open Democracy News Analysis - The three faces of the World Social Forum, Anthony Barnett - Comments

chris peeters on "The three faces of the World Social Forum"

chris peeters — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:00:17 +0000

This is how an article should be these days. With lots of additional information and weblinks. Unfortunately I share its vision on the gloomy perspectives of the WSF.

I would hope OD to start a thorough and critical discussion on a better future for the WSF!

with kindest regards

Chris Peeters

Firoze Manji on "The three faces of the World Social Forum"

Firoze Manji — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:14:11 +0000

Anthony misses the point of my comments about WSF being more like a trade fair. It wasn't that this was not a wonderful opportunity for networking. Rather, it reflected the rules of the neo-liberal capitalist market: those with greater financial resources have a greater presence and influence - and I don't think ActionAid can be legitimately excluded, however much one might think they are different. I would have expected that the WSF would provide a 'level playing field' so that all could have their say equally and not be subject to the rules of the market. The Market is not the only place for networking. And my point about the HDHRC was not so much the weight of their presence but, like much in the human rights field, dealt too little with political analysis.

Pedro Vilanova on "The three faces of the World Social Forum"

Pedro Vilanova — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 10:23:24 +0000

Like the young Frenchmen Anthony Barnett quotes in his article, I think the WSF is about three things. My three are similar, but not identical. First, the oportunity to maximize networking. I'm the Vice-PresIdent of a small (but active and efficient) Catalan NGO. We work in Central America, Columbia and Morocco. I thought that Nairobi would be an opportunity to do a lot of new networking. Top of our agenda now is to establish programmes in Francophone West African countries. Along with all the problems of organization, unmanageable programme, etc, people have mentioned, the fact is that French speaking Africa was under-represented in the Nairobi WSF. Second, there is the opportunity to improve the intellectual debate, have good discussions, renew strategic thinking. One simple, crucial conclusion: in terms of new ideas, Nairobi was very uneven, to the extent that the balance sheet was not positive. Far, far from it. Third, it offers a space to provide momentum for local people, local organisations, communities and NGOs (local means here not only Nairobi or Kenya, but all African countries). Except the usual opening and closing ritual ceremonies, there were only demonstrations inside the Stadium? Surely not enough. As for moving from protest to proposals, it was a long was from being able to talk about a "qualitative jump ahead". Davos has won this year as Anthony puts it. As for the big oil companies, they finally removed any mask of respectability. They don't fee at all challenged by Nairobi as it works currently. In my view, this is a major failure of WSF. We need to improve the need for and the legitimacy of the debate between Davos and WSF(as Mary Robinson does in her blogs from the WSF and Davos). It needs the ability and capacity to project its debates "urbi et orbe" - not just to its own city but to the wider world - via internet and all kind of media. Final comment: I am definitly in favour of de-centralizing the WSF, on a geogrpahical/thematic basis. Less is better, small is (if not beatiful) more efficient. On the good side: it was a less "iconic" WSF. There were very few icons, just a handfull of che guevara shirts here and there, no subcomandante marcos any longer, making it more anonymous and definitely pluralistic. But this included an ]awful anti-abortion demostration inside the Stadium, with slogans and pictures that it make it look as if it was organized by the extreme fondamentalist right-wing of the Catholic Church.

Not logged in on "The three faces of the World Social Forum"

Not logged in — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 15:26:30 +0000

The WSF has been going 7 years, brought many thousands of people to it and has had basically the same format...hundreds of pages of program,always delivered late, and 1,000 workshops and no cohesive statement to present to the world....so, I propose that the Forum adopt not a manifesto but the 4 issues that the Oxford Research Group has developed as the major threats to stability and peace in this century... and add one more.The four are: Climate change; militarism; competition for resources; and marginalization of populations (including women people). The fifth, to bring them all together: unjust globalization. If the WSF could look at the world a little more holistically, and emerge with a more coherent and comprehensive agenda, wouldn't it bring more people together, and make them/us more empowered, more effective?

prgill on "The three faces of the World Social Forum"

prgill — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:30:27 +0000

Anthony Barnett's thoughtful article deserves a broad audience and asks, for me, what role we should reserve for civil society.

I am not sure that civil society should aspire to accession to "power" as "power" can only emmanate from organization and discipline and civil society is by definition rancorous and messy. The key to the role of civil society lies, rather, in the semantics of mutual respect, in the time tested values of "advise and consent".

A ruler rules by consent of the governed. He/she cannot get consent without first asking, as it were, for advice. The alternative would be coercion, but we are not there yet.

The currency of power is wealth and influence: wealth because we have a more or less universal standard of exchange by which we measure this - money - and influence because in a complex world there is are limitations to one's capacity to give (or get) attention, thus influence. (For an excellent introduction to this, read for instance,Michael Goldhaber's article in First Monday (www.firstmonday.org) The Attention Economy and the Net.

Civil Society must, in my opinion, oppose "power" as a matter of principle. This is the only way to preserve its "consenting" prerogative.

Where we go from here..? I am reminded of pre-school; Perhaps we should tear it down and start again.

Just kidding.

Not logged in on "The three faces of the World Social Forum"

Not logged in — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:45:17 +0000

The sounds of music echo downtown Nairobi, as agile dancers in bright red shukas (loin clothes) make gentle gyrations to the reverberations of the drums.

