We all agree that the WSF is an open space. But it is important to underline that the open space that is circumvented by the boundary conditions set out in the Charter of Principles. The space is open to all those who stand in opposition to neo-liberal economic policies and imperialism. In many regions local realities further define the boundaries, e.g. in India, it is further defined as a space that brings together people who also have an explicit position against: patriarchy, war, casteism and racism, and communalism (religious sectarian exclusions).

Thus the WSF concept of open space is not located in a vacuum but in an opposition to imperialist globalisation. So it is necessary to be clear that while the WSF does not have specific positions regarding various dimensions of neoliberal globalisation, it does have a position against neoliberal globalisation. Also, by implication, this position against neoliberalism would also extend to a position against the consequences of neoliberalism, viz. the military dimensions. By implication again, the WSF position against neoliberalism is also a position against patriarchy and exclusions based on caste, race or religion. This broadening of the canvas, from the early focus on the economic aspects of neoliberalism, has been a natural progression of the WSF process and has lent to the heterogeneity of the WSF space.

The open space itself has evolved from a forum of debate and exchange of experiences to a forum that provides space for alliance building for developing struggles. The WSF space is not one where the “WSF organisers” are privileged but where resistance and movements are fore-grounded as the leaders of the global resistance to globalisation. These could encompass not one resistance but diverse resistances and multiple alliances: either issue based or larger ideological alliances.

It is also important to recognise that the WSF space is not designed to arrive at common positions. In contrast, the WSF was consciously created as an open space for movements to meet in spite of their differences. The dialogue was designed to cut across not only ideological differences but also bridge historically and geographically disparate backgrounds. And it is this heterogeneity that makes WSF attractive for a large number of groups. If common positions between different groups evolve because the WSF facilitates a dialogue between them, it strengthens opposition to neoliberalism. But the WSF does not insist that only one position will prevail on any particular issue. The WSF derives its strength from the confidence that groups have, that they can be part of the WSF without needing to agree with everyone!

Difference between an “Open Space” and an Organisation

We also agree (at least at this juncture of the WSF!) that he WSF is not an organisation. What implications does this have? It means that by virtue of not being an organisation, it has no locus standi to declare itself to be party to a specific proposition or ideological position. The basic ideological position is laid down in the Charter. Beyond this the WSF itself takes no position. Does this mean that the WSF is a non-ideological space? No, what it means is that the space is not circumscribed by a specific ideological position, other than what is laid down in the Charter. This means that the space offers the freedom for all who wish to use the space, to take their individual ideological position. In other words, the space offers the opportunity for contending or dissimilar ideological positions to be debated, discussed or shared. The WSF takes no responsibility to homogenise these positions and push for a common position. But the very opportunity the space provides, may (and does), lead to common positions being forged between different groups or organisations who bring in vastly differing experiences.

Secondly, because the WSF has no position of its own, it is not meant to lead the struggle against imperialist globalisation – or against militarism, or patriarchy, or casteism, or whatever. The WSF just provides the space for people who are in these struggles to come together and share their varying experiences. In some cases this might lead to forging of common struggles based on a common understanding, in some cases it might just remain at the level of sharing of experiences and views. Whatever may be the outcome, the WSF’s role is limited to providing the space – it does not direct how this space will be used by people who come together.

The WSF is, at times, accused of being a “talking shop” from which no concrete “actions” emerge. Interestingly, this is an accusation that is levelled by both those who are ranged on the side of imperialist globalisation as well as those who are among its ardent critics. Both reactions arise from the same premise: if so many people meet regularly, why do we not see an output in the form a common declaration, a plan of action, a blueprint of the “another World” that the WSF claims to stand for. The premise is flawed because it is attempting to assess the WSF with the presumption that the WSF is designed to take positions and “lead” the struggles all over the globe against imperialist globalisation and its myriad ramifications.

The premise is also flawed because, while the WSF itself is not doing any of the things above, the open space provided by it is doing precisely that. Not as a single output, but as a number of outputs. The blueprint of “another world” is emerging, not just from the interactions in the WSF, but through debates, discussions, and most importantly struggles across the world. The WSF is only providing the opportunity to enrich these debates, to bring in a larger number of perspectives – some contending, some complementary. Not just that. It is providing the opportunity to build common strategies for struggles, to synergise energies that come together. Such synergies do not involve all those who come to the WSF, or even the majority in many cases. But such synergies are built.

