSF as its anti state ideology among NGOs have made it obsolete http://www.medelu.org/Le-Forum-social-mondial-reduit-a-l.  "Au moment où l’Amérique Latine, victime privilégiée du néolibéralisme, élisait et consolidait des gouvernements anti-néolibéraux, le FSM, en se déconnectant de l’histoire réelle, se vidait de sa substance. Pour les ONG, les Forums sont de simples espaces d’échanges d’expériences entre différents mouvements. Ils ne sont même pas devenus des lieux de débat entre les gouvernements post-néolibéraux et les mouvements sociaux. Les ONG et les théoriciens de la “société civile” ont vu leur paradigme libéral et anti-Etat faire dépasser par la réalité." 

World Social Forum: Where is the Struggle Against Capitalism?:

http://nawaat.org/portail/2015/04/04/world-social-forum-where-is-the-struggle-against-capitalism/   

This year, participants were quick to voice their criticisms. Disappointed Forum-goers were clearly much greater in number this year than the last. Many including the WSF Steering Committee are perhaps not interested in experimenting with alternative forms of organization. In theory the WSF is committed to facilitating the self-governance of exchanges between movements, ideas, and experiences of all progressive ideologies. Meanwhile, some have observed the gradual development of a hierarchy amongst WSF organizers and that a serious, collective reflection for future editions is more than necessary. 

Egyptian writer and political activist Houssein Abdel Rahim has followed the WSF from its inception. ... 

"This carnival of activists is not really participative and democratic as it claims to be. The truth is that it follows the pyramid scheme. Big decisions are monopolized by the governing minority in the image of a capitalist system"


2b. Other selected general reports and analysis

A traditional assessment by Roberto Savio, founder of the important third world news agency IPS, It Should be clear what to expect from WSF:

http://www.other-news.info/2015/04/it-should-be-clear-what-to-expect-from-the-wsf/

The last International Council (IC) of the World Social Forum (Mar. 29 and 30) in Tunis was characterised by the usual sequence of three-minute statements, without any conclusions. This time, the presence of several people who intervened vehemently, without being members of the IC or representing anyone, added more confusion. ... 

After 15 years, the facts about the WSF are by now well clear. The Forum is doing exactly what it was supposed to do. It is a meeting space, where tens of thousands of people meet, share and exchange, and it is an occasion for taking decisions on common action among participants. ... 

What has grown is the disconnect between the Forum and the world that it wants to change. The disasters created by neoliberal globalisation are now evident to everybody. The loss of legitimacy of the political system is stronger every day. The inability of the system to resolve even problems for the survival of the planet, like climate change, have become common knowledge. The unprecedented growth of social injustice is now denounced by international organisations like IMF and the World Bank. 

However, on all those issues, the WSF does not take any position. It is frozen in the formula of an open space, not for relating to the outside world. And the IC is just a facilitator which cannot take official positions, or propose any vision or plan of action..... 

It should also be noted that the IC was conceived as a totally horizontal structure, as is always the case in alternative civil society – there are no directors, no positions. It is the same formula as for a number of other global events, like the Indignados in Spain or Occupy Wall Street in New York, just to recall the two most famous. The same horizontal formula – no leaders, no spokespersons and no structure. ... 

In the last few months, the debate about the future of the WSF has again taken force. The proponents for change say that when WSF was created, neoliberal globalisation was new, and the WSF was necessary to debate and denounce it. 

Now this work has been done, and we need to start to act. At the very minimum, this requires changing the Charter of Principles, and accepting that the Forum can make declarations on issues that participants consider relevant. 

The guardians of the Charter maintain that this would lead inexorably to a splitting of the movement. But it would be enough to add a quorum of 80 percent, for example, for any act to be sure of having a mass view. 

In Tunis, for example, it would have been perfectly possible to have a unanimous declaration asking the governments of the world to be responsible for the future of the planet and be prepared to go to the Climate Conference in Paris in December, ignoring the lobby of the energy corporations and thinking instead of people’s lives and survival. The same should also have been possible for the International Council, which would then discuss vision, and become an actor on global issues. 

