EUROPE: EUROPEAN SOCIAL FORUM FAILS TO MAP OUT STRATEGY FOR STRUGGLE

by Joy

An "Extraordinary" Assembly of the European Social Forum (ESF) took place in Paris, on 18-19 December 2004. Over 300 people from social movements, trade unions and political parties from at least 16 countries participated in the weekend. Whatever hopes might have been entertained for this meeting, in no sense was it extraordinary, either in its procedure or in its results. In fact, it went in exactly the same way as all the other ESF preparatory meetings - undemocratically - and subject to what an earlier generation of activists used to call "the tyranny of structurelessness".

Once again, the same voices that were heard above all the others. In the first session, a member of the Norway Social Forum summed it up succinctly: when he said he had never spoken before in these meetings because he never felt that it would make any difference. It is unlikely his experience this time will have changed his mind.

The day opened with a message of welcome from a CGT official (the CGT hosted the meeting) complete with suit, explaining the union’s commitment to the WSF and ESF and the necessity to meet, discuss and evaluate. Then the discussion was open to the floor - within 3 minutes over 70 people had signed their names to the speakers list. Despite the fact that a series of documents, had been submitted via the e-list, from ATTAC-France and Attac Europe, the Italian social forum etc. which evaluated the London ESF and also made proposals for the future of the movement, its organising meetings, the role of parties etc, the meeting still lacked any focus.

Because there was no structure to the discussion or a way of formally proposing concrete suggestions - such as a resolution that could be debated and amended - meant that the meeting was just an endless parade of points of view. The League for the Fifth International submitted just such a resolution but it was resolutely ignored, just as our previous attempts to bring some sort of focus to the chaos have been since Florence 2002.

Transparency, inclusiveness and democracy were the buzz words of the extraordinary assembly. The French and Italians were most to be heard uttering them out of the frustration they so evidently felt with the London ESF process and their determination not to allow this to happen again. London was the smallest, most bureaucratically organised ESF to date - it was exclusive rather than inclusive and the numbers present, particularly from the host country, reflected this.

The control over the event exercised by London Mayor Ken Livingstone’s officials, the TUC and the ETUC bureaucrats, forced the European organisers to make continual concessions to them. London saw the biggest rift to date with the "Horizontal" or anarchist wing of the movement. This led to a protest by the horizontals - led by the Wombles - being slandered as "violence." Also the organisers infamously gave an official platform to a "trade union" supporter of the Iraqi quisling government of Iyad Alawi. This, at an event that was supposed to be anti-war, anti-occupation and anti-imperialist! Again those who protested against this were accused of "violence".

The complete capitulation of the Socialist Workers Party to the Mayoral and trade union bureaucrats meant that decisions taken at the European preparatory meetings(the highest decision making body) were often changed or completely ignored by the UK organisers. Thus the final demonstration, for example, was advertised as a Stop the War event and had no identification with the ESF. No "continentals" wee allowed to speak on its final platform.

Many critical assessments of the London ESF were circulated on the ESF e-groups prior to Paris. The Italians (which includes members of Cobas, Cgil, Fiom and Rifondazione Comunista) were the most critical of the British organisers’ method, pointing out the inability of the UK committee to overcome the conflicts and tensions that surfaced through the process between the political organisations, the unions and the grassroots organisations.

The French (including Attac, LCR, the G10 Solidaire, and FSU unions) were also very critical of many of the same aspects. The SWP, on the other hand, with their usual Pollyanna optimism, lauded the London event’s enormous success and tried to shift the blame onto the Horizontals and the "tiny sects", whose "violence" was responsible for any problems that arose.

Yet during this "extraordinary assembly", none of the real political differences were openly presented. All of the speakers talked in code about "exclusion" and lack of democratic procedures, but most avoided identifying who they thought were the actual perpetrators.

Luke Cooper from REVOLUTION, the socialist youth group, broke from this mealy-mouthed refusal to say what is. He exposed the anti-democratic behaviour of the Socialist Action (Livingstone’s lackeys) and the SWP. He highlighted their fundamental responsibility for holding back the development of a real mass social movement in the UK by obstructing the building of local social forums. He also exposed the repeated attempts to sideline the Youth Assembly as illustrating their lack of inclusiveness. Despite Revolution’s regular proposals and protests throughout the entire ESF process young people were totally excluded from the platforms in the plenary forums.

Nevertheless, the Youth Assembly, whilst being given no translation facilities, scant publicity - and a small venue well away from Alexandra Palace, attracted over 200 young people and began to develop a network of young activists from across Europe.

Throughout the day, the emphasis remained on the need for radical change within the "methodology" of the ESF process. But it became clear that the different wings of the movement had different ideas of what the reforms they wanted. The French LCR position - well illustrated by Pierre Khalfa’s intervention - wanted the ESF to develop politically, to expand the "altermondialist" movement, but not necessarily make it more open or democratic, i.e. they still want to be in control of it.

