15 January 2004. by Helmut
Anheier, Mary Kaldor, Marlies Glasius.
OpenDemocracy
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-6-91-1680.jsp#
(See original article for all embedded links.)
From Porto Alegre to
anti-war movements, 2003 was a tumultuous year of
political mobilisation. As the 2004 World Social Forum
opens in Mumbai, will “global civil society” build an
enduring space in support of a more humane form of
globalisation?
The first few months of 2003
witnessed a global popular mobilisation on a scale
unprecedented in history. On 15 February 2003, some 11
million people demonstrated in approximately 800
cities all over the world (see the
Global Civil Society Yearbook 2003).
A
new generation was politicised, with young people
walking out of school to demonstrate against the war
in Iraq. Despite this energy, the anti-war movement
was defeated. Within a few weeks, the United States
and Britain had gone to war with Iraq. The United
Nations was sidelined, the European Union immobilised
by divisions of opinion.
The idea of a global civil society still seems as
relevant as ever. But it is also clear that the global
political environment has changed. The growth of
social forums and the anti-war movement represents
what social movement theorists call a ‘political
opportunity structure’ – a new framework where
individuals can participate and engage in global
debates. In particular the social forums have become
the institutionalisation of the ‘newest social
movements’, from the so-called anti-capitalist
movement to environmental, public services and
migration concerns.
The rise of regressive globalisation
We
have categorised the attitudes of governments,
corporate leaders and global civil society groups
towards globalisation as, variously, ‘pure’,
‘reformers’, ‘rejectionist’ and ‘regressive’ (on these
categories, see here).
The most eye-catching and worrying development has
been the rise of what we now call ‘regressive
globalisers’. These are individuals, groups, firms, or
even governments that favour globalisation when it is
in their particular interest and irrespective of any
negative consequences for others. Regressive
globalisers see the world as a zero-sum game, in which
they seek to maximise the benefit of the few (whom
they represent) at the expense of the welfare of the
many (whom they are indifferent to, at best).
This is the doctrine of the White House under George
W. Bush. But it is not just found in government.
Regressive globalism also characterises many religious
and nationalist militant groups. These groups tend to
favour nation-state thinking; yet they organise
transnationally and grow both as a reaction to the
insecurities generated by globalisation and by making
use of the new global media and funding from diaspora
groups.
Against the regressives, there are the reformers –
groups or individuals who favour ‘civilising’ or
‘humanising’ globalisation. They tend to fight for
globalisation of law and of people, whilst being more
sceptical about economic and technological
globalisation, which they want to reform. Reformers
favour those dimensions of globalisation that benefit
the many and in particular the marginalised.
The activists engaged in the new global civil society
movements that come together in world, regional and
local social forums have been divided between what we
term rejectionists and reformers. Some in the anti-war
movement, for example, oppose all forms of state-based
humanitarian engagement on the grounds that it is a
legitimisation of imperialism. And in the economic
field, some people oppose free trade and free capital
movements, while other activists want to strengthen
the capacity of multilateral institutions to deal with
humanitarian emergencies and contribute to global
social justice.
The explosion of social forums
In
the 2002 Global Civil Society Yearbook, we tracked in
detail the first two World Social Forums (WSF) in
Porto Alegre, Brazil, the number of participants they
attracted and the enthusiasm they inspired. At the
second WSF, also in Porto Alegre, the decision was
taken to disperse the idea of the social forum,
organising regional and thematic forums, the ideas and
conclusions of which would feed back into the WSF.
Even before this decision, there had been a first
regional social forum in Africa and a national social
forum in Costa Rica. A militant counter-meeting of
Durban citizens decided to call itself the Durban
Social Forum during the World Conference Against
Racism in Durban, South Africa in 2001.
It
is in Italy that the social forum phenomenon has
especially taken off, partly inspired by the mass
protest against the G8 summit in Genoa in 2001. Many
Italians carried away from this event the idea of a
social forum. There are now at least 170 (some say
many more) local social forums in Italy.
In
the first few years of the millennium, social forums
have mushroomed across the world. The Asian Social
Forum held its inaugural meeting in Hyderabad, India,
in January 2003. Most forums simply adopt the format
of the WSF, organising a one- to three-day event with
workshops, panels, and plenary discussions on a wide
number of topics. But organisers are experimenting
with different forms: the Brisbane Social Forum
operates on an ‘open space’ principle, which means the
agenda is determined by participants on the day of the
meeting; the Ottawa SF emphasises that it “is not a
conference” but rather a carnivalesque manifestation,
and the Tarnet (France) SF envisions its website as an
interactive virtual social forum.
Some social forums, including those of Colombia,
Madrid and Limousin, France, have become permanent
organisations; others, such as Tübingen, Germany, have
regular events they refer to as ‘social forums’.
Many of the social forums in Europe are organised to
coincide with European Union summits of heads of state
and government. The European Social Forums in Florence
(November 2002) and Paris (November 2003) have been
the biggest (with 40,000 and 50,000 participants
respectively. The Philadelphia SF must be one of the
smallest, meeting in a bookshop once a month.
