A DIVISIVE CONSENSUS
By TerraViva Team
The 12-point Manifesto launched by 19 WSF intellectuals Saturday did not exactly revolutionize the tents and fields of the World Social Forum, but it certainly filled up the political talk yesterday. In the end, the word "consensus" used by its main proposer, Ignacio Ramonet, to define the document, seemed less than appropriate.
Among the unhappy "celebrities" was Brazilian International Committee member Cândido Grzybowski, who said he was invited to join in by Bernard Cassen, the editor of Le Monde Diplomatique, but refused to sign. He took this decision not because of disagreement with the contents of the document, but the method employed by its sponsors to launch it. "The contents of this proposal is perfect, and I believe 80 percent of the Forum participants would agree with it,"
Grzybowski told TerraViva. "What kills this proposal is the method with which it was created and presented. It goes against the very spirit of the Forum. Here, all proposals are equally important and not only that of a group of intellectuals, even when they are very significant persons."
"It was a political mistake," declared Grzybowski, who believes the document will not even be discussed "because it did not follow the agreed method and it could even generate a rejection by the grassroots of the Forum."
Professor Kamal Mitra Chenoy, former member of the Adhoc India Organising Committee, says he was not aware of the document but is not surprised either.
"As for this document I would consider it a declaration from inside the forum but not of the forum. Even if 3000 organisations sign it, it will not be a WSF declaration. To be that it has to come from the IC and it has to democratically resolve the first debate first," he told TerraViva.
Flavio Lotti, of the Italian NGO Tavola della Pace, thinks in turn that "it is a legitimate initiative; we are in a space which is totally open and the richness of this space makes itself apparent precisely in this kind of situation."
"I personally share the document and also the spirit in which this document has been done. I think that it is not in the mind of the signatories to define a platform to be imposed to anyone. It is an effort to summarize some common initiatives which I believe unify a big chunk of this WSF," Lotti said.
However, he also had some criticism to offer. "The document misses an important issue: that of peace and war, that is dominant nowadays in the international agenda, together with the economy and an important field of work for the world civil society."
Unlike Grzybowski, the leader of Tavola della Pace thinks the Manifesto must be discussed at the next IC meeting scheduled for the end of March, and that it is time for the Forum to face the "taboo" issue of becoming a global political force rather than just a space for debate.
Lotti recognizes that the move by the "Group of 19", presented at a press conference Saturday, involves the risk of divisions within the Forum, given the heavy intellectual weight of the signatories, but trusts that the spirit of the WSF will prevail.
For IC member Elizabeth Robinson, of Amarc, a split is unlikely, because "no matter how hard they are trying to direct things, the Forum has a life of its own". She does not hide her anger, however, both at the document, which "excludes the concept of the right to communication", and at the group, overwhelmingly composed of "males of European descent". Steve Buckley, president of Amarc, said he had not seen the document but "I would have expected it to be discussed in advance and signed by an organization, not by individuals."
"A manifesto is impossible," comments Jurgen Moritz of Mexico. "There are too many different opinions and all should be expressed."
Jubilee South's Lidy B. Nacpil was all for adopting a common message. "Adopting a common message is good," she said, "and the inclusion on debt cancellation in the 12-point document shows that we have a strong message to the creditors." To Minoru Kitamura of the Japan Asia Africa Latin America Solidarity Committee, a consensus document could be acceptable, but it should contain all ideas. "Diversity is at the heart of our forum," he told TerraViva.
Currently, WSF still sees itself as facilitating "decentralized coordination and networking among organizations engaged in concrete action towards building another world, at any level from the local to the international, but it does not intend to be a body representing world civil society," said Kitamura. " The World Social Forum is not a group nor an organization." EU Parliamentary Deputy Giuletto Chiesa said, "The Forum is a global laboratory that should not be abandoned. But it should go beyond festivity and protests. It should have a structure for action. We cannot just say 'another world is possible.' We need projects and involve scientists in solutions."
Mikael Ronkko of Finland, head of an NGO on "global democratisation," upholds the current format, saying any strong structure would also make it less open. It is a view shared by Viriato Tamele, an author from Mozambique. "The forum points the way to a different and alternative approach," he says.
"This statement itself is an example of the success of the open space that is the WSF. I cannot see any alternative as to how it can take positions and remain an open and democratic space, however," says India Organising Committee member P. K. Das.
"The movement will obviously grow over time and may take a form which will vary from the concept at its inception. We can neither halt nor pre-fix the process which has to be evolving and dynamic."