LAP Exclusives:

--View More Exclusives

The Possible World and the Actual State:
The World Social Forum in Caracas

by
John L. Hammond

Published in Issue 148, Volume 33, Number 3 - May 2006 

            The World Social Forum's slogan proclaims that "another world is possible."  That possible world came up against the real world of politics when the Forum met in Caracas, Venezuela, from January 24 to 29, 2006.  Like the five previous forums, it was a big, chaotic, and exciting gathering of a broad array of activists, movements and organizations seeking to make a different world.  The social forum brings together what is often called the "antiglobalization" movement, but activists reject the term.  Opposed to neoliberal corporate globalization, they prefer to be thought of as the global justice movement, working toward a world that is integrated from below.  But more than its predecessors, the Caracas meeting hosted a vigorous debate about what the forum should be and how it should engage the world that it wants to change.

            The 2006 Social Forum was "polycentric."  For the first time since annual meetings began in 2001, it did not meet at a single location (the previous meetings were in Porto Alegre, Brazil, except for the 2004 meeting in Mumbai, India).  Instead it was slated to have three simultaneous meetings, in Caracas; Bamako, Mali; and Karachi, Pakistan, all to coincide with the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, which the social forum was created to challenge.[1] 

            The decision to decentralize the forum was part of the organizers' effort to make it more open, democratic, and participatory (Hammond, 2005).  In the same spirit, the organizers in 2005 organized no sessions on their own; responding to complaints of heavy-handed control, they invited the participating organizations to organize all sessions (and the practice continued in 2006).  They also set up a "wall of proposals" where anyone could post a statement for all to see and react.

            An estimated 80,000 participants attended the Caracas forum (fewer than the last two Porto Alegre meetings).  The printed program came in two parts, each the size of a thick tabloid newspaper.  It featured over 2,000 events‑-panels, workshops, performances‑-sponsored by the great variety of organizations and issue interests represented: organizations promoting the interests of women, indigenous people, protection of the environment, civic participation, alternative media, and many others.  Several parallel organizations met simultaneously, including the World Education Forum, the World Forum of Local Governments, Via Campesina (the international peasants' movement) and the Trade Union Forum of the Americas.

            The Social Forum is an inherently political event, but each year's forum is political in a somewhat different way.  Most organized participants have defined the event as a gathering of civil society, embodied in nongovernmental organizations which deliberately maintain their distance from the governments of their states.  The target of their action has not mainly been states but the international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its regional offshoots, including the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA, also known by its Spanish and Portuguese acronym ALCA).

            But this year's forum occurred in the wake of the election of leftist presidents of varying stripes in Chile and Bolivia, joining those already in office in Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Venezuela.  Because the 2006 meeting was but one polycentric branch (and was simultaneously the second Social Forum of the Americas, following the first which had met in Quito in 2004), it was focused on the prospects for political change in the western hemisphere.  Bolivia offered the greatest surprise.  Evo Morales won a stunning victory in December's presidential election‑-not only is he the first indigenous president of his heavily indigenous nation, but he is the first president in modern times to win an absolute majority of the vote.[2]  He was inaugurated two days before the opening of the forum.  Morales owes his victory to the vigor of the social movements of indigenous people, especially the coca growers' (cocaleros) union from which he rose to political prominence.  He and Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez both embrace the term "socialism" and appear to mean by it a genuine alternative to capitalism, though neither man's meaning is entirely clear.

            Some forum participants argue that this cluster of progressive governments offers a new conjuncture and a new opportunity for political action, and that they should take advantage of the forum's size and dynamism to intervene by supporting these governments and pushing them further to the left.

            Others disagree.  They have been disappointed in the past, especially by Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who was wildly applauded at the 2003 World Social Forum a few weeks after his inauguration as president of Brazil (Hammond, 2003), but whose strict adherence to IMF guidelines in running the country dimmed enthusiasm for him at the next Brazilian meeting two years later.

            The forum's charter, moreover, forswears endorsement of political parties and programs of action: "The meetings of the World Social Forum do not deliberate on behalf of the World Social Forum as a body. . . . The participants in the Forum shall not be called on to take decisions as a body . . . that would commit all, or the majority, of them" (World social Forum, Charter of Principles).  Instead it defines the forum as a space for dialogue, open to all who share its basic principles of opposition to neoliberal corporate globalization. 

