World Social Forum: Is another power possible?

World Social Forum: Is another power possible?

Dita Indah Sari, General Chairperson, Indonesian National Front for Labor Struggle (FNPBI), Jakarta

In the middle of the heat and poverty of the Indian city of Mumbai, the fourth World Social Forum (WSF) was held on Jan. 16- 21. An estimated 100,000 activists from some 130 different countries -- the majority from India -- were able to gather together to discuss the urgent social and political issues facing humanity in the 21st century.

Like previous WSFs, the main themes which emerged centered around issues of neoliberal globalization, war, peace (or the lack of it), women, racism, health, education and the environment. These issues were discussed in thousands of workshops, talks and forums.

The WSF was an arena for intellectual debate, for cultural festivals and was an opportunity for opposition movements and activists from both hemispheres to meet and exchange ideas.

Since the first WSF was organized in Porto Allegre, Brazil, in 2001, the forum has become the largest meeting ground for anti- globalization activists in the world. The WSF's success has been followed by a number of similar meetings, both at the regional level -- the European Social Forum and the Asian Social Forum -- as well as at national level -- the Indonesian People's Forum.

At the first meeting in Porto Allegre, a declaration was drafted, the Charter of Principals, which has become a guide for WSF participants and the initiatives that have followed.

But the important question which remains is, what is the real significance of the WSF in the midst of the current global economic and political crisis?

The growth of the anti-war and anti-globalization movements has sent a resounding message to capitalism and its policies of neoliberal globalization -- that these policies have failed the world's people and an alternative needs to be found. The international financial and trade institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization have also been condemned internationally.

There is a growing awareness their policies only benefit the interests of a small number of monopolistic corporations based in Tokyo, Washington and the European Union. Their principal function has shifted to become a mechanism which is used to pressure the governments and peoples of the Third World to tie them into exploitative economic policies and programs.

There are two issues which I think are important here but which at the same time have failed to be taken up by the WSF forums and in its Charter of Principles.

Firstly, what is the position of the anti-globalization movement with regard to national governments in their respective countries who are acting in the interests of neoliberal globalization?

Secondly, what are the alternative solutions to such policies -- ones that will have real meaning and potential for change in third world countries?

This is a huge problem and one which needs to be addressed urgently by the anti-globalization movement in international forums such as the WSF.

For countries which have only just emerged from struggles against dictatorial regimes and are going though a process of democratization -- as is the case in Indonesia -- the central issue which needs to be understood is the form and character of state power.

The problem of how to establish a government which is capable of mobilizing its national productive resources, to effectively counter the impact of neoliberal globalization and free market policies, and at the same time rid itself of the leftovers of militarism and the old forces of the dictatorship.

This WSF, like the ones that proceeded it, also failed to produce any concrete proposals, initiatives or campaigns. Not a single concrete plan or call for urgent action to respond to the events in these countries came out of this forum. The truth is, that in the end the WSF has simply became an arena to exchange ideas -- for brainstorming and intellectual discussion.

The WSF was clearly dominated by non-government organizations (NGOs) and social movements of various stripes who continue to distance themselves from the issues of state power. Criticism of global capitalism was not followed by attempts to examine and oppose the policies of national governments who have become agents of international corporations from the advanced capitalist countries.

Moreover, this movement, in the name of asserting its "independence", maintains the greatest possible distance from real political struggles. It also distances itself from political movements which have the same programs and commitments as groups in the WSF.

Even in terms of the way it expresses its fight against neoliberal globalization, it frequently finds itself trapped in symbolic politics and slogans. For example, foreign and local journalists were surprised (and apparently also disorientated) because the computers in the media center used the open source Linux operating system instead of Microsoft Windows. However, as a speaker and guest who was specifically invited to the forum, I was given the freedom to make use of the computers in the working rooms of the organizing committee. All of the computers there used Windows software.

But the problem is not just one of "consistency" in boycotting monopolistic Western products. If a boycott represented a radical and effective solution, we might as well go back to an economic feudalism, because almost all of the technology and daily needs of humanity in this century have been provided for by monopolistic and greedy multi-national companies. Rather, the problems is one of how to provide access for all humanity to the technological advances and at the same time reject efforts by governments and multi-national companies to legalize the monopolization of these products.

Through its activities, the WSF has succeeded in making the working classes and the poor more aware that capitalism is the source of war and injustice. But after four WSFs the anti- globalization movement has not yet broken out of its limits as a moral movement, and has yet to transform itself into a political movement that offers clear and explicit economic and political alternatives.

The WSF needs to follow up its ideological successes with a call to build effective political forces in member countries which can become an alternative to the existing ruling classes.

The style and approach of the WSF is in fact a reflection of the various forms of social orginization and political education at both the national and local level, particularly as carried out by NGOs. Their dependency on donor organizations make NGOs choose activities that are relatively "safe" with the minimum political risk, so that the model which is usually chosen in their method of struggle is one of non-confrontational politics.

The watering down of their militancy is therefore inevitable, bearing in mind that radicalization inevitably ends in open confrontation with the state.

The writer is one of the Indonesian delegates and speaker at the WSF India.