Francine Mestrum*
Saying the World Social Forum (WSF) is in crisis, is stating the obvious. For ten years now, it has been surviving with in-fighting and serious divergences about what it should or could be. It is a painful and unending story, since I guess we are all convinced that global social movements are crucial for strengthening the fight for another world.
I decided to abandon the process, with much pain. In this somewhat long article, I want to explain, in the first part, what the problems are about. In the second part I want to explain my own reasons for abandoning, while I conclude with some reflections on the necessarily political character of all forum processes.
I. What are we fighting for and how?
It was a spontaneous discussion that started on October 28th on whatsapp, with, again, a question on what were these regional discussions in preparation of our meeting in Tunis about. For the outsiders: our Tunisian comrades offered to organize a meeting Tunis to reflect on the future of the Forum, a very welcome initiative that we decided to prepare with regional pre-meetings.
I say ‘again’, because this long discussion also showed how many people either do not read the texts they receive, or they immediately forget about what they say, or just want to do the whole discussion over and over again for their own specific reasons.
So, part of the whole debate was, once again, repeating that the last alternative proposal for giving the WSF process a voice, that is, a political existence as global political subject, was
– Not against the WSF as open space, since no one ever proposed to abolish it
– Not about speaking in the name of others, in the name of the WSF or the IC
– Not about gathering 50.000 voices with a headcount
– Not about creating a ‘world party’
– Not about centralizing power in a ‘politbureau’
Many people are very tired of all this. The problem is not the discussion in itself, which is a very interesting one, but I think two separate malevolent processes are to blame:
– The unfair ‘repeating’ of all questions and arguments, instead of building on what we already achieved;
– The total lack of any flexibility on one side. Because no change whatsoever is wanted by some, the only method than is starting all over again and putting into doubt the objectives and methods of the other side.
Let me remind you that the ‘New World Social Forum’ (NWSF) Group introduced three different proposals for alternatives.
The first one, with structural changes in the set-up of the WSF was not even discussed. It was dismissed as some dirty piece of paper.
The second one, proposing to avoid veto’s in the International Council (IC) with a super-qualified majority, was rejected. Even if there is no rule in our Charter of Principles that imposes such a consensus equal to unanimity in the IC.
The third one, with a different structure for the bodies of the WSF – which always remains an open, space – was discussed but rejected by the moral authority of the WSF. The proposal is added to this letter, with a kind invitation to please read it once again. It proposes a WSF as open space, with two parallel bodies: an IC for the facilitation of the Forum – which it always claimed that is what it wants to be-, and an Assembly for political analysis and possible actions and declarations, working at what we have in common in spite of or thanks to our diversity. Membership and rules for these two bodies can be different but a special relationship between the two should be discussed. The discussion now is if this Assembly is an ‘Assembly of the WSF’ or just an ‘Assembly of movements’. With this second alternative, it is clear the assembly is pushed outside the WSF framework and cannot refer anymore to the existing WSF process. Furthermore, since all groups can organise assemblies anywhere, it would have to compete with these other bodies.
The strange thing is that all those who oppose the ‘so-called reformers’ because they are ‘divisive’ do prefer this second option. In other words, it is dividing in order not to divide!
The ‘other side’, the ‘old guard’ of the WSF has not changed its position at all since this discussion began, that is since 2012!
Our Tunisian comrades were very helpful in proposing a special meeting in Tunis to reflect on new formulas for the WSF of the future. This would have been an enormous positive opportunity to make an end to ten years of fruitless discussions. The only condition for making it work is a willingness to really discuss and to really change. That is why we – the reformers, a much broader group than just the NWSF people – asked at least a solution for the consensus question, since as long as there is a veto right, we cannot get anywhere.
Unfortunately, that was not possible. The remaining ‘founders of the forum’ say no to everything. In a ‘declaration’ offered to all possible participants in the Tunis meeting ( http://openfsm.net/projects/waos/declaracion ) it is proposed to ‘leave behind the discussions on taking positions on behalf of the WSF or the IC.…’ and ‘We welcome initiatives by individuals, organizations and social movements, aiming at enhancing dynamics in the WSF process through the building of new assembly processes, deliberative and action oriented, parallel to the World Social Forum – as new World Political Subjects that could take political positions, and propose planetary actions – Like for example the idea of World Social Assemblies’. In other words, forget about a proposal to speak in the name of an ‘Assembly of the WSF’, forget about all unresolved questions, forget about people who think change is necessary and go to Tunis as if nothing happened and nothing has to happen. The Tunis meeting, then, would not be to reflect on the future of the Forum, but to continue with its past.
Support for this approach comes from a small group of IC-members with different ideologies and objectives and for some, unfortunately, because they are not intelligent enough to understand what is happening. That is why I personally already decided to not go to Tunis, since no positive developments seem to be possible.
