In recent months the question
of the future of the World Social Forum (WSF) has been raised in
multiple occasions. Almost all the most important gatherings of the
alternative globalization movement have included workshops or
seminars dedicated to the discussion of the future of the WSF. Why
has this question become so recurrent? Should this recurrence be
interpreted as a good or as a bad signal for those involved in the
WSF? In the following I try to answer these questions. But before
doing that some precisions are in order.
As to the first
question. To ask about the future of the WSF presupposes, of course,
that the WSF has a past, a heritage, but it also assumes that there
is something problematic about such a past, specifically about its
evaluation. In my view, the problems concerning such evaluation are
twofold. On the one hand, the movements and organizations that have
been involved in the WSF know that they have a past or heritage, but
are uncertain as to what such past or heritage precisely is. On the
other hand, whatever such past may be, they are uncertain as to how
to carry it successfully into the future. In the following I will
try to address each one of these uncertainties.
As to the
second questionóthe question on whether to ask about the future is a
good or bad thingósome precisions are also needed. There are two
ways of asking this question. The first one consists in asking
whether the WSF has a future. It does not assume the sustainability
of the WSF. On the contrary, it questions it. The WSF may continue
indefinitely or, alternatively, be just a phase in a broader
historical process, a phase that may even be reaching its
conclusion, thus opening the space for new phases with other
characteristics and initiatives. The second way of asking the
question assumes the sustainability of the WSF, but implies that
there are some conditions to be fulfilled in order to secure it.
The past present
I will start by
rendering my conception of the WSFís heritage. The WSF is a new
social and political phenomenon. The fact that it does have
antecedents does not diminish its newness, quite the opposite. The
WSF is unquestionably the first large international progressive
movement after the neoliberal backlash at the beginning of the
1980s. The problem with new social and political phenomena is that
in order to do them justice new social theories and new analytical
concepts are called for. Since neither the ones nor the others
emerge easily from the inertia of the disciplines, the risk that
they may be undertheorized and undervalued is considerable. This
risk is all the more serious as the WSF, given its scope and
internal diversity, not only challenges the various disciplines of
the conventional social sciences, but challenges as well western
scientific knowledge as sole producer of social and political
rationality.
I identify the following novelties as
constitutive of the WSF.
1. A new critical utopia. We live
in a time of conservative utopias, whose utopian character resides
in its radical denial of alternatives to present-day reality. The
possibility of alternatives is discredited precisely for being
utopian, idealistic, unrealistic. The utopian dimension of the WSF
consists in claiming the existence of such alternatives. The WSF
signifies the reemergence of a critical utopia, that is to say, the
radical critique of present-day reality and the aspiration to a
better society. The specificity of the utopian content of this new
critical utopia, when compared with that of the critical utopias
prevailing at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the
twentieth century lies in its negative character. In a context in
which the conservative utopia prevails absolutely, it is better to
affirm the possibility of alternatives than to define them. The
utopian dimension of the WSF consists in affirming the possibility
of a counter-hegemonic globalization. In other words, the utopia of
the WSF asserts itself more as negativity (the definition of what it
critiques) than as positivity (the definition of that to which it
aspires). The WSF is the first critical utopia of the twenty-first
century and aims to break with the tradition of the critical utopias
of western modernity, many of which turned into conservative
utopias: from claiming utopian alternatives to denying alternatives
under the excuse that the fulfillment of utopia was under way. The
openness of the utopian dimension of the WSF is its attempt to
escape this perversion. The affirmation of alternatives goes hand in
hand with the affirmation that there are alternatives to the
alternatives. The other possible world is a utopian aspiration that
comprises several possible worlds. The other possible world may be
many things, but never a world with no alternative.
This
utopian design, grounded on the denial of the present rather than
the definition of the future, focused on the processes of
interaction among the movements rather than an assessment of the
movementsí political content, is the major factor of cohesion of the
WSF. It helps to maximize what unites and minimize what divides,
celebrate intercourse rather than dispute power, be a strong
presence rather than an agenda, articulate first steps with ultimate
ends.
2. A new ecology of knowledges. Western modern science
is doubly at the service of hegemonic globalization, whether by the
way in which it promotes and legitimates it, or by the way in which
it discredits, conceals or trivializes counter-hegemonic
globalization. Discrediting, concealing and trivializing
counter-hegemonic globalization go largely hand in hand with
discrediting, concealing and trivializing the knowledges that inform
counter-hegemonic practices and agents. Faced with rival knowledges,
hegemonic scientific knowledge either turns them into raw material
(as is the case of indigenous or peasant knowledge about
biodiversity) or rejects them on the basis of their falsity or
inefficiency in the light of the hegemonic criteria of truth and
efficiency.
