Home > [FSE-ESF] You cant always get what you want
Dear all
this is a very important discussion and I hope that we can find the
time to keep it going on the list before we meet again in November.
After the Bobigny assembly I found myself amazed once more at our
decision making methods. Once again we left an issue of utmost
importance to the last bleeding minute when all where exhausted and
we had to leave the place we were at. We must find a way to avoid
these situations.
I agree fully that consensus is important. At the same time,
consensus must never be interpreted to mean that those who disagree
are forced to state that they agree with the majority even if they
are not convinced by their arguments. If there is a majority wanting
to make a decision and some are against it, we will have to
acknowledge that we are making a majority decision and not a
consensus one. Which is no disaster in itself.
This time, I am not sure whether it would have been justified to say
that there was "a large consensus", as Pierre Khalfa was suggesting
at one point, or not. In fact, it was not just the Swedish,
Portuguese and some of the French who were against the proposal.
There were also representatives from the Easten European
coordination, something I find most important.
But Panayotis perfectly right that the debate became one of frequency
and not of place. I think this was justified; frequency is a major
issue!
We have to acknowledge the fact that this assembly was much smaller
than the corresponding one in the run-up to Florence. I do not think
that I am alone in sensing a certain fatigue in speaking with many
movements on the international forum process. There is a sense that
movements are always completely overloaded with the preparation of
one international forum or another, and that other important
processes so to speak closer to home are being neglected. There is a
sense that we do not have enough time to thoroughly reflect on our
political agenda; that the forums risk turning into big celebrations
of the movement and become slightly superficial as regards the
issues. And not least, there is a sense that the preparation
processes are so demanding that they become exclusive; we begin to
create the "alterglobalist jet-set" of coordinators that are always
between flights and living in our own little bubble of international
networking without touching in with the activists on the ground.
I am not saying I agree with all these statements; I think some are
more or less true, while others are not. But I am saying that if
different actors are not thinking it worthwhile to attend the
preparatory process, then we must reflect on why this is so. And we
must see that if our agenda becomes so overloaded that the process
becomes excluding, then this is a problem for the legitimacy for the
forum process as a whole. We cannot simply turn to each other during
a European assembly to decide whether the forum process is a sine qua
non for the European movement or not: that debate becomes
fundamentally flawed unless we try to interpret the voices of all
those who choose not to follow the prep process.
I think the forum process would greatly benefit from having
coordinators that had more time to move between the levels where they
work: to be more active in local and national work. Unless we ensure
this, I am convinced we will have a legitimacy problem, and a
concrete problem of functioning. Of course participation by a great
number of organisations to the european assembly is not something
that is all necessary for people to have a great time during an ESF.
But if we want the forum process to build sustainable alliances, we
need people to be active in the overall conception of the event, and
not just to come as "consumers", if you see what I mean.
So I am not at all convinced that it is sensible to keep the once-a-
year rythm. I think sliding it six months would be a lot more
sensible, and give people some time to do things for the WSF and the
MSF, as well as with their local and national fora. But it is of
course not the end of the world or of the process that we disagree on
this.
I said very explicitly when I was intervening during the assembly
that the practical thing to do at the point we were at was probably
to make the decision of London - Athens, but not to call it a
consensus one, and to take note of the fact that some delegations
were clearly opposing it, and of their reasons for doing so. I think
consensus is an excellent way of working, but it mustn’t mean that
important divergences are swept under the carpet and not
acknowledged.
I think Lizz (sorry if I’m misspelling your name :-)) from UK was
probably quite right in stating that this is an issue that will not
simply go away by further consultation: we are rather far apart in
our analysis of what the movement needs to function at this point.
But time for further consultation within national coordinations
(which Simo from Hungary repeatedly asked for) opens up space for
this hugely important debate, which is actually on what we really
want the forum process for.