Does it need to be emphasized that for the past ten to fifteen years, the WSF has had no positive and tangible results. It is, in its most positive hypothesis, a good festival that gives some energy and motivation to its participants but no stimulus for working together, let alone speaking with one voice.
II. My personal reasons to abandon this WSF process
This week’s discussion convinced me to totally abandon the exercise. Let me try to explain what happened in the past years and how extremely negative the evolution has been.
As has been said above, some people do not want to change anything and, in fact, I think, do not want the WSF to survive. The old ‘founders’ are proud of what the invented twenty years ago – with reason – and do not want it to have any success beyond their own life cycle. The WSF can die as far as they are concerned and if some people do want it to survive, it should be without changes. In spite of a total lack of positive results, they do not care about the future.
That is why these same people do not want a successful meeting in Tunis. They have in fact been doing everything these past months to boycott the meeting, twisting its objectives, postponing preparatory meetings, ‘forgetting’ who has to be invited.
These same people have also been boycotting the constitution of a common secretariat, with the same mechanisms.
They have been boycotting the organisation of an introductory panel at the virtual WSF in January 2021.
They have been stopping the writing of a common Declaration of the World Social Forum on Migration in Mexico 2018.
They have been boycotting the organisation of a political assembly of movements at the last real WSF in Salvador de Bahia.
These are just some examples of negative actions in these last years that hinder the WSF to become a political subject.
At the IC meeting in Porto Alegre in January 2020, before the COVID crisis, where the preparations for a WSF in Mexico in 2021 should have started, an interesting discussion took place on the definition of its objective. There, it was said and repeated the WSF should try to become a global political subject. There was no formal decision on this, neither was there any formal protest. At the first preparatory meetings in Mexico, this was the frame for all discussions. When I mentioned this one year later, it was said I was telling ‘untruths’. That was not the first time, some people have been accusing me at every report in which some negative points were mentioned, to be telling lies, e.g. the Salavador IC meeting where someone claimed ‘I am the Forum’ or the very pathetic Montreal meeting where someone put his veto on showing solidarity with Dilma Rousseff after the coup against the Brazilian President. So far for the mutual trust and the capacity to redefine facts.
After the Porto Alegre IC meeting one of its members organised a Round Table in Mexico City where several friends stayed at that moment in time. There, we discovered we shared a common feeling of wanting change, of wanting indeed the WSF become a global political subject. (https://www.facebook.com/662942993843120/videos/909381056146020/ )
Right after that, we were accused by a European IC member of being involved in some kind of conspiracy, he even claimed to have evidence of it. This evidence, obviously, was never given.
The five people involved in the discussion, plus one other IC member formed a group to reflect on how the WSF could be renewed. We made a website (https://foranewwsf.eu ) and received between 400 to 500 manifestations of support with a lot of encouragements. We also had a broader reflection group with whom we organised (virtual) meetings on the WSF and a couple of global problematics. I am afraid that due to a lack of time, resources and also a lack of effort, we had to stop this exercise pretty soon. With more commitment, we could certainly have made more progress. But that is what it was.
In the meantime, the preparations for the real WSF in Mexico went on, very slowly and with a lot of problems. I continue to think some people would have preferred to not have it. But it took place, badly organised and with few participants. I do not say this to blame the Mexican organisers, but to point to the lack of cooperation by several IC members.
We started to prepare Tunis, we agreed on what was needed, we asked to resolve the question on consensus even before Tunis, in order to make some sense of the discussion. And there the whole discussion started all over again.
We are getting nowhere.
In our discussion of Friday 28th of October, all old points came up again, even if they have been answered one thousand times before. There is paranoia and there is a lack of trust, a problem that cannot be solved easily if, after twenty years of working together, some people still believe we want a centralised ‘politbureau’ and create some kind of ‘world party’. They refer to non existing texts on ‘revolutionary political subjects’. This is so absurd, but what can you do against that?
And what can you do against people who all of a sudden release a text of several years ago, taken out of its context, to try to show that I am happy with neoliberalism. These people do not even understand what I was saying and did not even know in what context this satirical text was written. But it is evidence of malevolent priorities.
What do you do with friends, with whom you have been working pleasantly and interestingly for years, who all of a sudden start to accuse you of wanting to take power, of wanting to violate the rights of WSF participants?
What do you do when a proposal for trying to do some political articulation at the Mexico WSF, is once again rejected?
What do you do against someone, not even member of the IC, who intervenes in every debate with ‘good advice’ of how we should solve our problems, referring to a recent article of a member of our NWSF, as at the origin of the lack of trust, while that same person has been accusing us of ‘conspiracy’. Hard to believe, but a fact.
These things hurt and taken all together, I can only interpret them as a kind of character assassination. Fortunately, I am old enough, it will not change much in my life, but it is absolutely unbelievable these things happen in a small group of progressive people that want to change the world.