WSF: A Contended Space

Now let us look at the character of the space that the WSF provides. Is it harmonious, tension free, uncontended? To the contrary! Much of the space in the WSF is taken up by varying contentions that include a large number of different views, experiences and ideological positions. It is a space that is contended – by definition. Because the WSF is an open space there are such a large number of diverse opinions that contend with each other. Opposition to imperialist globalisation is a broad overarching position. But how is this opposition to be mounted? Through dialogue? Through struggles? What does one do to the institutions of imperialism – the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO? Can the WTO be reformed? Do we need to throw it out completely? Within the WSF there is no one unified understanding about this or very many other issues. If the WSF were an organisation, such diversity of positions would make it dysfunctional. But then, this is precisely why the WSF should not be an organisation. The very large and increasing participation that every successive editions of the WSF and more recently the regional forums have seen since 2001, has been possible because of the diversity that the WSF allows. This does not mean that organisations with clear positions and ideologies are not required. It only means that the role that the WSF plays is different from what organisations are supposed to play.

There is another major criticism of the WSF — that it is a deliberate attempt to weaken the response to imperialist globalisation. Some have even argued that the WSF was a deliberate ploy foisted upon us by imperialism – a ploy to co-opt the anti imperialist and anti-globalisation forces. The criticism is flawed on two counts. First, the WSF is not supposed to give direction to any movement, revolutionary or otherwise. This is the task that movements have to take upon themselves, by assessing the nature of emerging potential for such movements. To say that the WSF is preventing the emergence of movements that oppose imperialist globalisation is to give credit to the WSF for something that it neither deserves nor proclaims. If movements are not emerging, those who are supposed to lead such movements need to introspect about the reasons.

WSF – Key Questions

It needs to be underlined that the WSF emerged, not out of a single planned process, but out of a large number of processes. These processes brought with them varied experiences and perceptions regarding the response to imperialist globalisation. In fact, when the first WSF was organised in 2001, it had not been planned that it would become a regular event. As the WSF has grown in size and influence, it has naturally thrown up a number of questions regarding its future direction. It is legitimate to ask, in what direction is the World Social Forum headed. Many participants at WSF events articulate that the Forum is becoming too large and unmanageable, putting inordinate pressure on resources and time. Several areas are today being discussed, regarding the future of the WSF. Let us examine some of them:

Expansion and Decentralisation of the WSF

The WSF has to respond to the need to further broaden the process and ensure larger participation of people from different parts. An exercise in decentralising the process was initiated since 2002, which led to the organisation of Regional and Thematic Forums. In 2006, a further innovation was the organisation of polycentric Forums. The Global Day of Action, is the last in the series of innovations attempted to decentralise the WSF.

The challenge for the Forum, thus, is not of how certain kinds of ideas may dominate, but to ensure that the Forum is truly representative of the upsurge of global opinion against imperialist globalisation. Today, a large mass and many political movements are handicapped in their ability to participate in the Forum, because of lack of resources. As a result the Forum tends to be dominated by large funded NGOs, largely from the North. While many of such NGOs have and are playing a major role in opposing globalisation, there is an inherent asymmetry in the participation in the Forums. It is critically important, if the Forum is to become truly representative of global mass movements, that the WSF process is able to draw in a much larger participation from such movements. A lot has still to be done in this regarded, and if the WSF process is to be “directed” in any manner it should be to ensure that such movements are able to come into the process in large numbers and also that they represent adequately all geographical regions of the globe. If the Forum becomes really representative, then it would really be up to the movements to use the space provided by the Forum to work out shared visions and actions.

Governance of the WSF

The genesis of the International Council of the WSF has played an important part in its present character. The IC was formed after the first WSF in 2001, i.e. its constitution followed rather than preceded the setting up of the WSF process. Further, the IC was not constituted in a planned manner, but was – at least to start with – an ad hoc agglomeration of organisations who showed interest in the WSF process. This meant that the IC, in its composition, had numerous gaps. This was a natural outcome of the fact that the WSF process itself was very young and had not spread to most parts of the globe. The principal gaps in the IC were of the following nature – gaps, moreover, which continue till date:

1) Gaps in geographical representation. The IC was, and still is, composed in large measure of organisation from Latin America and Europe. The very low representation from Africa and Asia is glaring for a body that represents a global process, a process furthermore designed to challenge neoliberal globalisation.

2) There are major gaps in the reflection of major movements within the IC. Today this appears even sharper given that movements are coming to play a major part in the Forums but their voices are not adequately represented in the IC.

Such gaps seriously compromise the legitimacy of the IC and its ability to guide the WSF process. The crisis of legitimacy becomes more acute as the WSF itself becomes larger, more inclusive and more reprtesentative of forces that oppose neoliberal globalisation across the globe. What we hence see is a widening gap between the diversity of the WSF process and the representative (or lack of it) character of the IC.