Please, let’s continue this discussion. And let’s not only discuss
the art of getting as many people as possible on the street on a
coordinated date. Not that that is not important (of course it is!!)
but there is more to what we want to build, and sometimes that "more"
seems to disappear in our discussions.
greetings
Helena T, Sweden
Forum posts
12 October 2003, 20:04
Helena and other comrades
I too was pretty pissed off with how the meeting went. But unlike Helena I
felt not much fatigue in the room, more of a real unhappiness about how
things are sometimes being done behind closed doors - and then you have two
hours to ’debate’ and ’decide’ on the most important questions. No real
debate has emerged in my opinion because of these reasons:
– the assembly took place on a Monday and Tuesday. Well, no surprise we only
had 150 people and not 400. This is not fatigue, this is people having to go
to work. I was meant to go to work on Monday, but because the meeting turned
out to be very interesting, I ’developed’ a migraine (for my boss only) in
order to stay on. We all know that the decision to have the assembly on
Monday and Tuesday was not reached by any kind of consensus - it was done by
the French committee, which overturned the consensus at the last assembly in
Genoa to have the meeting the weekend before (September 20/21). Very bad
practise indeed.
– the preparation for the important debate on frequency and venue of the
next ESF was extremely badly done. Why can’t we circulate important
documents (like the one about having the bid in London) beforehand? Why
don’t we give national ESF mobilisations the chance to discuss these
important things before they come to an assembly? The Greek comrades as well
as some of the British comrades knew that they were going to present their
proposals for the venue of the next ESF. Why do we only hear about the
French’s proposal to change the frequency of the ESF on the last day? No
wonder that some people felt that the only way they could make their voice
heard properly was by denying the rest of the meeting a consensus - although
I stilll think that it was quite undemocratic that 5 people can hold the
rest of us from reaching a decision.
We need to become far more open and transparent in our proceedings. We need
– proper agendas
– good minutes from previous meetings
– any relevant proposals to be presented in written form well in advance of
any assembly or other meetings
– all smaller "workshops" or meetings that go on during the ESF assemblies
to be open to observers
This is the only way to beat this perceived ’fatigue’ - not by moving
backwards and scaling down our efforts to unite across Europe.
Tina Becker
Communist Party of Great Britain
www.cpgb.org.uk
12 October 2003, 20:06
Those of us who have been calling for an open debate of ways and means in
the ESF (plus the means to do so online) for well over a year now are
experiencing a certain sense of irony that this subject is now surfacing
again, particularly with reference to the crudely exclusionary tactics of
certain of the participating UK groups. The ESF e-list has been used both by
groups in the UK and in other European countries as a means to simply order
the vast mass of voiceless groups within the ESF around ("this meeting will
take place in such-and-such a city and on such-and-such-a-date,
participating groups are expected to attend and tough luck if they can’t),
with the certain knowledge that the smaller groups do not have time,
personnel or the resources to go to such meetings; this has not been
accident or bad planning, if not a deliberate tactic to make sure that
debate within the ESF only takes place on certain terms and in certain ways
that suit those groups of the old.... sorry, I meant ’new’ ’progressive’
left who are seeking to control the ESF and to ensure that it functions
merely as a mass protest movement of the disaffected against certain
strictly allowable, anodyne targets such as ’neo-liberalism’, against ’war’,
against the usual political establishment figures.
If the ESF were truly what it purports to be, we would already have an
online site such as that of OpenDemocracy, where policy discussions on each
and every topic that appeared as a workshop or a seminar in the ESF in
Florence would already be. Each of these discussion lists, be they trades
union issues, sex worker issues, migrant issues or whatever, would be open
to all signatories to the Porto Alegre declaration and all signatories to
the ESF lists, plus anyone planning on coming to the ESF in Paris. As well
as these topic lists, there would by now have been active structural lists,
where the means by which the ESF can be made more participatory, more
democratic, would already be discussing the infrastructure of the movement
of movements. It would be doing this because the realisation would have been
made that the ESF is in no position to make decisions as to what sort of
political entity it wishes to become until it has ascertained the most
flexible, participatory structure possible through which the most opinions
of the most groups and individuals could be sought. There would in addition
by now be an acive online dialogue with regional actors, groups and social
fora throughout the world, in the full recognition that we in Europe may
decide nothing, if we understand ourselves to be true globalisers, unless
and until we have consulted fully with those to be affected by our decisions
outside Europe. Over a year ago, I tried to make these suggestions and to
bring up these concerns, the same concerns that are now being voiced once
again, only to be told that this list was not the place for such
discussions, and that attempting to spread democracy online was itself
exclusionary. I was told this by the same people who are now being roundly
and rightly blamed for the way in which the ESF excludes the wishes and
views of the majority, both in the UK and elsewhere.