In
Britain, local social forums are only just getting off
the ground. The Durham University Social Forum was
probably the first in early 2003, in turn playing host
to a larger regional North-East Social Forum in summer
2003.
Both the London Social Forum and the Manchester
People’s Assembly/Social Forum held one-day forums
with workshops and plenaries, attended by a few
hundred people, from spring 2003; further local social
forums are being set up or at least considered in
several English cities.
A
new horizon
This proliferation of social forums can be seen as a
new stage in the development of what initially was
termed the ‘anti-globalisation movement’, what Meghnad
Desai and Yahia Said refer to as the ‘anti-capitalist
movement’, but what is now also increasingly referred
to as the ‘global justice movement’ (see: here and
here).
The initial phase was one of protest, in Seattle,
Prague, Genoa, Quebec, and many other cities. Some of
it involved direct action. A smaller proportion was
violent. There is no doubt that the media’s focus on
violence, along with the sense that the protesters
were expressing a more widely felt sense of unease,
helped to put the movement on the map. Apart from the
violence, the main criticism levelled at the movement
was that it was just ‘anti’ – that it protested but
proposed no alternatives.
The social forum formula has been an effective
response to this criticism. The WSF defines itself as
a space for “reflective thinking, democratic debate of
ideas, formulation of proposals, free exchange of
experiences and interlinking for effective action.”
Debates are not a means to an end, but the end itself.
Social forums discuss proposals and strategies, but
they do not produce unified ‘final statements’. The
conscious emphasis on debate as a value in itself is
particularly important in the post-9/11 world, where
al-Qaida, other terrorists, and the Bush
administration are successfully promoting violent
confrontation instead of debate.
Related to the emphasis on debate is the fact that
social forums promote new ways of organising. The
informally-structured workshops foster the growth of
horizontal transnational networks on particular issues
such as water. The network form does of course predate
the social forums, but it is still a discovery to
members of more traditional organisations, such as
trade unions, which have played an important role in
many social forums.
The social forums are meant to be an experiment in
democratic form, but the lack of structure too often
allows old left leaders to grab the limelight and give
the impression of speaking ‘on behalf of’ the
participants.
The global anti-war movement
In
2003 disagreements on global capitalism, and indeed
most ‘anti-capitalist’ activity, were overshadowed by
anti-war activism. There was widespread agreement
amongst anti-capitalist activists that, first, the war
on terror and the war on Iraq in particular were
linked to capitalist interests, and second, that
resisting the war was the more urgent matter.
But there was also a problem. In the campaign against
war on Iraq, the dominant figures have tended to fuse
distinct issues – corporate capitalism and social
inequality, United States hegemony, and the plight of
the Palestinian people. Many of the spokespeople of
the anti-war movement ignored the character of the
former Iraqi and Afghan regimes. Some, such as veteran
British socialist Tony Benn, even went so far as to
visit Saddam Hussein, associating themselves with the
genocidal dictator in their campaign against the war.
This radical worldview is not shared by many ordinary
people who took to the streets in protest against the
war.
Moreover, because the social forums and the anti-war
movements have emphasised self-organisation and/or
minimal structure, it has been relatively easy for
those on the traditional organised left to capture
dominant positions and to be allowed to act as
spokespeople.
It
is too early to assess whether the most recent
anti-war movement will be a lasting force in global
civil society. There is the risk that it will be
dominated by ‘rejectionists’, those who oppose the US
role in the world but offer no alternative
multilateralist mechanism for responding to
repression, human rights abuses, or even genocide.
Reasons to be cheerful
Despite this cautionary note, there is reason to be
optimistic about the future of the global civil
society movement.
Throughout the 1990s, the dominant political force
behind globalisation was a coalition between
‘supporters’ and ‘reformers’. Their influence was felt
in transnational corporations, governments and
intergovernmental organisations, as well as in global
civil society.
This combination contributed to the growth and
solidification of its infrastructure, characterised
especially by the rapid growth of international NGOs
and transnational networks. But it also came to be
seen by many as involving the depoliticising and
co-opting of global civil society.
In
the era from Seattle to the war on Afghanistan, there
was a huge upsurge in civil society mobilisation, in
effect a coalition between reformers and rejecters of
globalisation. They were more characterised by self-organisation
and activism than dominant campaign groups in the
1990s. Their protests sent out powerful warning
signals, which were just beginning to get picked up in
the ‘global governance’ world, where reformers and
supporters coincided, when the Twin Towers came down.
At
the same time, rejectionists (generally on the left)
have become increasingly powerful within global civil
society partly because many activists have not yet
come to terms with the rise of regressive globalism
and believe they are still fighting against the
powerful supporters of globalisation.
Precisely because the regressives propose a radical
vision of the world, the reformers come to be seen as
the establishment position and not the progressive
position. Thus it is the combination of regressives
and rejectionists that could lead to a world
characterised by polarisation and violence.
This is not inevitable. By any number of measures,
global civil society has been strengthened over the
last decade. The most hopeful possibility is that
there will continue to be serious space for the
reformist strand of activism at the social forums so
that global civil society will be able to offer a
radical liberating vision that can compete with the
regressives and rejectionists and eventually have some
influence on American politics. |