            The question of political action has been a divisive one almost since the beginning.  The social forum was created as an expression of civil society.  The renewed attention to civil society in the late twentieth century was due to the role of civil-society organizations in the struggle against dictatorial regimes in Latin America and the former Soviet bloc.  Even after those regimes' demise, many advocates of civil society remain wary that its organizations (including the NGOs that are the most active participants and promoters of the WSF) will be coopted by too close identification with any government, however progressive.  They believe that their movement should be independent of the state‑-if not antagonistic.

            The position of those who want to make the World Social Forum an active political force has been strengthened by the election of progressive presidents and the choice of Venezuela as the site.  Meeting in Caracas would give Chávez's government a showcase for its social revolution in health, education, and the small-scale cooperative economy, as well as for Chávez's uncompromising anti-imperialism.

            This implicit endorsement was not uniformly accepted.  Some on the Forum's International Council and in the continental NGO community support Chávez only hesitantly, suspicious of his military origins and his personalist and populist tendencies, and feared that the Chávez forces would hijack the show if it were held in Caracas.  Cândido Grzybowski, director of the Brazilian Institute for Social and Economic Analysis (IBASE), a leading NGO, who had been prominent in planning the Porto Alegre forums, said to Agence France Presse before the meeting, "In Caracas we will be almost completely dependent on Chávez, which will limit our capacity to have an independent discourse" (El Universal, 2006).  Others are wary about getting too close to any elected government, even one that so enthusiastically promotes the WSF charter's principles of opposition "to neoliberalism and to domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism" (World Social Forum, Charter of Principles).

Forging a Continental Network

            As in past years, the crowds were huge and the scene was hectic and exciting.  Formal sessions were sometimes less crowded than outdoor spaces where people milled around and stood in long lines to register or receive free tote bags with the forum's logo.  Chatting with strangers while waiting, they forged networks of interest across the hemisphere.  This is one of the Social Forum's great strengths: people interact with others from faraway places who share the same concerns and promote the same interests.  Many groups have organized across borders and now use the forum as an annual meeting place.

            A Caracas park was given over to a youth camp, self-consciously anarchist in orientation, where young people could sleep in tents and hold their own activities somewhat separate from those listed in the forum's program.  There was an Alternative Social Forum, much smaller than the main event, organized by anarchist groups critical of the Chávez government and of the forum's reliance on government financial support.

            Not surprisingly for such a large gathering, there were logistical strains.  Those coming from abroad encountered their first surprise at the airport.  The main highway to Caracas was closed, because heavy storms had left a viaduct on the verge of collapsing.  A cab ride to Caracas, depending on the time of day and the route taken, could take anywhere from one-and-one-half to four hours and cost $100 or more.  (Eventually the forum provided bus service for a much lower cost, but the ride took just as long.)

            While the forum organizers could hardly be blamed for the collapse of the highway, there were other problems.  Events were scattered over ten widely separated sites, some of them hard to reach and even hard to find‑-and clear directions were not always provided.  Sessions on related topics were not grouped together, as they had been the year before in Porto Alegre.  A participant who ventured to some of the more distant sites might well find that a meeting had been canceled, or moved to an obscurely marked new location.  Disorganization had been a common complaint at all previous forums, but it appeared to reach new heights in Caracas. After four meetings Porto Alegre had learned to run things more smoothly.

            Even more of a problem was the lack of a central gathering point.  At Porto Alegre there were spaces for organizations and publishers to mount stands and display their wares.  The exhibit area provided the clearest overview of the range of issues represented, and it became a central gathering spot and opportunity for spontaneous interaction.  Those who wanted to make contact with organizations promoting a particular issue could start there and find out which sessions were most recommended; people could wander at leisure and strike up conversations, enjoying the opportunity to meet people from other countries who might be promoting the same issue or learn about completely different ones.

            Caracas had no such gathering point.  Organizations wishing to distribute literature handed it out to people standing in line or left it in stacks outside meeting rooms.  The central locale was a group of adjacent buildings in the heart of Caracas: Parque Central (not a park but a complex of stores, offices, and residential apartments), two Hilton hotels‑-the Anauco Suites and the Caracas Hilton‑-where many sessions were held, the Teresa Carreño theater, where large audiences could attend featured sessions, and the Plaza de los Museos, with an outdoor stage for live performances.  The lobby of the Caracas Hilton became the central gathering place, at least for some of the foreign delegations.  Hanging out in the Hilton marked an ironic contrast to the spirit of the forum, and many of the Venezuelan participants undoubtedly felt unwelcome there.