Tina wrote "Why don’t we give national ESF mobilisations the chance to
discuss these important things before they come to an assembly?..... Why do
we only hear about the French’s proposal to change the frequency of the ESF
on the last day?" but it seems to me that this is to entirely misunderstand
the functioning of the ESF as it is presently constituted. It us precisely
to avoid such consultations and to negate even the possibility of such
discussions taking place that certain of the political groupings are running
the ESF in such an arbitrary, authoritarian manner - all groups are equal,
to these people, but some groups are more equal than others.
Why, for instance, at the ESF is it OK for anyone who wants one, can
organise it and pay for it to apply for a seminar, but that no seminars
should be available to discuss the structure, purpose, intentions and
eventual political make-up of the ESF itself? Plainly if this were left up
until the yearly ESF itself the logistic difficulties would be immense, but
such seminars and workshops could be spilt up, with each group or set of
seminar/workshops making a report to a full assembly; if this is so
difficult to do physically, then why isn’t it happening online? Or in a
mixture of online discussions and physical meetings, split up to reflect
geographical reality? We were told that discussion of the ESF couldn’t take
place online, by Luciano Muhlbauer, because many people lacked access to the
internet.... so why is it OK to send information about meetings online, if
the same people don’t have access to that information either? Because to the
main European political groupings, in my country as well as the rest of
Europe, we’re simply cannon-fodder for a bunch of out-of-control, white,
male, middle-class egos, is why.
Tina also wrote "We need to become far more open and transparent in our
proceedings. We need- proper agendas, good minutes from previous meetings,
any relevant proposals to be presented in written form well in advance of
any assembly or other meetings and all smaller "workshops" or meetings that
go on during the ESF assemblies to be open to observers.", and I couldn’t
agree more but this is an absolute minimume requirement that should have
been functioning a long time ago; it’s not rocket science we’re dealing with
here, folks, but you can bet that the same folks who will be too busy with
their meetings to answer any of these e-mails, too busy to take part in any
debate, too busy jockeying for position and making deals, will also be
ignoring this until the majority gets off its’ arse and demands
participation....
There is a sense that we do not have enough time to thoroughly reflect on
our political agenda; that the forums risk turning into big celebrations of
the movement and become slightly superficial as regards the issues. And not
least, there is a sense that the preparation processes are so demanding that
they become exclusive; we begin to create the "alterglobalist jet-set" of
coordinators that are always
between flights and living in our own little bubble of international
networking without touching in with the activists on the ground.
Helena from Sweden puts it better than I can: "I am saying that if different
actors are not thinking it worthwhile to attend the preparatory process,
then we must reflect on why this is so. And we must see that if our agenda
becomes so overloaded that the process becomes excluding, then this is a
problem for the legitimacy for the forum process as a whole. We cannot
simply turn to each other during
a European assembly to decide whether the forum process is a sine qua non
for the European movement or not: that debate becomes fundamentally flawed
unless we try to interpret the voices of all
those who choose not to follow the prep process."
But in the long run, it doesn’t matter how many ESFs there are or whether
there should be more co-ordinators or not, if the whole system revolves
around an inherently centralising, exclusionary process in which the larger
and more professional political groupings, with more resources and the
ability to mobilise more acivists, take over the debate and close the rest
out. We already have the tools, techniques and expertise to at least widen
the debate, if nothing else, and yet those who profit most by the continuing
chaos refuse to permit us to use them; and every year it becomes harder to
remove those entrenched interests, and to get them to give up the power that
they so earnestly desire. Again, not exactly rocket science.
I fully expect still to be having this debate in ten years time, and every
year the steady outpourings of disillusioned, ’ordinary’ participants will
have made the strident quarrelling of the professional activists more
meaningless and more poignant.....
Jon Cloke (ATTAC UK)