---

Expansion of the World Social Forum (2005) 
http://openfsm.net/projects/wsfic_fsmci/wsfic-icfuturecontribution-16

Some Issues and Suggestions

Amit Sen Gupta (WSF, India Organising Committee)

 

After having organised four editions of the World Social Forum since 2001, it is natural that the WSF is now having to reflect on future strategies for the process. What started as an endeavour by a relatively small number of organisations with limited geographical spread has now grown into a process that is beginning to acquire truly global dimensions.

 

As the WSF acquires a global status, there is increasing demand on it to have a decision making process that represents the diversity that we see in the WSF, both in terms of the geographical spread as well as the rich ensemble of movements that come together in the space provided by the WSF.

 

This necessity that is being felt is accompanied by another kind of reality that the WSF has to face up to. This has to do with the uneven nature of the spread and the depth of the WSF process. While the global forum, as well as the regional/ thematic forums draw participants from a very large number of countries, representing virtually every corner of the globe, this is not always accompanied by active WSF processes within countries and regions. In order for the WSF to claim that it is able to bring together the largest possible body of organisations/ movements in its opposition to neo-liberal globalisation, the participation in the WSF events need also to reflect and link up with processes in the regions/ countries from which the participants come from. Unfortunately, this is not always the case – today the engagement with the WSF process in the case of many regions of the world is limited to participation in WSF events, unaccompanied by matching processes within these regions.

 

The above two demands on the WSF process today are the twin challenges that any strategy related to the expansion of the WSF process faces. To recapitulate, these are:

 

1)     To undertake an expansion of the International Council with a view to enhancing its representative character vis-a-vis the diversity that the WSF represents today.

 

2)     To undertake an expansion of the WSF process in countries and regions of the world where the process is still nascent or not very inclusive and not entirely representative of processes and movements against neoliberal globalisation.

 

The two challenges are linked but also require specific strategies. Let us first address them separately and then attempt to look at a comprehensive strategy that links them both.

 

 Expansion of the International Council (IC) of the WSF

 

The genesis of the IC has played an important part in its present character. The IC was formed after the first WSF in 2001, i.e. its constitution followed rather than preceded the setting up of the WSF process. Further, the IC was not constituted in a planned manner, but was – at least to start with – an ad hoc agglomeration of organisations who showed interest in the WSF process. This meant that the IC, in its composition, had numerous gaps. This was a natural outcome of the fact that the WSF process itself was very young and had not spread to most parts of the globe. The principal gaps in the IC were of the following nature – gaps, moreover, which continue till date:

 

1)     Gaps in geographical representation. The IC was, and still is, composed in large measure of organisation from Latin America and Europe. The very low representation from Africa and Asia is glaring for a body that represents a global process, a process furthermore designed to challenge the neoliberal globalisation.

 

2)     Gaps in the reflection of major movements within the IC. Today this appears even sharper given that movements are coming to play a major part in the Forums but their voices are under represented in the IC.

 

Such gaps seriously compromise the legitimacy of the IC and its ability to guide the WSF process. The crisis of legitimacy becomes more acute as the WSF becomes larger, more inclusive and more reprtesentative of forces that oppose neoliberal globalisation across the globe. What we hence see is a widening gap between the diversity of the WSF process and the representative (or lack of it) character of the IC.

 

Clearly, this is a situation that needs to be remedied, and a broadening of the IC to reflect the diversity of the WSF process is an urgent necessity.

 

Expansion of the WSF Process

 

In many parts of the globe the WSF process is shallow or nascent. This includes regions who are relatively well represnted in WSF events. As a result WSF events may not capture the diversity of movements from a particular region or country. We also have a situation when delegates from a country participate in WSF events but do not interact between themselves within their own country in the absence of a WSF process. This throws up the danger of making WSF events “top-down” events that may not entirely reflect the reality from many countries or regions as they are not a manifestation of inclusive WSF processes. It also seriously compromises the inclusive nature and the diversity of WSF events. It is one thing to say that the WSF represents a large number of countries, but it is a different thing to say that it represents the diversity of movements and processes against neoliberal globalisation from these countries. If the latter is not what we are saying (and unfortunately in many cases, we cannot honestly say it) WSF events loose much of their legitimacy.