The Political Debate

            While the forum proudly offers a platform to a diverse collection of voices and issues, there is really very little disagreement among them except over the nature of the forum itself.  Most evidently, opposition to US imperialism is universal and has been a theme of all the annual meetings.  The war in Iraq has been broadly condemned in speeches, discussions, and demonstrations since 2003.  US intervention in the hemisphere, especially Plan Colombia, has also been singled out.

            Chávez himself is one of the most vocal critics of the US.  During the week of the forum, Chávez accused a US embassy official of espionage, and he was later expelled.  Chávez has also promoted the Bolivarian Alternative for America, his project of a Latin America-wide free trade area based on "the struggle against poverty and social inclusion"  (Portalalba, 2003) to counter the US-sponsored FTAA (its Spanish acronym, ALBA, contrasts with ALCA, the Spanish acronym for FTAA).  On January 27 he gave a two-hour speech at the Caracas Poliedro, a sports arena some distance from the downtown area that was the center of the conference.  There he excoriated George Bush, declared his allegiance to socialism, and lauded the liberatory processes going on throughout the Latin American continent.

            Prominent US antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed fighting in Iraq, sat on the stage with Chávez in the Poliedro and appeared on his Sunday television show Aló Presidente.  The Forum was also the scene of the International Women's Court, which denounced the terrorism perpetuated by neoliberalism and accused the United States of being its principal culprit.

            But debates centered around the issue of whether the Forum should move forward from its stance as a debating society open to all comers to undertake or sponsor specific political action.  Ignacio Ramonet, editor of Le Monde Diplomatique and one of the original conveners of the Forum, thought that the move was necessary to maintain momentum:

One could see [in Porto Alegre in 2005] a sort of exhaustion of the initial formula: because of the number of participants, the forum couldn't go on being just a space of meeting and debate which didn't give rise to action.  [If it does not create the conditions to move on to political action,] it runs the risk of depoliticization and turning into folklore (Ramonet, 2006).

            Edgardo Lander, a sociologist on the Venezuelan Facilitating Committee for the forum, commented that earlier forums expressed a general feeling that social movements should be independent of unions, parties, and governments because movements are "more genuine and more expressive of the sentiments of the base."  But the world has changed, he argued: "The military politics of the United States is more aggressive, the impact of free trade is felt more, and politically you can't maintain that separation" (interview, January 28, 2006). Some more permanent structure with a common political program should emerge‑-Atilio Borón, Argentine sociologist and member of the forum's International Council, called for "a new international to counter the international of the bourgeoisie" (interview, January 26, 2006).

            Lander defended the turn to more explicit political commitment by pointing out the attraction of political themes to the participants.  Organizers, after seeking input via the internet, defined six "thematic axes" into which sessions would be grouped.  The fact that the most explicitly political one--"power, politics, and the struggle for social emancipation"‑-received the most proposed panels, he said, proved that participants were eager to take more political stances.[3]

            Others, however, fear that to undertake common political action would change the character of the Forum.  Cândido Grzybowski expressed his doubts, writing in a newspaper published by Inter Press Service and widely distributed, for free, to conference participants.  He lauded the accomplishments of past Forums and the Forum's "potential to transform practices and cultures, appropriated and interpreted by the most diverse movements, organizations, networks, coalitions, alliances, and campaigns across the planet."  But, he concluded, "there should not and cannot exist an Inquisition or Politburo to dictate what is correct and what is erroneous" (Grzybowski, 2006).

            In a major session at the forum, Grzybowski was paired with Jacobo Torres, chair of the Venezuelan facilitating committee for the forum and international coordinator of the Bolivarian Labor Force, the pro-Chávez trade union federation, who advocates more coordinated political action by the forum as a whole. In pursuing their offensive against neoliberalism, war, and militarization, he said, social movements must consolidate their successes and link up with the processes on the ground that were producing progressive governments.

