The dilemma for the World Social Forum

In the discussion about the future of the World Social Forum there are basically 2 views and proposals. The first, which has guided the WSF so far, is a process, an open space, where organizations and social movements meet, articulate, denounce and launch initiatives, actions, campaigns and ideas for an Other Possible World. .

The protagonism belongs to social organizations that articulate autonomously, respecting the diversity and freedom of each one to choose their struggles and their partners. The voice, manifestations, declarations and initiatives belong to the organizations and their leaders. The International Council does not represent the organizations and has the task of logistically organizing the process, of encouraging the process and the holding of world forums and thematic and regional forums.

The International Council does not speak on behalf of the WSF although all its members can personally place themselves as advisors, as they have done on many occasions, supporting declarations and initiatives. No organization and no subject has priority over the others. All are free to carry out their activities. To gain political strength and scale, organizations have promoted convergence events and come together in the form of assemblies that take initiatives and take a political stand, always on behalf of their members.

The other vision is to have, choose, elect a group, the Council itself or a committee, that publicly and politically represents the WSF, speaking, making statements and taking initiatives on behalf of the WSF. The WSF would become an organization with a command structure. In this way, for the supporters of this idea, and only in this way, the WSF would become a global political subject. This group would use the consensus or the expressive majority of the participants of the WSF to make their declarations and launch initiatives, always on behalf of the WSF.

For the supporters of this idea, the current WSF does not make politics, and in this other format the WSF would start making politics. For the supporters of this proposal, the WSF became irrelevant because of the current model and its Charter of Principles, which in part would explain the growth of the right in various parts of the world.

I believe that the challenge ahead is to choose between these two models of structuring the WSF. This choice is fundamental and urgent. It seems to me that this is essentially the current debate. I hope that a high-level political debate, with respect and consideration for people and their ideas, can lead us in the right direction.

Deixe uma resposta

O seu endereço de e-mail não será publicado. Campos obrigatórios são marcados com *