The Future of the Forum

The Future of the Forum (June 30, 2007) Also listen to audio of the session.

Moderator: Marc Becker
Speakers: Janet Conway, Suren Moodliar, Marina Karides, Thomas Ponniah

“The Future of the Forum” is one in a series of panels that the Network Institute for Global Democratization (NIGD, http://www.nigd.org) has sponsored at social forums on the direction that the social forum process is taking. At the US Social Forum in Atlanta, Sociologists Without Borders (SSF, http://www.sociologistswithoutborders.org) and the International Network of Scholar Activists (INOSA, http://www.inosa.org) co-sponsored the session. In order to inform the conversations, we asked the presenters to first read two reflections on the 2007 WSF in Nairobi, Walden Bello’s “The Forum at the Crossroads” (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4196) and Chico Whitaker’s response “Crossroads do not always close roads (Reflection in continuity to Walden Bello) (http://www.wsflibrary.org/index.php/Crossroads_do_not_always_close_roads).

Janet Conway began the discussion with the observation that the title of the session was unfortunate. There is not only one ‘forum,’ but many different ones with their own autonomy and achievements. Other processes work on other scales with their own autonomy but not in isolation from each other. Although distinct, they learn and build on each other. As a result, there are plural futures for the forum.

Janet summarized controversies emerging out of the 2007 Nairobi WSF–that it emerged more out of NGOs and religious groups than social movements; questions of accessibility, including whether the forum is for the poor or only the organized poor; the financing and corporatization of the forum; and issues of corruption within the forum, specifically in contracting of food services. Janet cautioned that critiques were quick to condemn shortcomings without a proper context. Africa historically has been marginalized, and we need to celebrate the forum’s extraordinary contributions. The WSF in Nairobi emerged out of a robost organizational process, including hundreds of local events. The forum also assumed a pan-African character. A history of colonization and racial hierarchies has killed social movements, leaving only NGOs to organize events such as this. Furthermore, Janet argued that poor people were at the Nairobi forum in larger numbers than in any other previous forum.

In applying Nairobi to Atlanta, at the USSF poor peoples have also taken a more central role. The USSF has been built from that base, and they have taken ownership of the process. Race, gender, and class have been front and center at the USSF.

Janet concluded that there is not only one forum, and we have not yet seen the end of the process.

Suren Moodliar began with the metaphor of the forum as a bus with no back seats. If it begins to have back seats, it needs to be pulled own and rebuilt. Rather than discarding this process, we need to embrace it. Forums tend to happen at the right time and place. For example, the ascendancy of the PT (Workers Party) created spaces in Brazil for the WSF. Now facing reversals of the PT and the European left, we face a different environment. We see that civil society had been carried on the shoulders of hopeful political parties. The WSF is not an open but contested space.

Grassroots Global Justice (GGJ) spearheaded United States participation in the WSF. GGJ presented a collective view and critique of how social forums should function, that they should be rooted in practical struggles. Originally the GGJ argued that the time was not right for a United States Social Forum, but when it finally happened now it was the most successful social forum to date.

Suren pointed out that we often think of diversity in ethnic and geographic rather than ideological terms. But we need to embrace ideological diversity as well. This will help create spaces for social movements. Suren sees the social forum process as moving in fits and starts rather than a process of smooth growth. We need to tap into a volunteer base, and this will provide energy to the forum process.

Marina Karides asked who organizes the forums? What does the International Council (IC) and National Planning Council (NPC) look like? The NPC was mostly young women of color. In the case of the USSF, the local organizing committee was particularly important in defining the character of the forum. Marina asked whether forums were a people’s or organizer’s movement? There can be important divisions between people and activists?

At the USSF, who was on the plenary platform was a highly conscious choice. Overt efforts were taken to make the USSF more horizontal and grassroots. Marina asked where is the resistance to the social forum process in the US? Does its absence hurt the social forum success? While lead organizers try to stop protests at forums, Marina is thrilled when it happens because it is a reflection of an energized and dynamic movement.

Marina concluded with reflections on what it means for a social forum to be successful. In the case of the USSF, it is a success because diverse groups came together and stepped beyond sectorial divisions in the United States.

Thomas Ponniah reflected on social forums functioning as a space versus as an agent. He noted three contributions of the social forum process. First, a diversity of movements have come together in the social forum. This diversity of ideologies and strategies allows for its success. Legacies of divisions lead to conservatism, whereas the USSF represents a convergence.

Second, social forums form a common fabric that weave everything together. The globalization of struggles leads to a common global identity, that we are all part of the same process.

Finally, the social forum process leads to a revolution in how we imagine our opponents in significant departures from the past. Thomas used the example of the traditional left using the state to regulate the market, whereas a neoliberal right uses the market to regulate the state. But neither works, and both result in alienation. Civil society, in contrast, changes how we understand freedom. Thomas concluded that we need implementation of these developments on local, national, and global levels.

In the following discussion, audience members observed that while intellectuals want open spaces social movements look for something much more concrete. From the point of view of the NPC, Marina pointed out that Sunday’s Peoples Movement Assembly was built on regional not sectorial divisions in order to resolve space/actor debates.

Venezuela currently presents a weird mix of state and participatory democracy. Social forums also point to problems in engaging religion and people of faith. Audience members also pointed out that in the United States there is a range of NGOs, with some being more participatory than others.