Signs of The Times
IN FOCUS
Globalisation From Below
World Social Forum 2007
Globalisation From Below
A critical
examination of the WSF highlights the imbalances between on
the one hand the NGOs and CSO and on the other, the people's movements.
The conclusion is that the former must now begin to listen to the
latter in order for globalisation to occur from below and for the
masses to speak to power.
The
World Social Forum (WSF) has carved its space as an assembly of
movement of movements. The latest forum was held in Nairobi between
20th and 25th January 2007.
This
discussion paper is part of the broader project by the author
aimed at examining the role and place of human rights discourse in
shaping the global social justice and human rights movement within the
context of the WSF. At the outset, the paper explores two items based
on the author's observations and experience at the forum.
First
the paper reviews the extent to which the Nairobi session
stimulated or accelerated the vertical and horizontal linkage(s)
between the various movements. In so doing, it attempts to appraise the
counter force by the citizenry against the onslaught of capital-led
globalization. Second, the paper attempts to review the utility of the
human rights discourse and language in shaping the character and
principal issues around which these movements do organize. The analysis
reveals that although the connectivity of the movements seems to have
been realized, the Nairobi session failed to emerge focused as a
counter force to the Davos-led and capital-centered globalization.
Ultimately,
it is only by defining the contours and ethical values as
seen and experienced by the poor and marginalized themselves that real
globalization will be promoted from below and the WSF made a strong,
relevant and viable force.
Introduction
The 7th
session of the World Social Forum (WSF) was held in Nairobi
from the 20th to 25th January 2007. The Forum demonstrated the coming
of age of what started as a resistance session against
economic-centered globalization. The first session of the WSF was held
in Porto Allegre Brazil in 2001, as a response to the World Economic
Forum (WEF) -an annual meeting of top business leaders, journalists,
national political leaders (presidents, prime ministers and others),
and selected intellectuals and renowned personalities- usually held in
Davos, Switzerland.
The
main aim of the Davos forum that was founded in 1971 is to define
the trajectory and architecture for more capital-led globalization. The
thinkers behind the WSF intended to counterweight or shape the agenda
of the Davos economic moguls. This greatly explains why part of the
success criteria for the WSF has always been in demonstrating that it
is made of large, visible and devoted international community. No doubt
one of the indicators has been the rapid growth in the number of
participants who attend the WSF. It is reported that the first WSF in
2001 had a participation of about 12,000 people, while the one held in
2005 had an approximate participation of about 150,000.
The Character and
Message
Despite
a decision that was made in 2003 to halt the monopoly of Porte
Allegre in hosting the forum, the WSF has maintained its initial
character guided by its 'Porto Allegre' charter of principles as an
open forum. Additionally, the WSF has witnessed diverse initiatives
from social movements, non-governmental organizations, activists and
people committed to a better world founded on justice and human dignity
converge for some sort of carnivore of resistance, especially against
imperial globalization.
Despite
the dwindling number of participants at the Nairobi session
(estimated at about 40,000 from the initially projected 150,000) the
Nairobi assembly still provided the much required moment and
opportunity to define another world. In almost all sessions, the agenda
was clear: that the current of globalization must change. This is more
so because it has produced and continues to support a system where too
few share in its benefits. It is characterized with deep-seated and
persistent imbalances in the current workings of the global economy,
which are ethically unacceptable and politically and economically
unsustainable.
Through
the various informal sessions at the WSF 2007 in workshops,
art, theatre, processions and mute courts, the various grassroots
movements were able to complete the picture of the nature and intensity
of the unjust global system. It worked in linking residents of slums
with landless squatters, the indigenous and the minority with the
disabled and the excluded and the various other networks of men and
women in the resistance movement. From the Forum, it was further clear
that this movement is becoming stronger and bigger than the NGOs and
CSOs which may have played a role in facilitating some of the
community-based movements and organizations in attending the forum. It
is however a shame that some of the CSOs are unable to let go beyond
the facilitation.
A key
message that one could carry from the Forum is that the middle
class-based CSOs need to let go the space for the social movements. The
CSOs must allow the movements to radicalize and define their claims
within their own space. Truly, a time has come when the CSOs and NGOs,
both local and international, must agree to be led by people's
movements.
In any
case, as it did emerge during the Nairobi session, the WSF has
now become bigger than the organizers, and this is why I say the WSF
has come of age. A case in point is when community groups at the WSF
2007 protested vehemently against the local organizing committee that
was adulterating the environment of the WSF.
The
community groups fought back against the exploitative price of
drinking water, the domination of food supply by the middle-class
hotels, the arrogance and some of the unethical practices allegedly
conducted and perpetuated by the organizers, and so on. In fact the
protest march to the offices of the organizers seemed to state that the
participants in the WSF and its organizers were no longer comrades.