What I do not know and would like to know is who is spreading all these false rumours and slander. And of course, why? Maybe someone will be so honest as to tell me.
Again, the people on the other side of our divide are diverse, they do not all share the same ideology and objectives. I do want to warn those with an honest desire to organise more social forums and to contribute to change the world, that they are in very bad conservative ‘civil society’ company.
III. What it could have been
The large group of movements in the WSF and in the IC is very diverse, obviously. We always said, rightly, this diversity has to be cherished and should not be taken for granted.
And of course it would be absurd to try and get all these movements on one line to spread just one single message. No one ever pretended to do this.
Quite another thing is to respect the old saying of ‘e pluribus unum’ – ‘out of many one’ or ‘unity in diversity’ – : in all our diversity there is something we do have in common. It is not a coincidence this is the rallying cry of many organisations or even countries.
Now, if you apply this principle to a large group of say 10, 000 movements, the ‘common’ element will be very meagre, ‘against neoliberalism’ or ‘against capitalism’. Which is not a message but a mere slogan. It does not help at all.
If you try to apply this to a smaller group, it might work and you might arrive at an interesting synthesis.
That is what politics is about. Sit together with like minded people, in all their diversity, and try to find out what you share. A common message will always have more strength than a hundred messages from a fragmented post-modern group of people.
It requires a lot of political discussion and … organisation. Without organisation, nothing is possible. Ten thousand single voices in Iran will not bring down the ayatolla’s. Just think of the many movements of these past years, yellow vests, indignados, occupy, etc. They were joyful movements and moments of politicization, but did not achieve anything. They obviously also stopped to exist. When the neoliberal individual mind wins from the collective will to cooperate, all is lost.
Or think of what happened with the so very interesting movements in Tunis or Egypt. They made their revolution, but because they lacked a strong organisation, other, very well organised religious movements immediately took over. The same happened in Iran, by the way, 1979.
I honestly do not understand this fear of organisation. I can understand that some people with a Stalinist past are afraid of too verticalist and hierarchical organisation, but there so many intermediate democratic formulas possible. The demand for ‘horizontalism’ now only serves for hiding the real power relations. It is not a coincidence some powerful members want to keep pure horizontalism. But there is nothing Stalinist in wanting to have representative elections, with transparency and accountability. It all depends on how you organize it, with what democracy and what participation. It has always been refused.
Nor is there anything wrong with a festival and with the organisation of joyful events. Just think of the very difficult discussions there were in Chile, in 1988 when the referendum on Pinochet was organised. ‘La alegría ya viene’ people were singing and dancing. They won. But don’t forget behind this was a very clear political objective and political organising.
My main example remains the history of the trade unions. Theirs was, from one century and a half ago onwards, a patient fight for organising and winning rights. Trade unions are the only social movement in history that I know of, which succeeded in changing capitalism, de-commodifying labour. Or why do you think the Amazon’s and Starbuck’s of today do not want their emergence in their companies? Why do you think the IMF tries to limit their role? It does not mean everything is perfect in the world of labour, but at least there is a global movement with power to change.
Only two other movements are slowly gaining some unity and strength: women and environmental movements.
There is nothing incompatible between diversity and unity. It is a slow and patient effort of dialogue and the WSF might have some strength if it had started with it twenty years ago.
The ‘old guard’ of the WSF is plainly afraid of politics and wants us to believe that sending memes all over Facebook, Instagram and TikTok is courageous and relevant. Maybe it is, but making change possible and fighting the forces that plunder the world with all its inhabitants, requires so much more.
This is just basic politics and it is absolutely absurd that we cannot even discuss it in the WSF or the IC. This is what makes it impossible to continue as if everything were fine. What did the WSF achieve till now? It is, as one member of the NWSF stated, a ‘consensus of stagnation’.
If the WSF does not have the objective of bringing together social movements, of trying to learn from each other, of continuing discussions on what we want and what we share and of speaking to the outside world with actions and declarations, on the basis of a common analysis, than I honestly think it is a totally useless exercise.
The world has changed a lot compared to twenty years ago. If the WSF does not change as well, it becomes completely redundant.
I have tried, for many years. And I will miss the many good friends I made, but who knows, maybe there will be other opportunities to meet.
Our group of reformers has lost this uphill battle, though we are convinced we are winning at the level of ideas. The old guard has, with their own apolitical diversity, only one answer: NO CHANGE.
Mike Davies: “What keeps us going, ultimately, is our love for each other, and our refusal to bow our heads, to accept the verdict, however all-powerful it seems. It’s what ordinary people have to do. You have to love each other. You have to defend each other. You have to fight.”
………………………………
*Francine Mestrum has a PhD in Social Sciences from the Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium. She worked at the European institutions and several Belgian universities. has a PhD in Social Sciences from the Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium. She worked at the European institutions and several Belgian universities.