The epistemological alternative proposed by the
WSF is that there is no global social justice without global
cognitive justice. Since all cultures and knowledges are
incomplete--here lying the inexhaustible diversity of the worldóno
single culture or knowledge can claim the monopoly over conceptions
of beauty, goodness or truth. The alternative to monopoly is not
relativism but shared criteria to identify the kinds of conceptions
and knowledges most adequate to promote social justice worldwide.
The WSF is engaged in showing that the concepts of
rationality and efficiency presiding over hegemonic
techno-scientific knowledge are too restrictive to capture the
richness and diversity of the social experience of the world, and
specially that they discriminate against practices of resistance and
production of counter-hegemonic alternatives. The alternative
proposed by the WSF is grounded on two basic ideas. First, if the
objectivity of science does not imply neutrality, science and
technology may as well be put at the service of counter-hegemonic
practices. The extent to which science is used is, in general,
arguable inside the movements, and it may vary according to
circumstances and practices. Second, whatever the extent to which
science is resorted to, counter-hegemonic practices are mainly
practices of nonscientific knowledges, practical, often tacit
knowledges that must be made credible to render such practices
credible in turn.
3. Plurality of transformative agency.
Though the WSF does not claim to be a global social actor, it aims
at generating several such actors. The plurality of transformative
agency is grounded on the following ideas:
3.1 A very broad
conception of power and oppression. Neoliberal globalization showed
that exploitation is linked with many other forms of oppression that
affect women, ethnic minorities (sometimes majorities), indigenous
peoples, peasants, the unemployed, workers of the informal sector,
legal and illegal immigrants, ghetto subclasses, gays and lesbians,
children and the young. All these forms of power create exclusion.
One cannot ascribe to any one of them, in abstract, any priority as
to the claim that ìanother world is possible.î Political priorities
are always situated and contextual. They depend on the concrete
conditions of each country or region at a given historical moment.
To respond to such conditions and their fluctuations, the movements
and organizations must give priority to the articulations amongst
them. This ultimately explains the organizational novelty of a WSF
with no leaders, its rejection of hierarchies, and its emphasis on
networks made possible by the internet.
3.2 Equivalence
between the principles of equality and of recognition of difference.
We live in societies that are obscenely unequal, and yet equality is
lacking as an emancipatory ideal. Equality, understood as the
equivalence among the same, ends up excluding what is different. All
that is homogeneous at the beginning tends eventually to turn into
exclusionary violence. Social emancipation must be grounded on two
principles ó the principle of equality and the principle of respect
for difference. The struggle for either of them must be articulated
with the other, for the fulfillment of either is condition of the
fulfillment of the other. Herein lies the grounding of the
aforementioned political and organizational novelty.
3.3
Privileging rebellion and nonconformity to the detriment of
revolution. There is no unique theory to guide the movements
strategically, because the aim is not so much to seize power but
rather to change the many faces of power as they present themselves
in the institutions and sociabilities. Furthermore, even those for
whom seizing power is a priority are divided as to the strategy.
Some prefer drastic breaks to bring about a new order (revolution),
while others prefer gradual changes by means of an engagement and
dialogue with the enemy (reform). At this level, the novelty
consists in the celebration of diversity and pluralism,
experimentalism, and radical democracy as well.
4. A new
organizational style. This conception of social transformation is
coherent with the organizational structure and style. Contrary to
what happened in the thinking and practice of the left in western
capitalist modernity, the WSF managed to create a style and an
atmosphere of inclusion of and respect for divergences that made it
very difficult for the different political factions to self-exclude
themselves at the start under the excuse that they were being
excluded. For this contributed decisively the WSFís ìminimalistî
program stated in its Charter of Principles: emphatic assertion of
respect for diversity; access hardly conditioned (movements or
groups that advocate political violence are excluded); no voting or
deliberations at the Forum as such; no representative entity to
speak for the Forum. It is almost like a tabula rasa where all forms
of struggle against neoliberalism and for a fairer society may have
their place. Before such openness, those who choose to exclude
themselves find it difficult to define what exactly they are
excluding themselves from. All this has contributed to making the
WSFís power of attraction greater than its capacity to repel.