            The Chávez issue became intertwined with this debate.  The Chávez government subsidized the event heavily, offering meeting space, sound equipment, and even free subway fare to participants displaying their Forum badges.  Though the Venezuelan organizers were Chávez backers, they insisted that they had kept the door open to all Venezuelan organizations, regardless of their stance toward Chávez.  According to Jacobo Torres, "We didn't want to be a chavista forum; we wanted to bring people here to see the Venezuelan process, and we guaranteed that this forum would respect the rules of the game of the World Social Forum" (interview, January 27, 2006).  In fact the program included very few events overtly promoting the Chávez government.  Several Venezuelan organizations that are not wholeheartedly pro-Chávez were present, including the Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV), the traditional labor federation, which is squarely in the opposition, and others like the Venezuelan Program of Education and Action in Human Rights (Provea), which is not in the opposition camp but has been critical of the Chávez government.

            The presence of chavismo was in principle marked off from the forum: Chávez himself made two appearances, at events that were sponsored not by the forum as a whole but by particular organizations.  The government's accomplishments were most visibly showcased in a long stretch of booths on both sides of Avenida Bolívar, extending off from the central area of the forum, where government agencies and programs touted their accomplishments in health, education, providing documentation for citizens who were missing a birth certificate or other crucial identification document, and defense‑-complete with displays of heavy military equipment.  These booths were not part of the forum and participants were free to ignore them, since geographically they extended away from one end of the central area; but they occupied some prime real estate which might otherwise have been devoted to exhibits by participating organizations.

            At Porto Alegre too the Workers' Party (PT) city government promoted its accomplishments, especially its hallmark, the participatory budget; the PT's strength in Porto Alegre and its status as a model city were a major part of the reason for locating the forum there in the first place.  But to many the self-promotion seemed less heavy-handed and more appropriate than was the case in Caracas: it was a municipal rather than a national government, it was not closely identified with a single personality, and the organizations associated with the participatory budget, though stimulated by the city government and working closely with it, regard themselves as autonomous and representatives of civil society (Hammond, 2003).

            The debate over political action will continue, but with a new momentum given the changed political situation in Latin America (in which many predict more electoral victories for leftists in the rest of 2006, including the expected reelection of Chávez himself).  The Assembly of Social Movements, a subgroup of the forum which, unlike the forum as a whole, explicitly takes political stands and organizes political actions, announced plans for an international demonstration against US military policy on March 18.  It is likely that this will be the model for future action: the forum will increasingly be a central place for political debate and organizing, but it will maintain its pluralist character and not formally take stands that might alienate some participants.  I asked Alexander Buzgalin, a Russian economist on the International Council, whether he thought the forum would convert itself into a homogeneous political force; he replied, "Not convert but add"‑-the forum would continue to be what it has been but find ways to promote political action as well (interview, January 27, 2006).

            But combining them may be difficult.  The Nation's coverage of Caracas was titled "Protest or Celebration?" (Blanding, 2006).  Contrary to the author's suggestion that celebration is self-indulgent and political relevance requires protest, the forum has generated an invigorating atmosphere and inspired enthusiasm in many who have attended.  Creating an obligation to endorse political stands and take part in actions might disaffect many who have been active and undercut the openness and pluralism that have been the forum's hallmark.

            Though these intense debates are presented in forum sessions and on the Internet, available to anyone who wishes to enter into them, most participants ignore them and take what the forum has to offer: a heady experience of interaction and networking which stokes their enthusiasm to return home to continue to fight their many battles independently.

            What is the forum's overall political effect?  Any impact is hard to measure, but a case can be made that the forum has genuinely changed the nature of global political discourse.  Opposition to the war in Iraq has become internationalized, far more quickly and widely than any previous opposition to a particular war.  Free trade negotiations have stagnated since the abortive 1999 WTO ministerial conference in Seattle because of the need to fend off popular opposition; that opposition is offered by many organizations around the world, but it is centralized in the World Social Forum.  Finally, the proliferation of local, regional, and issue-specific social forums around the world brings together like-minded activists who may not be able to attend the world forums but are inspired to new heights of activity by the interaction and examples that the local forums offer.

            After the Caracas forum, groups and organizations eager to collaborate directly with progressive governments in their home countries (including some which may elect new governments this year) will undoubtedly be strengthened by their encounter with the Venezuelan pro-Chávez movements and similar ones in other countries.  While it is difficult to measure the overall impact of the World Social Forum, it represents the globalization of political protest to a degree that the world has not previously seen.