This brings us to the real problem. As it is now, the IC is not a representative body of global civil society because it is not the result of an organic process. It should reorganise itself radically, which is a very unrealistic proposal. Ideally, it should be dissolved and re-created as an IC of the various organising committees of the World Forum held until now. This would bring diversity, experience … and legitimacy. 

This IC would then organise itself to expand by incorporating more organisations, representatives of a large base (which would bring more to the fore social movements or organisations such as Greenpeace or Amnesty International, which have never joined because they did not find the IC a place to be). Such an IC could then carry out plans of actions, endorsed by the Forums, for taking positions on global issues in global events, such as the upcoming climate conference in Paris.... 

Is global civil society in the form of the WSF ready to adopt some mechanisms of organisation, albeit limited? Is it ready to accept that to fight the system some kind of counter-system must be organized and that horizontality has some limits?...

This contribution has so far produced the most discussion. Jai Sen responded on the WSF discuss list: 

... By your own account Roberto, while the IC is paralysed and half-dead (and I thoroughly enjoyed reading your account of the noisy merry-go-round / musical chairs that goes on there, the Chaplinesque tragicomedy of serious, high political discussion that always pervades IC meetings), the WSF itself – the WSF process – seems to be alive and very well, proliferating everywhere, and with people continuing to be inspired by the WSF idea across much of the world. You however focus on the IC alone, and your suggestion is that the Charter therefore needs to be changed to allow the IC to take positions on world issues – and by implication, you suggest that doing this would also make the WSF relevant to the world outside. 

As I think you may know, I have my own issues with the idea and praxis of what is called ‘open space’; ...I think I have to venture the thought here again that the magic of the space created by each Forum is that it is a space for the open-ended exchange not just of ideas but also, and crucially, of pheromones (trace chemicals that live beings exchange, and that contain whole histories in them), and for cross-contamination, and where the contaminated then go forth and multiply, as it were, and contaminate others in the diverse parts of the world that they come from; and where – as we all know – this process of multiplication is exponential, and that of contamination is viral…. And, I suggest, this is why the WSF process is ‘successful’ - because it is truly ‘alive’.  And by now, I suspect, has all but achieved a state of constant multiplication, rejuvenation, and transmutation.  Or is near to that. 

            And as others have written before me, aside from the fact that pheromonic exchange and contamination are invisible anyway, the way the process is growing and interconnecting is also underground (and therefore not visible to us – because it's rhizomatic, with roots spreading deep underground, and all around us).  So we can’t ‘see’ all this going on, but it is. ... 

But what is vital to point out here, in the context of this discussion about the IC and how the WSF can and should relate to the world around it, is that what the WSF process as it exists / has become therefore is also doing, is to turn power relations on its head; and as opposed to the old fashioned way of some body or limb being created that has or is given (or, usually, takes) the power to ‘represent’ ‘the WSF’ in relation to what you refer to as ‘world issues’, it is the organic manner in which the myriad incarnations that now exist of ‘the WSF’ in so many parts of the world relate to the world around them that is – I suggest - a far more authentic (and more organic) manifestation of ‘the WSF’ relating to ‘the world outside’, than any one body or limb would ever be able to manage.  

I recognise what you are saying – that the WSF is all too often not ‘speaking to’ developments taking place out there in the rest of the world – but I hope you can also see what I am saying, that the larger WSF process is now very much a creation of the rest of the world; and that ‘it’ is therefore in constant conversation with the world out there.  I personally feel that there is place for both, but I most sincerely hope that those within the WSF process will also keep this in mind and not think of the IC as their sole spokesperson, forgetting about this other very live and organic relationship that already exists.

Roberto Savio responded: 

well, I do not see where we disagree. 
a)no doubt that the open space formula works, as I said. The WSF as an internal space for sharing and awareness is fine, and it will continue to exist. 
b)no doubt that the IC is not up to its task.On  that, Jay, there is a consensus.Does the open space formula needs a such inefficient body? A much smaller and dedicated only to the realisation of the open space would be better and more adequate. A technical body, who acts as a link between the forums, which are realized by the local organizing committees...n ot an international council, but a kind of coordinating committee..we have enogh experince to know that this would be what we need... 
c) central remain the debate if an internal open space is enough, in view of how the external world is going.In my view, it is not. But once we agree that the internal open space is enough, let us gop ahead with it. What I find not helpful is this ongoing debate about the Forum, for nothing, as there is a widespread frustration, for the lack of an agreement on what the Forum should do. Let5 us decide it for once. Internal open space? Fine. Use the critical mass in the open space to take positions on how the neoliberal globalization is doing? Fine. I am a proponent of the second formula, but I will be very happy if the first one is finally decided.But it should be clear what we want. And my paper was intended to create a debate exactly on this definition. 
  