The dancers are not here to announce the onset of a great arts festival but to lure customers to the Kenyan affiliate of Barclays Bank with unsecured loans of up to Sh1 million (9,000 pounds).

There is plenty of money to splash about, and banks appear to be on a lending spree.

Only that Kenya remains a very unequal society even as President Mwai Kibaki wraps up his term later this year.

If the banks are concerned with recruiting more customers to lend their abundant cash, at a generous interest, of course, the World Social Forum, which was concluded recently in Nairobi, was a veritable market for capitalists.

Prices of meals quadrupled, a fruit cost ten times more, and an entrance fee the equivalent of what it costs to go to the Carnivore, the most popular nightspot in Nairobi, for a night of rhumba locked out the poor people in Kenya from the hired WSF venue at Kasarani stadium, on the fringes of the city.

I personally could not pay the 5 pounds for a Press card, but decided to outwit the system by calling a friend to pass on his friend's badge at the gate.

It took 40 minutes to link up with a him (please read the number on the gate, yes, the big red numbers in red stand by the red bus written Celtel no, the fountain?)

Once inside, I went looking for the media centre, where a friend visiting from London was waiting.

"The media centre" someone scratched his head. "Try there?" he pointed a thick finger.

That took half an hour to locate, by which time the friend had taken the bus to town.

Then I went searching for the Patrice Lumumba plenary, where a discussion was underway to explore restorative justice for genocide victims in Rwanda in 1994, where nearly million perished in 90 days of terror.

The gacaca, a truth and reconciliation forum where villagers meet and publicly confess their roles in the atrocities, is rooted in Rwanda's traditional structures of justice.

This is an appealing concept for Kenya, where politicians have inflamed portions of the population, triggering social conflagration.

This has been a recurrent problem every election year, and thousands of Kenyans are presently camped in church compounds in Kenya's Rift Valley, with the latest skirmishes coming only two months.

The whole point, it appears, is to displace the people and deny then an opportunity to cast a ballot, as it were, killing the vote, and the people who resist.

The WSF failed pitifully to raise the awareness of such pressing issues that to continue to afflict many Kenyans.

The most captivating message that appeared to capture the imagination of the media were the vast business opportunities that the visitors brought with them, and the sour grapes of those who lost out.

And why not, the WSF itself was the best exemplification of that ideal.

Back to the plenary. I located the Patrice Lumumba hall, named in memory of Congo's founding president, two hours after setting foot in Kasarani.

There were only 15 minutes left before the session ended, so I stepped out and joined in a mugithi (a Kenyan dance where you place your hands on the person ahead) and race around.

[Peter Kimani is a novelist and journalist who writes for the Kenyan Nation.]

danielm on "The three faces of the World Social Forum"

danielm — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:51:31 +0000

I find your assessment on the protest character of this years World Social Forum too negative. Did you not come across, for example, the many slum dweller initiatives, that effectively used the forum as their platform? I was very impressed, for example, with the community of Korogocho, which raised the profile of their plght, living next to Nairobi's garbage dump, forcefully and effectively at the Forum. The campaigns against the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), likewise, got a massive boost at the WSF. They had been the forgotten child - but in Nairobi, due to it being such a pressing issue for Africa this year, EPAs took centre stage - and even the cynical European press took note.

Some of the sponsorship deals were problematic, such as the support by Celtel and Kenya Airways. However, I was disappointed that noone seems to have questioned some of the state backers of the WSF - such as Petrobras - Brazil's fossil fuel giant. Petrobras is just as much a "baddy" in terms of climate change as Kenya Airways - and from what I understand their human rights record is also not great. And yet, noone questioned their massive support for the WSF in Porto Alegre (in 2005 and before) or the fact that at the opening ceremony in Nairobi Brazilian musicians were advertsied as "courtesy of Petrobras". Many in the movement seem to continue to be blind on the green eye!

skorda@hol.gr on "The three faces of the World Social Forum"

skorda@hol.gr — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:57:57 +0000

So many images I've seen from Davos include the slogan - "Committed to improving the state of the world" - and that's the story the global media seem to be telling. They sure have gotten better at branding.

The WEF itself released a global survey that showed dwindling confidence in world leaders. But their power is unquestionable. As is the power of the NGO representatives who participated.

The WSF on the other hand has so far failed to give activists a sense (or image) of power. The international committee seems unwilling to take a leadership roll in focussing the activities of the Forum - not by making a big manifesto, but by encouraging participants to focus on actions and results. The geographic location of the Forum has become more important than the topics discussed.

Now that the Forum is so big, maybe it's time to be more thematic (like Davos). Once it's split up into different regions, I wonder if the global consciousness so central to it's purpose will suffer. Why would you go to Africa, if there is a Forum closer to where you live?

Perhaps if you did Climate Change in one place, Poverty in another, and Peace in a third, you coud find a clever way for them to interact. For each Forum to be everything seems increasingly untennable.

We need more global people power!

The three faces of the World Social Forum, Anthony Barnett

Tue, 30 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0000

After seven years, is it any closer to making another world possible? Anthony Barnett in Nairobi takes an engaged yet critical look at the World Social Forum. Read the rest of this post...