 

Linking Expansion of the WSF Process with Expansion of the IC

 

It would be logical to suggest that the expansion of the IC goes hand in hand with that of the WSF process. For, if this does not happen, the expanded IC may well continue to be imbued with the same gaps that we talked about earlier. Ideally, the IC should reflect the diversity of the WSF processes – continental, regional/ thematic/ country. But in order to be able to do so, there must be inclusive WSF processes in all or most regions of the world. Until this does not happen gaps in the representative nature of the IC will continue to exist.

 

The immediate issue, however is, do we wait for an expansion of the WSF process before contemplating an expansion of the IC. A linked question is, do we have an “unrestricted” expansion of the IC or should it be “directed” in any sense; and if so by whom, and how. If it is directed, what are the criteria for “restricted” entry.

 

The other issue linked to the expansion of the IC is related to the size of the IC. Is it possible to have a very large IC – say 250-300 members and still expect it to take decisions that have a bearing on the WSF process.

 

Let us address each of these issues.

 

It may be suggested that while we do not wait for the expansion of the WSF process to take place optimally before we attempt an expansion of the IC, the immediate expansion of the IC must be undertaken keeping in mind some cautionary principles. In the case of countries/ regions with a weak or non-existent process, the WSF process in that country/region cannot be the reference point in deciding on proposals for inclusion. Unrestricted entry in such cases may see the entry of organisations who are marginal (or even in some cases disruptive) to an inclusive WSF processes in that country/ region that challenge neoliberal globalisation. In which case this might act as a hinderance to an inclusive WSF process there as well as retard the future participation of representative organisations/ movements in the IC.

 

The issue of the size of the IC and its ability to take decisions have been questioned at two levels. One, that it is impossible to have an informed discussion in such a large group (especially when those representing IC members change frequently and each IC meeting has a large number of new individuals who are not always aware of the issues at stake). Second, that, as a result a “small group”ends up taking most of the major decision because the “large”group finds itself incapable of coming to a consensus in the relatively short period of an IC meeting.

 

Some Suggestions

 

Keeping the above in view, following are some suggestions that we may consider.

 

1)     A major and immediate focus of activities related to Expansion be the initiation and deepening of the WSF process in countries/ regions where the process is not active. Such activities should include the organising of meetings which are inclusive in these places and the participation in these meetings by the members of the WSF Sectt. and IC who are conversant of the dynamics of these areas. Some suggested areas where such meetings should be organised are:

 

East Asia

S.E.Asia

West Asia

Central Asia

East Europe

North Africa

East Africa

Central Africa

Southern Africa

 

The participation and dynamics of these meetings could act as a vehicle that draws proposals for inclusion in the IC. The attempt should be to initiate these process within one year.

 

2)     Simultaneously start a process of expansion of the IC, but keep in mind that the acceleration of this process will only occur after the above process that initiates the WSF expansion process, is well undwerway. So, to start with, have a modest target in terms of numbers of new organisations that could be included in the IC. This can be (numbers are just indicative):

 

Asia                 20

Africa              10

Europe             5

Americas         5

 

Keeping these numbers in mind, the IC (primarily the Expansion Commission) examine applications. The criteria for examination can include:

            Geographical spread, i.e. activity in more than one country

            Social Base

            Association with the WSF process

            Association with activities confronting neoliberal globalisation

 

None of the above should be a necessary condition, but the sum of the above should constitute the final criterion used while deciding on a proposal. The major referring point while deciding on a proposal should be the country / regional WSF process – where such na inclusive process exists. Of course, it goes without saying, that proposals from organisations that do not conform to the Charter will be rejected in any case.

 

3)     Consider a much larger expansion, after the expansion process of the WSF (possibly 1 year to 18 months from now). Proposals that were not accepted in the earlier round (unless they are against the Charter) can also be reviewed at this stage.

 

4)     Address the issue of how to take decisions and debate in meetings with large numerical participation by having the Commissions function optimally and attempting to get them to prepare the ground for most decisions of the IC.  In other words, much of the discussions that we now have in the IC should actually take place in the Commissions. For this to happen we need to act on a communication strategy that makes ineractive discussions possible, without having people to meet physically. Thus much of the preparatory work and consensus building should be done by the Commissions and the IC should largely debate major “policy”issues.

 

5)     Work on a methodology that facilitates participation of groups from the South in IC and other WSF meetings.

 

6)     Consider a methodology of rotation in the IC, where a proportion of the IC (say one-third of old members) “retire”every three years in order to keep the numbers in the IC “manageable”. “Retired”members can reapply for membership again after a period – say 6 years.