THE PRESENT FUTURE
Given all these
novelties and their apparently consensual character within the WSF,
one may wonder why the question of the future of the WSF has become
so recurrent and been formulated with such a sense of urgency. In my
view, the reason lies in the fact that these novelties have solved
as many problems as they have created them. The new problems account
for the ambivalence in the evaluation of the past and for the
uncertainty as to the future. They can be formulated in terms of
strong questions.
1. The question of efficaciousness. This
is one of the most divisive questions, since efficaciousness can be
measured in terms of different criteria, and there is no consensus
about which to adopt. The evaluation of the efficaciousness of the
WSF is one of the exercises that best discloses the confrontation
between new and old conceptions of social transformation. From the
point of view of the old ones, the WSF cannot but be assessed
negatively. It appears as a vast ìtalk-shopî that hovers over the
concrete problems of exclusion and discrimination without tackling
them; a cultural movement without deep social roots, therefore
tolerated and easily co-opted by the dominant classes; it has no
definite agents or agency, because, after all, it doesnít have any
definite enemies either; its inclusiveness is the other side of its
inefficacy; its efficacy, besides having an effect on the rhetoric
of hegemonic discourses, has been minimal, since it has achieved no
changes as far as concrete policies go, nor contributed to
ameliorate the ills of exclusion and discrimination.
If, on
the other hand, the WSF is evaluated in terms of the new conceptions
of social transformation advocated by the WSF itselfóconceptions in
which the temporalities of transformative action are multiple, from
the instant time of mass protests to the longue durÈe of utopia, and
in which local, national and global scales of action are
combinedóthe evaluation of the WSF cannot but be positive. By
affirming and rendering credible the existence of a
counter-hegemonic globalization, the WSF has contributed
significantly towards enlarging social experience thereby
contributing to creating a global consciousness for the different
movements and NGOs, regardless of the scope of their action. Such a
global consciousness has been crucial to create a certain symmetry
of scale between hegemonic globalization and the movements and NGOs
that fight against it. Before the WSF, the movements and NGOs fought
against hegemonic globalization without being aware of their own
globality.
The decisive importance of this consciousness
explains why the WSF, once aware of it, does everything to preserve
it. It explains, ultimately, why the factors of attraction and
aggregation prevail over those of repulsion and disaggregation. But,
on the other hand, the trans-scale nature of the struggles
encompassed by the WSF bear witness to the fact that its
efficaciousness cannot be assessed exclusively in terms of global
changes. It has to be assessed as well in terms of local and
national changes. Given all the levels involved, the evaluation of
the WSFís efficaciousness is undoubtedly more complex, but for that
same reason it does not allow for rash assessments.
The WSF
is today a more realistic utopia than when it first appeared.
Increased realism, however, poses considerable challenges to utopia
itself. The challenges consist in deepening its political existence
without losing its utopian and epistemological integrity.
2.
The questions of representation and organization. The newness of the
WSF is consensually attributed to its absence of leaders and
hierarchical organization, its emphasis on cyberspace networks, its
ideal of participatory democracy, and its flexibility and readiness
to engage in experimentation. But, of course, the reality is much
more complex. Concerning the question of representation, the Charter
of Principles contains a double statement: first, the WSF does not
claim to be representative of counter-hegemonic globalization;
second, no one represents the WSF nor can speak in its name. This
statement has been object of much discussion. One of debates
concerns the limits of the world dimension of the WSF. In all its
editions, more movements and organizations from Latin America have
participated than from other continents. The absences of Africa and
Asia have been criticized and raise the problem of the vicious
circle: African or Asian movements do not take part in the WSF
because the debates that they most cherish are absent, and they are
absent precisely because of the scarce participation of Africans and
Asians. But even if world participation becomes quantitatively
broader and more diverse, the issue of representation will always be
there until the selection criteria are more transparent and
democratic. Moreover, besides geographic representation, two other
representation issues have been raised: the representation of
different strategies and political goals, and the representation of
different themes or agendas.
Concerning the complex
relationship between representation and organization, both the
Organizing Committee (OC, now International Secretariat) and the
International Committee (IC) were put together by cooptation. Their
legitimacy derives from their having organized the WSF with relative
success. Their members were not elected and they are not accountable
to any jurisdiction. The OC has kept its constitution from the
beginning, whereas the IC has become increasingly broader to
strengthen its internationalization and to balance its regional and
thematic representation.
Although, according to the Charter
of Principles, nobody represents the WSF, in practical terms the OC
has been assuming that capacity, and that has been a source of
tensions. Besides other reasons, the fact remains that the OC is
overwhelmingly Brazilian, whereas the WSF aims to be international.