After 15 years, some update would be reasonable. But if the feeling is that this should not be so, as you say, I will gladly accept. But there should be a debate and a definition, and stop all this sense of frustration among a relevant number of people. 
  
About the IC, my proposal is to downgrade its image, which brings number of organizations to join, just for the status, and make it a coordinating committee, clearly intended as a facilitator for the organizing committee of the Forum. Especially if the Forum remains an internal open space, as you seem inclined to choose, a large and inefficient body is even less necessary. 
  
Now, the question of the IC depends on what we expect the WSF to do....  
So, let us debate, reach a consensus and go ahead!  (the above quote has been spell checked by the editor)

Jai Sen responded  

You’ve started by saying “well, I do not see where we disagree.”  Well, I agree that it would seem that we mostly agree, but I think you have missed / not grasped my central point in my last intervention on this thread – and I don't know where you stand on this.  Please respond.  In short, my point is that when discussing the IC and its future, let’s please remember that the IC is NOT the only way in which ‘the WSF’ relates to the larger world around it – and let’s please therefore not have the discussion as if this is the case.  

I tried to argue that in many senses, and at many levels, the WSF is (or seems to be) alive and well, and is continuing to grow and take shape in different places – and that crucially, this taking shape in different places is itself also an engagement with the larger world around it.  We may not all necessarily agree with what a given local or regional manifestation does, or how it relates to the world around it – but this is not the point; the point is that every one of these encounters with the larger reality is the WSF relating to - and contributing to – the larger reality around it.  And given that the WSF is now taking place in quite a few locations – I read somewhere recently that some 10-20 major WSF-related meetings still take place around the world each year – we need to read and recognise this.  Do you see what I mean ? 

Teivo Teivanen, professor of World Politics at Helsinki university, long time observer of WSF: After Tunis What Next for World Social Forum

https://opendemocracy.net/teivo-teivainen/after-tunis-what-next-for-world-social-forum

The idea of an open space where movements and groups identifying with an emerging global civil society could learn about globalization and each other won more interest than many expected. Much has been learned. Many have, however, become impatient and frustrated with the incapacity of the WSF to provide more effective mechanisms for changing the world.          

The emergence of left-leaning governments in Latin America and now also in Europe has made the strategy of changing the world through political parties that conquer the state more attractive to some sectors of global activism. It has also created more pressures to include parties as legitimate participants of the WSF. This could give a politicizing boost that might help the forum process become a more effective instrument of change. Then again, as many fear, it might result in corrosive fights for hegemony within the WSF. In any case, at least some of the depoliticizing pretensions of the original WSF open-space formula need to be rethought, even if the global political should not be reduced to fighting for state power.             

Apart from state-centric strategies, other forms of politicization have also been strengthened since the birth of the WSF. These include anarchist-inspired movements and other expressions of what Breno Bringel in his typology of global cycles of mobilization calls “geopolitics of global outrage”. Since the occupations of various kinds of plazas in Cairo, New York, Madrid and elsewhere in 2011, it might have seemed that the social forums have become a thing of the past. The subsequent WSF events in Tunis, attended by various occupy and Arab Spring activists, were useful in showing the compatibility between the WSF and newer expressions of activism. As many expressions of the latter have tended to be more specifically localized, the WSF has provided a transnational meeting place for at least some of them. 

Conditions for communication between movements have also changed since 2001. Face-to-face meetings are still important, but especially large-scale processes such as the WSF or anything that might replace it need to find more effective ways to use communication technology to facilitate future meetings and decision-making. In this, the WSF has much to learn from the newer cycle of mobilizations. 