While some chose to see this as being disrespectful, such efforts are
commendable as it did demonstrate that globalization from below shall
be about clarification of value from within the movement and connection
of the grassroots resistance. Indeed, the poor and the marginalized
people struggles must protect the egalitarian nature of the WSF and
safeguard it.
Talking to Davos
But,
perhaps, it would also be vital to expound on two of the glaring
limitations about politicizing and focusing our message and the
challenge of using the rights language. As has been stated in the
background, the WSF emerged as a counter force to capital organizing
under the WEF. Over the years, the WSF sessions were designed to
delegitimize Davos and define the agenda of another world that is
guided by the principles of individual and collective responsibility,
and that requires economic development based on the respect for human
rights. Ironically, it is unfortunate that in the multiplicity of
activities, the Nairobi session ended completely unfocused and with no
message or rallying point to respond to or mitigate the negative
consequences and dimensions of globalization.
As one
of the usual white-wash mechanisms, the theme for the Davos
session of the WEF this year was "the shifting power equitation". In
their discussion, the over 2,400 participants were focusing on the
threats of power concentration due to the emergence of China and Asia
in general. This theme was, in my opinion, very well-curved for
reaction by the WSF. Unfortunately very few of the participants in the
Nairobi session at any time knew that the WEF was going on. This serves
to give ammunition to those who think that the WSF is a simple
anarchist and CSO empty talk.
For WSF
to maintain its relevance and significance the en mass must be
able to talk to power and organize the social capital to some visible
influencing strength that can tilt power to the common citizens.
Human Rights and
People's Struggles
The
second decision point is on a major lesson that I leant at the WSF
2007. Having expended most of the time at the Human Rights Dignity and
Caucus tent, I did notice the major contradictions between the people's
angle of human rights and the angle to rights taken by the NGOs. It has
already been noted that the design of the tent was within the
conventional power of a heavy podium vs audience arrangement. This
attests that there seem to have been no discussion on how our values
would guide how we organize the tent; who speaks; what we eat; in what
language and how we communicate, and so on.
Nevertheless
perhaps the most salient was the interpretation of the
struggles as presented and seen by the communities, and the way it was
presented and viewed by the CSOs. First and foremost, the sessions were
led by renowned CSOs, locally and globally, and in most occasions the
approach was that of articulating rights issues from the point of
universal human rights law and regime. Obsessed by these views of
rights, which were significantly middle-class, a number of CSO
representatives shocked the audience when they, on occasions, attempted
to respond even to the opinions of the various communities in the
struggle purportedly to put it within the international human rights
context.
Testimonies
from the communities and presentations on the other hand
demonstrated a belief and stand-point that human rights must be defined
by the people's struggle. For instance, the way communities see the
struggle of land is what must inform the codification of claim in terms
of the rights language. One classical example was the case of the cost
of living and survival tactics in Kibera in Nairobi, as testified by a
community member. The community representative illustrated very well
the struggle for subsistence and dignity in Kibera. Nonetheless, it was
such a shame when one of the so-called human rights NGO scholars
attempted to engage her later, purportedly to educate her on which of
her rights were being violated. In fact, the middle-class discourse, as
was popularly the case at the Human Rights tent, has a potential of
limiting the space and drive for community straggles. Amidst the
communities in the struggle, expectations have run ahead of
opportunities and hope clouded by resentments.
About Leadership
and Human Rights
Judging
from the various sessions at the WSF, the poor and marginalized
communities recognize the reality of globalization. What they want is a
freer cross-borders exchange of ideas, knowledge, goods and services;
what men and women seek is respect for their dignity and cultural
identity; they ask for opportunities to earn decent living; they expect
globalization to bring tangible benefits to their daily lives and
ensure a better future for their children; they also wish to voice in
the governance of the process, including extent and nature of the
integration of their economies and communities into the global market
and to participate more fairly in its outcomes. This means that the
human rights worker and activist must realize that social change that
we are all struggling for must be informed by the needs of the poor and
vulnerable masses, the way they see them and in the direction that they
feel to be appropriate for them at any particular time. The only role
that CSOs and human rights workers have here is when the poor and
vulnerable choose to draw sustenance for their struggle from universal
human ideas, and/or the practical experience of other struggles; but
they must start from the full acceptance that this is their own
struggle and belief that even when they do invite support from other
struggles or partners like CSOs, they shall lead the struggle.
The
relevance of human rights, therefore, is as far as it expands the
space for community struggles; reinforces the realization of their
capabilities or serves to legitimize wider horizons of claims for the
communities. Otherwise, the attempts to impose the rights language to
communities who are already organized in a more radical discourse can
serve to limit the energy and organic nature of such struggles.
* Steve
Ouma is the Programmes Coordinator and Deputy Executive
Director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission. Contact address Valley
Arcade, Gitanga Road, P.O. Box 41079, 00100 Nairobi – GPO, Kenya Tel.
254-2-3874998/9, 3876065, 0733-629034, 0722-264497, Fax: 254-2-3874997
*
Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org
or comment online at www.pambazuka.org