The IC was actually created to take care of this problem, the
tendency being to strengthen the ICís role in its relations with the
OC. The relations between the OC and the IC have not been easy. For
a while a tense climate of mutual accusations of lack of
transparency and accountability was easily discernable. Although
none of these committees was elected by the movements and
organizations that take part in the WSF, the truth of the matter is
that the IC has been assuming the position of the most
representative structure of the WSF, as well as a promoter of its
internal democracy. Furthermore, the IC has been assuming a decisive
role towards strengthening a broad conception of the WSF, turning
the WSF into a permanent process and promoting the continuity among
its many initiatives, so as to transform the WSF into ìan
incremental process of collective learning and growthî, as stated in
the resolutions adopted at IC meetings during the 2003 WSF.
But strengthening the role of the IC does not solve the
problem since the debate centers around the democratic nature of its
composition. The WSFís utopia concerns emancipatory democracy. Since
the WSF pretends to be a large collective process for deepening
democracy, it is no wonder that the issue of internal democracy has
become more and more pressing. In the coming years, the WSFís
credibility in its struggle for democracy in society will depend
more and more on the credibility of its internal democracy.
3. The question of how to combine the celebration of
diversity with the construction of strong consensuses leading to
collective action. The celebration of diversity is one of the most
cherished characteristics of the WSF. I have elsewhere identified
some of the cleavages that divide the social movements and
organizations and explained why, in my view, in spite of such
cleavages, the aggregating power of the WSF has remained intact.
I have identified, among others, the following cleavages:
reform versus revolution; socialism versus social emancipation;
relative priority of local, national and global struggles; the
conception of the State as an enemy or as a potential ally; the
relative merits of direct action and institutional action; the
relationships between parties and social movements and NGOs; the
meaning of non-violent action; the relationship between
participatory democracy and representative democracy; the relative
priority of the principles of equality and of recognition of
difference; forms of engagement or, rather, of disengagement with
the institutions of neoliberal globalization.
The
specificity of the WSF resides in the fact that all these cleavages
coexist in its bosom without upsetting its aggregating power. To my
mind, two factors contribute to this. First, the different cleavages
are important in different ways for the different movements and
organizations, and none of them is present in the practices or
discourses of all the movements and organizations. Thus, all of
them, at the same time that they tend towards factionalism, liberate
potential for consensus. That is to say, all the movements and
organizations have room for action and discourse in which to agree
with all the other movements or organizations, whatever the
cleavages among them. Second, there has so far been no tactical or
strategic demand that would intensify the cleavages by radicalizing
positions. On the contrary, cleavages have been fairly low
intensity. For the movements and organizations in general, what
unites has been more important than what divides. When pondering
union and separation, the advantages of union have so far overcome
the advantages of separation.
(IN)CONCLUSION
Several problems arise out of this seemingly ideal
condition:
1. Through the celebration of diversity and its
aggregating power, the WSF has managed to liberate a tremendous
energy. Is it now making the best use of such energy? Is it possible
that the process that has liberated so much energy may also be the
same that stifles it for lack of keeping pace with the changes
produced by the energy itself?
2. Since aggregation of
movements and organizations is not value in itself, what is its
political objective? Can we build strong consensuses on the basis of
the celebration of diversity? And if yes, what to do with such
consensuses?
3. Having been in its origins a highly
political phenomenon, is the WSF renovating and strengthening its
political potential or is it rather being transformed into a
politically diluted umbrella for more or less depoliticized forms of
collective action?
These problems reveal in my view the
current vitality of the WSF, and there is no reason to believe that
it will not respond successfully to the challenges confronting it.
It seems, however, clear that, in order to do so, the WSF has to
undergo a demanding process of self-learning that will address among
other issues the following ones:
Take all the measures
feasible to make the WSF as global as its name indicates;
Profound organizational changes guided by the very same idea
of participatory democracy that the WSF has been advocating for
society at large;
Development of internal ìschoolsî of
global self-knowledge and self-training aimed at increasing
reciprocal knowledge among the movements and organizations;
Promotion of strong sectoral consensuses capable of
sustaining global struggles and durable and effective collective
actions.
. In this section I follow my analysis
in Il Forum Sociale Mondiale: verso una globalizzazione
antiegemonica, Troina(En) Cit‡ Aperta Edizioni, 2003. See above note
1
Bonaventura de Sousa
Santos
(School of Economics, University of Coimbra - Portugal)
