A few months ago I attended the World Social Forum (WSF) in Senegal (February, 2011). However this was not my first experience. In 2004, I coordinated a delegation of people from Quebec and Canada at the Forum held in Mumbai, India. It was the first World Social Forum held outside Brazil and, in several ways, marked a turning point in the history of the Forums.
There are several memorable dimensions to the experience: my first visit to India (and in fact to Asia), my participation in two International Committee meetings (one in preparation and one for evaluation of the Forum), the focus at that time of our delegation on water as a common good and a human right, the all-day forum on the global anti-war (anti-Iraq war) movement, the participation of grassroots sectors in the Forum (especially the Dalit and the “Forest People” of India). I want to say a brief word about each.
Frequently people talk about the seeming chaos of participating in a WSF. What they perhaps don’t appreciate is the extraordinary level of coordination and planning that goes into each Forum. This work is carried out by an International Secretariat located in Brazil along with an International Committee. The Secretariat worked with an Indian Secretariat in order to plan the gathering in Mumbai. This was a new experience and, I am told, such coordinations for other WSFs have led to a plan to increase the permanent international participation in the staff of the secretariat which, until how, has been made up of Brazilians.
The International Secretariat is the “governing body” of the WSF. It sets the policies and assures the financing of the Forum. It also has a role in policies governing more regional or local Forums that take place. The Forum is made up, basically, of any organization that has an interest in participating in the Forum and has a credible “track record” (has existed for several years). The size of the group does not matter nor does its orientation as long as it accepts the basic framework of the WSF which you can find on its web page. The first meeting I attended was held in Miami. (At that point the organizers were interested in attracting more participation from the North American anti-neo-liberal (anti-capitalist) movement. In some ways they succeeded. They hosted the meeting and were more in evidence than had been the case before. However, it was clear that the gathering (of perhaps 70-80 people) had a large Latin American and European presence with some Africans and Asians (of course since it would be in India!). I had been parachuted into the meeting to represent CIDSE, a significant player in the development of the WSF. It was quite moving experience to sit at the table with the likes of Chico Wittaker, François Houtard, the World March of Women, some major labour union leaders and many others. The debates were, as apparently they often are, were much about the underlying policy of an open-space in tension with the desire to “move the issues forward.” And we had long discussions about the rhythm of the WSF, which till then had occurred every year, as well as with the development of continental and regional Forums. (I should add that, here in Quebec, we subsequently held two Quebec Social Forums, with an outstanding participation). And of course there were negotiations about how to raise the huge amount of money required to carry out the event. It needs to be said that the Indian organizing committee did a great job on all fronts.
The second International Committee meeting was held on site, just after the WSF of Mumbai closed. It included all those from the committee who were actually present at the Forum. The members were both pleased, puzzled and at times flabbergasted with what had just taken place. There had been a hugh participation—some said 100,000 people. In general the events had gone well including the monstrous opening as well as the closing march with its summary of major themes. Everyone noted the extraordinary and sometimes turbulent participation from India (and Asia in general). There had been a lot of activity originating outside the events, in the “streets” on site. At times this had interrupted major conferences by international figures. However, the WSF is precisely designed to give a “voice to those who have no voice” and the voice particularly of the Dalit and the Forest People in India was heard strongly. It was a momentous historic moment for them to organize among themselves, take their voice into an international arena and be heard. It had quite an impact.
Our delegation had spent a week before the WSF in New Delhi at a World Water Conference that brought together leaders from all continents who were struggling to preserve water as a common good of humanity. Maud Barlow, Vandana Shiva, Ricardo Petrella, Tony Clarke and others were there. My own organization in Canada, Development and Peace, was in the midst of a major national campaign to this end. We extended the campaign over three years and managed to get the question on the national agenda. Canada was a die-hard resister at the UN in recognizing water as a human right. Our delegation was able to meet briefly during the WSF with the UN Special Rapporteur on Water. One of the highlights of the event was the presence of Indian union leaders of the municipal water system who were fighting a plan concocted by the Indian government to re-reroute the Ganges! When we arrived at the WSF, we were well prepared to engage this issue there.
Another highlight of the WSF in India was the organization of a day-long dialogue among participants in the anti-war movement from around the world. In Montreal I participated in the anti-war coalition, Échec à la guerre, and so it wasn’t hard to convince me to sit in for part of the day. What I found remarkable for its impact, is that during that day, October 12 was set aside as a world anti-war day. You will remember that in October, 2003, literally millions of people in many major world cities, as well as in smaller centres, turned out to protest the war being waged against the Iraqis people by NATO. I was quite an experience to sit in on the global coordination that led to these events. In Montreal we were close to 200,000 who turned out on that day.
In closing, just a word to say that, while the WSF is conceived as an “open space” for discussion without a prior agenda, this does not mean that the issues do not move forward. Any group, from any part of the world, that wants to discuss an issue will find a “space” there to do so and to engage with others around that issue. Moreover, those who do so are encouraged, positively, to coordinate their efforts for greater impact and to move forward the “other world that is possible.”
No comments:
Post a Comment