The Italians, put most clearly by Rafaella Bollini, want to re-examine the methodology of the social forum in order for the movement to disseminate itself more widely and spread to and involve different networks, different struggles. Luciano Muhllbauer discovered what he characterised as the first signs of institutionalism in the London ESF process The Italians want more democracy, but want to maintain a strictly social, not a political, ESF.

The SWP want to preserve the movement as a united front of a special type, i.e. one that keeps the reformist wing on board by not criticising them, giving them what they want, but leaves the SWP on control in the UK and with the opportunity to build their party out of it.

This difference of perspective came to a head in the working group that met on Saturday night. Although the working group was "open", the chair actively discouraged participation, asking for only "delegations" from national groups. Its mandate was to list all the ideas for how change should be developed that had been proposed during the meeting that day.

The French wanted to synthesise the discussion and come back to the plenary meeting with a set of proposals already agreed. Anything to avoid a debate between counterposed proposals and a democratic decision, involving all. The Italians wanted to give all proposals equal voice within the assembly. In the end, Sophie Zafari from the LCR summed up a set of proposals the next day - as usual totally omitting the more radical ones. In this wretched and undemocratic process whoever has control of the chair effectively decides for the meeting. There is nothing inclusive, democratic or empowering about this methodology. Like Victor Adler’s famous quip about the pre-1914 Austrian Empire it is "despotism masked by sloppiness".

The League for the Fifth International put forward a resolution to the assembly calling for an elected provisional standing commission (open and transparent so it is clear who is making the decisions) to develop proposals or organisation for the Assembly of the Social Movements to adopt. This commission could also oversee a coherent campaign of resistance and sustained actions against neo-liberal capitalism, imperialism and war.

Also this commission - because it was elected - would have the ability to take decisions and establish priorities for the movement. This would overcome the still very strong tendency to national centredness and look at the movement from a European and indeed a global perspective. It would avoid such conflicts as the 19 March demonstration, where the Assembly of the Social Movements called for a European mobilisation against neo-liberal attacks and war but the SWP has "opted out" and compelled all the IST sections to hold national anti-war demonstrations.

Although the resolution was resolutely not discussed, the need for a commission (though not elected!) was put in an appearance as part of the conclusion announced by Sophie Zafari. Merci!

The commission envisioned would break into two working groups: one that would look at the proposal for methodology and the development of the programme and the other would look at the functioning and preparation of the European Preparatory Assembly for Athens 2006. These working groups would also meet together to discuss their proposals. This commission will meet 15-16 January in Brussels when there will also be a meeting to prepare for the 19 March demonstrations.

Jacques Nikonoff, of Attac France - definitely on the right wing of the movement, argued against having only one commission because of his fear that it might lead to the creation of some kind of international leadership. He also attempted to liquidate the usefulness of such a commission by saying that everyone should sign up to be on it. Although this has the guise of "horizontalism", it would clearly undermine the effectiveness of a working group and its accountability. In what was a clear indication as to exactly how far to the right the SWP has now swung that Alex Callinicos shamelessly flattered Nikonoff on the good sense of his contributions.

What is telling is that both Jaques Nikonoff of Attac-France and Pierre Barge of the Ligue des droits de l’Homme (League for Human Rights) argued for a space for political parties - previously banned from open participation - at the ESF. Talking distastefully of their literature sellers and banners they pushed forward the idea that this required a separate space - i.e. a ghetto - at the forum.

The next ESF will be held in Athens in 2006. There is already some conflicts arising within the Greek movement. Piero Bernocchi argued for a delegation from the European Assembly to be active within the Greek process to encourage greater participation and inclusivity in the process.

Other proposals agreed
– ESF will be held every 2 years, not annually
– An anti-racist network has been set up and will meet at each preparatory assembly
– Next ESF preparatory assembly will be held in Athens on 25/26/27 February

The Mediterranean Social Forum will take place on 15-16 January. But there was no decision to hold an ASM on 20 March. The anti-war meeting was squeezed into a lunch time and would not consider taking the League for the Fifth International’s resolution.

All in all these meetings still fail to even discuss the really big issues facing our movement. What is to be done to resist the neoliberal offensive of the EU governments of Schröder, Chirac, Berlusconi and Blair? What is to be done to stop the huge corporations downsizing, shifting their operations to low wage and non-union zones and cutting real wages as well? What action needs to be taken to end the occupation of Iraq and Palestine?

Despite having representatives of some of the most left-wing unions in Europe present there was no serious discussion of the problems facing the German and Italian workers over the past few months, of the Italian one day general strike etc. Instead all we get is navel gazing over procedure and process. This is truly lamentable.

In spite of the obstructions of the main political forces who hold the ESF in a vice like grip - behind a façade of libertarianism - the LFI will continue to argue that this movement must focus on developing a co-ordinated and militant response to our enemies and a radically different structure to make such discussions and such decisions possible.