Re: World Social Forum: space or movement?

A reply to Chico Whitaker's proposals for the future of the WSF

by Jasper Teunissen

2 February 2013

 

( a reply to the reply, by chico ) Dear Jasper, only now, some days before the beginning of th 2013 WSF, I am having a little bit of time to consider, as I promised, at least (as my time is not so elastic...) some of the questions you put in the mail you wrote in February. I think it is never too late, as this discussions will necessarily continue. As I hope we will have the opportunity to talk personally during the Forum, this may facilitate our interchanges.
But let me at first thank your patience to read so many of my texts. Some others that you did not read (I wrote so many, during this 12 years...) could perhaps explain some misunderstandings. But no problems, let me do the possible now.
I will write in italic characters under your questions, as they appear in your text below. So:

Introduction

In the process towards the World Social Forum (WSF) in Tunis next month, some efforts have been made to start a discussion about the future of the WSF, but have so far found little resonance, at least certainly not in the public domain.

Among of the contributions are a number of recent proposals by Chico Whitaker, one of the founding figures of the WSF. I think these proposals need attention and further discussion. Another reason to write down some thoughts on Whitaker's texts is the fact that he regularly refers to, speaks to, and even shares his dreams about the so-called new movements of Occupy and Indignados (2011, 2012a, 2012b, 2013b).

As a particpant in both a local social forum and Occupy related initiatives, I'm especially interested to see how relations between the two could evolve.

And one last note: I don't doubt Whitaker's intentions concerning the future of the WSF, and in fact I agree with many of the underlying thoughts and I warmly support the search for radical improvements in the WSF process.

Nevertheless, here I will concentrate on some critical points, trying to get a better understanding of the ideas about movements and open spaces on which Whitaker's proposals are based.

1. The dissolution of the IC and the start of a new movement

The first step in Whitaker's proposal is to dissolve the International Council of the World Social Forum (IC). Looking at the history and context of the current crisis within the IC, I think the formal declaration of the end of the IC is just the final step in the acceptance of an accomplished fact . Whitaker argues the IC has 'already fulfilled the functions it could meet' (Whitaker, 2012c), but I think we should be more direct: the IC has failed to fulfull its role as a permanent body that will give continuity to the WSF.

The reality is that the WSF 2013 is going to happen anyway, without a functioning IC.

The second step of the proposal is the establishment of a new movement that takes over the role of the IC as 'facilitator and animator' of the WSF process, assigning to itself the power to decide about the location of the next WSF, 'the only really important decision that the IC takes' (Whitaker, 2012c).

There is much to say about Whitaker's detailed vision of how such a new movement would work (2013a, b), but here I will just mention a few observations and concerns.

First, the establishment of a new movement is clearly a step further than the earlier proposal suggesting a power shift from the Brazil-France tandem to a Canada-Mahreb tandem (Whitaker, 2012a),

but at the same time the creation of a new movement within the context of the WSF has been tried before: 'The Network of the World's Social Movements'. [1] I haven't heard anything about it ever since.

Second, except from methodological adaptations, such as the participation based on individuals instead of organisations, I don't see any fundamental differences with the intended setup and goals of the IC, that is: analysing the political situation in the world, facilitating the WSF process and choosing the location of the next WSF. In this sense the proposal is not as radical as Whitaker wants us to believe.

Third, I see a problem with the order of things. Whitaker proposes a new movement based on a new Manifesto or Charter, initially crewed by the current IC members, and then gradually add 'people that constitute or constituted the Organization Committees of the national, regional, continental or World Social Forums, and even local ones [...]' (2013a para 1.4). After that, local chapters of the new movement can be founded.

In many ways this reminds me of a somewhat similar initiave, namely the International Organization for a Participatory Society (IOPS), which, to put it bluntly, first presents a blueprint of a new society, then forms a new organisation from within its own inner circle, and only then seeks further participation and expansion. [2] I think we should not adopt such a top-down approach if we aim for an actively involved, broader and more localized base for a global process.

As I understand it, one of Whitaker's most important motivations for his proposal is to find a way to include the latest generation of movements. I agree this is a key question in the evolution of the WSF. But inviting others to something new, to something pre-established that is not theirs yet, is always extremely difficult. I wouldn't expect many new people to join such a new movement, especially if they are not familiar with the WSF, its history and its possible usefulness.

Having said this, I don't have any magic answers on how to overcome these problems, but I would like to share some embryonic ideas and suggestions that popped up while reading Whitaker's discussion texts. But first I will try to give a brief reflection on Whitaker's views on the role of social movements and the WSF as open space.

2. WSF, movement and space

According to Wikipedia the WSF 'tends to meet in January at the same time as its "great capitalist rival", the World Economic Forum's Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland. This date is consciously picked to promote their alternative answers to world economic problems in opposition to the World Economic Forum.' [3]

For the 2013 edition the tradition of the overlapping date with the WEF in Davos has been abandoned for the first time in the history of the WSF. Although this seems a trivial point, it made me realize how deep the similarities between the WSF and WEF are, where the WSF has been mimicking the WEF as an event for the leaders of, in this case, another world, while Whitaker has made opposite claims (2004b). Let me explain.

In an interview addressing Occupy Wall Street, Whitaker frames the position of social movements as follows: '[W]e are not 99% against 1%. Those who have already the courage to speak up are many, but perhaps more or less 1%, against the 1% who controls and exploits the rest of the world.' (2012b) So, we have a powerful elite (symbolized by the WEF) on the one hand, a small group who resists on the extreme opposite site (symbolized by the WSF) and in the middle there is the 98%. Whitaker continues: '[W]e need to change our strategy. We need to turn ourselves to the 98%' (2012a)

I think this vision becomes problematic exactly where it puts the social movements outside of the 98%, as those who already see, those who already know. It's a simplicfication of reality in which the 98% has two options: this 1% or that 1%, us or them. I think this is an elitist, exclusive, vanguardist, moralistic and alienating picture and it ignores the reality that a vast majority of the world population is engaged in a day to day struggle for a life in peace and dignity, a struggle that takes many forms, and some of them may be less visible than others. I just don't think we can 'network' all these struggles by placing ourselves outside or above them.