16.03.2004 Mumbai 2004: a new step for the World Social Forum
Sergio Haddad
Overall, it was a people’s forum; that is how the World Social Forum 2004, in India, could best be described. Over 30,000 of the participants were dalits, the poorest of an impoverished society, the untouchables excluded even from India’s rigid caste system. Meanwhile, Mumbai, the city of 14 million inhabitants that hosted the activities, is the most developed in India, and yet poverty is everywhere: on the streets, in the people, and in their homes.
Relocating the WSF to India literally put a “new face” on the event by concentrating Asian cultural diversity at Mumbai. Of the 80,000 people from 132 countries who were there, nearly 700 were Japanese, 500 South Korean, along with Chinese, Thais and Philippines. While previous editions of the Forum spoke Portuguese, English, Spanish and French, this year there were 13 official languages: Hindi, Marathi, Tamil, Telugu, Bengali, Malayalam, Spanish, English, French, Korean, Bahasa, Indonesian, Thai and Japanese.
The installations were precarious owing to restrictions on the resources used. A large fenced-in area was rented, where there was a former factory; that received wood and raw cotton partitions, earthen floors and plastic chairs. Simultaneous interpretation was provided by 180 interpreters and translators from Argentina, Brazil, India, USA, France, Spain, United Kingdom, Belgium, Switzerland, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Indonesia, Japan, Korea and Palestine – but only at some of the major panel debates, which took place in plain cement-floored, wood-walled areas.
The Forum was held within the physical facilities organised for the purpose, but a lot also happened outside them. Keeping to an Indian tradition, people marched all the time, marched everywhere, as a form of grassroots participation, with slogans, with banners to be shown and signed, carrying the tools of their trades, with candles, with flowers. Children, women, peasants, people with disabilities would all march... It was spectacular.
The main debates addressed directly the theme of war and peace, of US violence in Afghanistan and in Iraq - but the approach was completely different, making us realise how isolated we are in our western points of view. The war made a far greater impact on eastern peoples, because it took place right next door.... It was rather like imagining how it would have been for us if the North American invasion had happened in Argentina.
Compared to the previous three editions, this WSF was much more about ordinary people, with intense participation of people’s movements, grassroots movements. There was also more diversity: of people, nationalities, colours, clothing, behaviour and forms of expression – in addition to the marches, there were cultural performances on the streets: dance groups, theatre, people painting, making speeches, speaking out with their bodies...
All this reflects the more participative process in which the WSF was built up in India. First, a great Asian committee was set up, then a broad-based Indian committee and, finally, an organising committee. This structure contemplated the diversity of political positions and organisational outlooks, so as to maintain dialogue among all social forces. This implied balanced participation, alternating public exposure, a multiplicity of mechanisms to contemplate a diversity of standpoints.
As for the flimsy facilities, it must be said that the deficiencies were surmounted with a great deal of simplicity and creativity: a variety of environments were set up, where self-organized activities were carried on among tree trunks and colourful fabrics. The main problem was lack of translation, which made English, together with Hindi, almost the predominant language, counter to one of the WSF’s principles, which considers participants’ expressing themselves in their own language as also a form of respect for, and expression of, diversity.
The fact that all the activities were concentrated at a single venue made for sociability in a real melting pot of differences. The youth camp, however, was nearly 10 kilometres from the central Forum venue, making it difficult to integrate young people into the activities. The city also missed out, because it could not interact with the WSF as happens in Porto Alegre.
The Forum in India has confirmed the feeling left by Porto Alegre, that what makes the event is much more the small panel debates, workshops, debates in the corridors, sitting on the floor; the exchange of experience among the participants and the self-organized activities. At Mumbai, more than at Porto Alegre, the large conferences, led by intellectuals and internationally recognised leaders, were not very participatory, even though some did spark interesting debates.
In terms of repercussion, not holding the WSF simultaneously with Davos precluded drawing the counterpoints between the two events, so intensely played on by the world media at previous editions. That reduced its international impact.
WSF 2005… What now? Porto Alegre?
After Mumbai, Porto Alegre can never be the same again – that is the feeling of those who either took part or followed this fourth edition WSF from a distance. We have to move ahead with new proposals that both rise above the limits we were running into and that embody all that is new about the Indian WSF.
The situation practically cries out for indications to be sought, in the WSF context, of what the most convergent themes are and what strategies for action might apply. On the one hand, perhaps the big problem is how to pursue such proposals in the spirit of the WSF’s Charter of Principles and working methodology and avoid the frequent tendency for a few “enlightened” souls to tell the majorities what has to be done in terms of strategy.
On the other hand, such convergences have made it possible to devote greater attention, from one Forum to the next, to topics raised by WSF participants, and to their strategies for influence and change. This would appear to strengthen the idea of the WSF as a process, as against seeing it as just an event.
The search for points of convergence does not imply ignoring divergences nor even the innovations produced in the WSF context that have not yet gained prominence. And here lies another challenge: how to give expression to innovations?
Considerable pressure is also being exerted by a sizeable group of institutions towards changing the frequency of the WSF global event from yearly to two-yearly. Some argue that we do not have the staying power to hold it every year, that there are no resources available and that as a result grassroots social movements are in less of a position to participate than NGOs and trade unions. Others argue that more time must be given for grassroots political work, for the day-to-day endeavour for social change. Those who are against any move away from an annual WSF argue that it would be a sign of failure, given that the Economic Forum at Davos has kept to its annual format for many years.
However, the frequency of the world event depends on other factors, such as support for travel by movements and players from poorer countries; the centralised type of WSF; and what is achieved from between one edition and the next. Frequency must thus be considered in the context of the WSF as a process and take account of all variables.
Last but not least, a venue has to be set for the next WSF after Porto Alegre 2005. There is intense political will to hold it in Africa, but conditions are not yet ripe for that.
updated on 02/09/2010