It has become a commonplace to state that we live in a different world from the one inhabited by the Brazilians (and some others) who started organizing the first WSF fifteen years ago. Some things, such as the ones described above, have clearly changed. Yet, in terms of creating a new kind of democratic world that the WSF Charter of Principles vaguely outlines, the period has been brief and without major global transformations. 

There are good reasons to believe that the social and physical limits to the expansion of capitalism, including the ecological crisis, imply that we will in this century face much greater global turbulence than the one the WSF has lived with thus far. Whatever the future of the WSF itself, we can learn from its achievements and contradictions to prepare for the tasks ahead. 

Benny Kuruvilla is the policy chief of the South Solidarity Initiative, based in New Delhi, India and Susana Barria works at the Global Secretariat of the Peoples Health Movement, based in New Delhi, India, Advancing Global Solidarity in Tunis and Beyond:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/10/advancing-global-solidarity-in-tunis-and-beyond/

The world has changed since 2001, but many of the challenges that led to the founding of the World Social Forum (WSF) in the southern Brazilian city of Porto Alegre remain. In the initial years of the 21st century, people’s movements were arguably on the offensive .... Arguably on all these fronts, progressive forces are fighting defensive battles – in defending the right to decent work, defending the commons, defending democratic spaces and defending social services. 

What next for the World Social Forum? .... 

The International Council (IC) of the WSF met after the Forum at the UGTT office to assess the Tunis event and decide on future plans. After the meeting it was announced that the next WSF will take place in Montreal, Quebec in August 2016. The announcement wasn’t without controversy since the IC had earlier agreed that the WSF would be a biennial event. Further, Canada has a rightwing Government which will impact local organisational capacity and the participation of activist groups from both the North and South given high costs and visa difficulties. 

Nevertheless, this will be the first ever WSF hosted by the global south of a northern country and that is exciting by itself. A collective of more than 140 groups representing labour, indigenous, feminist and environmental groups have worked tirelessly for the past two years to bring the forum to Quebec. The opportunity for the global south in the north to participate more actively in the WSF process is invaluable. In addition, the new ways of organising and activism emerging from the vibrant movements of the marginalised in North America could be a shot in the arm for re-vitalising and re-inventing the WSF. This is critical as the World Social Forum is the only act of its kind – a global platform for the left and progressive forces to share struggle notes, strategise and build another world that is not just possible, but more necessary than ever. 

Tord Björk, Friends of the Earth Sweden, Prague Spring 2 network and Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam: Days in Tunis That Changed the World:

http://openfsm.net/projects/ukraine-crisis-and-solutions/days-in-tunis-that-changed-the-world  

The World Social Forum in Tunis starts a new era in world history. The global revolution in 1968 saw a split in two groups of political actors evolving. On the one hand left wing political parties aiming at bringing about convergence of different struggles and on the other hand so called new social movements fragmenting the struggle into specific single issues.

At the World Social Forum in Tunis the strength of the open space concept which stimulates openness and avoids taking decisions in the name of all participants was combined with the strength of the Peoples summit model used in Rio 2012 were the main global popular movements were prioritized in an open convergence process during the forum. The main outcome of the Peoples Summit was the transversal campaign to dismantle corporate power organically rather then ideologically linking a wide range of struggles on different issues. In Tunis this campaign merged with climate justice campaigning in a joint convergence process without neither of the two losing their broadness and both sharpening their main focus. Thus a core for further convergence was established which in a second step in a similar way was done with the global struggle against water privatization, for land rights, for a just transition promoted by the trade unions, for small scale farming and for alternatives.


Even more invisible was two more far reaching processes taking place. In practice they addressed a split among popular movements since 100 years and even 500 years.... In a situation one hundred years after the Zimmerwald conference and the peace movement gathering in the Hague it is of most immediate concerns to rebuild a peace movement with the beginning at both sides of the war zone and by uniting all different strands in the struggle against the capitalist forces behind all forms of imperialism. This is precisely what happened in Tunis.  .... the whole spectrum of left wing ideologies were present opening up for the possibility to bridge a 100 year split among the workers and left wing movements and anew building a lasting peace movement.

 

At the even deeper level 500 years of oppression and colonialism was also addressed at its most profound basis, the level beyond developmentalism, state and market routines.