World Social Forum: Is another power possible?<\/p>\n
Dita Indah Sari, General Chairperson, Indonesian National
\nFront for Labor Struggle (FNPBI), Jakarta<\/p>\n
In the middle of the heat and poverty of the Indian city of
\nMumbai, the fourth World Social Forum (WSF) was held on Jan. 16-
\n21. An estimated 100,000 activists from some 130 different
\ncountries -- the majority from India -- were able to gather
\ntogether to discuss the urgent social and political issues facing
\nhumanity in the 21st century.<\/p>\n
Like previous WSFs, the main themes which emerged centered
\naround issues of neoliberal globalization, war, peace (or the
\nlack of it), women, racism, health, education and the
\nenvironment. These issues were discussed in thousands of
\nworkshops, talks and forums.<\/p>\n
The WSF was an arena for intellectual debate, for cultural
\nfestivals and was an opportunity for opposition movements and
\nactivists from both hemispheres to meet and exchange ideas.<\/p>\n
Since the first WSF was organized in Porto Allegre, Brazil, in
\n2001, the forum has become the largest meeting ground for anti-
\nglobalization activists in the world. The WSF's success has been
\nfollowed by a number of similar meetings, both at the regional
\nlevel -- the European Social Forum and the Asian Social Forum --
\nas well as at national level -- the Indonesian People's Forum.<\/p>\n
At the first meeting in Porto Allegre, a declaration was
\ndrafted, the Charter of Principals, which has become a guide for
\nWSF participants and the initiatives that have followed.<\/p>\n
But the important question which remains is, what is the real
\nsignificance of the WSF in the midst of the current global
\neconomic and political crisis?<\/p>\n
The growth of the anti-war and anti-globalization movements
\nhas sent a resounding message to capitalism and its policies of
\nneoliberal globalization -- that these policies have failed the
\nworld's people and an alternative needs to be found. The
\ninternational financial and trade institutions such as the
\nInternational Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade
\nOrganization have also been condemned internationally.<\/p>\n
There is a growing awareness their policies only benefit the
\ninterests of a small number of monopolistic corporations based in
\nTokyo, Washington and the European Union. Their principal
\nfunction has shifted to become a mechanism which is used to
\npressure the governments and peoples of the Third World to tie
\nthem into exploitative economic policies and programs.<\/p>\n
There are two issues which I think are important here but
\nwhich at the same time have failed to be taken up by the WSF
\nforums and in its Charter of Principles.<\/p>\n
Firstly, what is the position of the anti-globalization
\nmovement with regard to national governments in their respective
\ncountries who are acting in the interests of neoliberal
\nglobalization?<\/p>\n
Secondly, what are the alternative solutions to such policies
\n-- ones that will have real meaning and potential for change in
\nthird world countries?<\/p>\n
This is a huge problem and one which needs to be addressed
\nurgently by the anti-globalization movement in international
\nforums such as the WSF.<\/p>\n
For countries which have only just emerged from struggles
\nagainst dictatorial regimes and are going though a process of
\ndemocratization -- as is the case in Indonesia -- the central
\nissue which needs to be understood is the form and character of
\nstate power.<\/p>\n
The problem of how to establish a government which is capable
\nof mobilizing its national productive resources, to effectively
\ncounter the impact of neoliberal globalization and free market
\npolicies, and at the same time rid itself of the leftovers of
\nmilitarism and the old forces of the dictatorship.<\/p>\n
This WSF, like the ones that proceeded it, also failed to
\nproduce any concrete proposals, initiatives or campaigns. Not a
\nsingle concrete plan or call for urgent action to respond to the
\nevents in these countries came out of this forum. The truth is,
\nthat in the end the WSF has simply became an arena to exchange
\nideas -- for brainstorming and intellectual discussion.<\/p>\n
The WSF was clearly dominated by non-government organizations
\n(NGOs) and social movements of various stripes who continue to
\ndistance themselves from the issues of state power. Criticism of
\nglobal capitalism was not followed by attempts to examine and
\noppose the policies of national governments who have become
\nagents of international corporations from the advanced capitalist
\ncountries.<\/p>\n
Moreover, this movement, in the name of asserting its
\n\"independence\", maintains the greatest possible distance from
\nreal political struggles. It also distances itself from political
\nmovements which have the same programs and commitments as groups
\nin the WSF.<\/p>\n
Even in terms of the way it expresses its fight against
\nneoliberal globalization, it frequently finds itself trapped in
\nsymbolic politics and slogans. For example, foreign and local
\njournalists were surprised (and apparently also disorientated)
\nbecause the computers in the media center used the open source
\nLinux operating system instead of Microsoft Windows. However, as
\na speaker and guest who was specifically invited to the forum, I
\nwas given the freedom to make use of the computers in the working
\nrooms of the organizing committee. All of the computers there
\nused Windows software.<\/p>\n
But the problem is not just one of \"consistency\" in boycotting
\nmonopolistic Western products. If a boycott represented a radical
\nand effective solution, we might as well go back to an economic
\nfeudalism, because almost all of the technology and daily needs
\nof humanity in this century have been provided for by
\nmonopolistic and greedy multi-national companies. Rather, the
\nproblems is one of how to provide access for all humanity to the
\ntechnological advances and at the same time reject efforts by
\ngovernments and multi-national companies to legalize the
\nmonopolization of these products.<\/p>\n
Through its activities, the WSF has succeeded in making the
\nworking classes and the poor more aware that capitalism is the
\nsource of war and injustice. But after four WSFs the anti-
\nglobalization movement has not yet broken out of its limits as a
\nmoral movement, and has yet to transform itself into a political
\nmovement that offers clear and explicit economic and political
\nalternatives.<\/p>\n
The WSF needs to follow up its ideological successes with a
\ncall to build effective political forces in member countries
\nwhich can become an alternative to the existing ruling classes.<\/p>\n
The style and approach of the WSF is in fact a reflection of
\nthe various forms of social orginization and political education
\nat both the national and local level, particularly as carried out
\nby NGOs. Their dependency on donor organizations make NGOs choose
\nactivities that are relatively \"safe\" with the minimum political
\nrisk, so that the model which is usually chosen in their method
\nof struggle is one of non-confrontational politics.<\/p>\n
The watering down of their militancy is therefore inevitable,
\nbearing in mind that radicalization inevitably ends in open
\nconfrontation with the state.<\/p>\n
The writer is one of the Indonesian delegates and speaker at
\nthe WSF India.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/world-social-forum-is-another-power-possible-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}