Clearly, this is a situation that needs to be remedied, and a broadening of the IC to reflect the diversity of the WSF process is an urgent necessity. Since 2003, there have been prolonged discussions within the IC and in the expansion Commission, designed to address this concern. Unfortunately a clear strategy in this regard is yet to emerge. It is imperative that the IC debates these issues with due seriousness.

Format and Periodicity of the WSF

The evolution of WSF then must face questions on how the process of building this other world is facilitated by WSF. How do mega-events, drawing huge numbers from different parts of the world help in building this new world, even if the architecture of this world not defined and its contours contested. Does the forum need to take place every year? Is it possible to keep on holding Forums with a constantly growing number of participants? What are the alternatives available in view of what is being called the Forum’s “gigantism”? Should we have more strategic forums with fewer numbers but clearer focus? Will this not impact the diversity and plurality? Should we alternate between two forms?

Moreover, the relationship between the WSF as an organisation and the movements that come together itself is a complex process. By virtue of organising the event, the organisers may become privileged over movements and their leadership. How does one balance then the direction that WSF organisers may want to impose –implicitly or otherwise — on the event as distinct from the directions that the movements may want?

The 2005 Forum, while formulating the programme, had articulated in clearer terms the direction provided by WSF 2004 in trying to ensure that shared concerns and themes are not discussed in dispersed events. The attempt from the event registration process itself was to try to ensure that events are largely organised by combining the efforts of different organisations. This is a process that was carried forward in the organisation of the polycentric forums and in the WSF 2007 in Nairobi. Since WSF 2005, there has been a departure from the earlier practice by not having few or no events directly organised by the WSF. The response to this innovation has been mixed and needs evaluation, as it has also been felt that the absence of some large “unifying” events with broad political messages can lead to the diffusion of the political sharpness that the Forum is able to provide.

The above are issues that need to be debated further, as we move to a format that reflects the need to make the WSF friendly to the building of struggles and other actions, forged jointly by a large number of organisations.

On the issue of periodicity, there is an emerging consensus that the global forum should not be held every year. It would be prudent to, at present, move to the practice of organising the global event once in every two years, and perhaps later to once in three years. This would provide better opportunities and visibility to regional and local events.

WSF : The Vanguard or Facilitator?

This diversity in opinion and approach is both a strength of the Forum, as well as its principal weakness. The Forum derives strength from this diversity as it provides the opportunity for a very large number of movements and organisations to come together, each feeling that their views have a place in the open space of the Forum. At the same time the diverse trends and opinions leads, often, to a sense of frustration that the Forum is not able to hammer together a consensus regarding both a strategic understanding and tactics to be applied. This has led to a tendency to attempt to “force” the Forum to take unified positions.

The WSF was conceived as a Forum that was not designed to lead or take decisions on behalf of movements, but rather to provide enabling conditions for movements to come togerther, exchange experinces and opinions, and forge alliances. The WSF space cannot and should not dictate to movements, nor should it force movements to take unified positions unless they are willing to do so. But the impatience to move forward is sometimes being translated into trying to make the WSF a body that takes decisions and positions on behalf of movements. This is a major challenge today for the WSF: how to accelerate the space for movements to forge common actions and strategies, while at the same time keeping the space friendly for everyone opposed to neoliberal globalisation to join in. Given the complex political entities that form part of the Forum, an attempt by any force within (however well meaning) to hegemonise the Forum or act as its vanguard at the level of ideas, might well sow the seeds of the Forum’s ultimate collapse.

The WSF as a Process or an Event?

The WSF was conceived as an event. In fact the Charter of Principles reflects this original intent. Since then the WSF has grown in its expanse and reach enormously. While a considerable effort has been expended in expanding the reach of the WSF, large parts of these efforts have been unplanned.

Any discussion on expansion, would perhaps need to address the question of how we see the WSF – as a series of events or as a process. Because the WSF is a unique innovation, it needs a unique solution to this question. What we call the process of the WSF, or the WSF process, has to be viewed differently from other organisational processes that we are familiar with. Conventional organisational processes are embedded in regular activities. But the WSF has no independent existence, outside the different groups and organisations that come together in the open space of the WSF. Do we then say that the WSF process is a sum of the organisational processes of all the groups that come together in the open space? That would have little meaning, as then we would say that the WSF process is a combination of activities carried out by tens of thousands of organisations across the globe. Let us propose a different meaning of the WSF process. What we call the WSF process is the process that facilitates the process of organisations linking themselves to the open space of the WSF.

It is necessary to make this distinction, so that what we wish to promote as the WSF process is clear. Taking forward the WSF process does not mean promoting anti-globalisation activities by individual organisations or of groups of like minded organisations. This is neither the mandate nor the purpose of the WSF. This is a task that all individual organisations, together with others or individually, would do as part of their organisational activities. The task of the WSF process is to create conditions and facilitate the coming together of diverse organisations in the open space of the WSF. The key word here is diversity – the WSF process by definition has to capture the diversity of movements, organisations and groups in all their dimensions.

In other words, the WSF process is really the process of expansion of the WSF – the expansion of the “open space” of the WSF. It is a process that needs to be carefully taken forward, while always taking care that it is truly diverse and inclusive. While the global forum, as well as the regional/ thematic forums draw participants from a very large number of countries, representing virtually every corner of the globe, this is not always accompanied by WSF processes (as we define above) within countries and regions. In order for the WSF to claim that it is able to bring together the largest possible body of organisations/ movements in its opposition to neo-liberal globalisation, the participation in the WSF events need also to reflect and link up with processes in the regions/ countries from which the participants come from. Unfortunately, this is not always the case – today the engagement with the WSF process in the case of many regions of the world is limited to participation in WSF events, unaccompanied by matching processes within these regions.

In many parts of the globe the WSF process is shallow or nascent. This includes regions who are relatively well represented in WSF events. This does not mean that there aren’t movements in these regions against neoliberal globalisation – what it means is that in many regions the WSF process does not centrally involve such movements. As a result WSF events may not capture the diversity of movements from a particular region or country. We also have a situation when delegates from a country participate in WSF events but do not interact between themselves within their own country in the absence of a WSF process. This throws up the danger of making WSF events “top-down” events that may not entirely reflect the reality from many countries or regions as they are not a manifestation of an inclusive WSF processes. It also seriously compromises the inclusive nature and the diversity of WSF events. It is one thing to say that the WSF represents a large number of countries, but it is a different thing to say that it represents the diversity of movements and processes against neoliberal globalisation from these countries. If the latter is not what we are saying (and unfortunately in many cases, we cannot honestly say it) WSF events lose much of their legitimacy.

Finally, it needs to be stressed that WSF processes have to be locally owned and fostered. While the role of outside help in initiating such processes is often necessary, care should be taken to ensure that inclusive processes are not endangered by wrong choices being “thrust” on newly emerging processes.

Global Day of Action – A Way Forward?

The Global Day of Action in January 2008 was a major innovation introduced in the WSF process. From accounts received, the response has been mixed. In parts of the world the response has been enthusiastic. In other parts it has not been as successful. In most parts of Asia the efforts and response have not been very good. In India, while a number of events were organised by different groups, these were not commensurate with the much larger potential for action, given the extent of engagement of movements and organisations with the WSF process in the country. A small review (not exhaustive) of the GDA in India, was useful in flagging some useful experiences. One experience that arose from the review is that when individual organisations took the lead in organising events as part of the GDA, it was seen largely as their responsibility, and other organisations participated through token representation. In retrospect, it was felt at the review, that a better response would have been possible if WSF India had taken some responsibility to organise some co-ordinated activities, instead of leaving it only to individual organisations to organise activities of their choice.

However, the experience from the GDA action globally, suggests that it has had a positive impact in taking the WSF to new regions. Some areas of concern that need to be addressed regarding the GDA area s follows:

1) The India experience (perhaps not shared in other regions) suggests that the GDA was somehow a step back for the WSF process in India. By leaving it to organisations to choose their activities and partners, generally organisations chose to conduct activities in collaboration with organisations they felt comfortable in working with, i.e. organisations with whom they shared a common perspective and ideology. This worked contrary to the efforts of the WSF to bring diverse organisations together on a common platform.

2) While no common call was issued for the GDA, it was perceived as the WSF giving a call for action to organisations. We need to reflect whether we are not treading dangerously near a position where we see the WSF as “leading” the anti-globalisation movement in the globe.

3) In newer areas, where the WSF has been introduced through the GDA, there is need to ensure that it is not “a process from above” and that genuine processes are initiated that adhere to the principles of diversity and inclusiveness.

There is an opinion gaining ground that the GDA should be seen as a permanent activity of the WSF, perhaps alternating with the unified global event, which would take place on alternate years. Before we hasten to add the GDA to the permanent calendar of events of the WSF, some of the concerns above need to be evaluated and addressed.

What can be said with some certainty is that the GDA is an important tool for expansion of the WSF process. To argue beyond this and to elevate it to the level of a decentralised event of the WSF every year, alternating with the centralised global event, would require more rigorous discussion.