related articles

Exasperated voices raised in protest

Anne Mc Shane and Tina Becker report on the latest developments in the organisation of the European Social Forum, to be held in London over October 15-17.

Preparations for the London European Social Forum will hopefully take a step forward with this weekend's European assembly in Berlin. However, in Britain tensions dog the process and the obstinate and bureaucratic machinations of the Socialist Workers Party-Socialist Action axis (the main organisations controlling the ESF in Britain) still threaten to undermine the spirit of the whole thing. The circulation last week of a report from leading members of the Italian mobilising committee shows the depth of the current problem - and how those running the process in the UK are seen by others in Europe (see opposite).

Basically the SWP is behaving in an appallingly bureaucratic fashion for three reasons. One, it comes naturally. The SWP is a small, bureaucratic centralist, confessional sect - real membership is no more than 2,000 - which effectively bans factions and instinctively fears open debate and inclusiveness. Two, the whole social forum ethos and structure is unwieldy and hypocritical in the extreme. The insistence on consensus guarantees nothing but paralysis and therefore has to be bypassed. Instead of democracy the SWP turns to what it knows - bureaucratic deals and getting on with the work using its own particular methods. Three, political groups and governmental institutions are supposedly banned. Yet nothing big, nothing serious can be done without them.

The SWP puts on its various front hats - Globalise Resistance being the favourite when it comes to the ESF - but possesses neither the necessary finances nor the social leverage. So it turns, cap in hand, to the London government of Ken Livingstone, in order to bring over the big trade unions and provide a wadge of cash from his Greater London Authority. (Something possibly put in doubt after the June 10 elections. Though Livingstone himself romped home, Labour has a much reduced number of seats. A two-thirds bloc of other parties in the Greater London Assembly could quite conceivably be brought together in order to challenge Livingstone's budget.)
Livingstone might be back in the Labour Party and still popular with some Londoners. However, he is essentially a Bonapartist figure who in the case of the ESF operates through the restrictive channels of local government budget allocations and murky, behind-the-scenes deals with trade union officialdom, SWP, quangos, NGOs, etc. He has no serious body of organised supporters - apart, that is, from Socialist Action. Over the course of 20 years - with a combination of careerist cynicism and naive good faith - this tight-knit, secretive organisation of no more than 30 members has transformed itself into Livingstone's officer corps. Incidentally SA is one of the many fragments that came from the old International Marxist Group, which in the late 1960s and early 70s rivalled what is now the SWP.

It is against this background that those outside the loop of deals find themselves upholding what they imagine is the original social forum spirit. They demand consensus and inclusion, but in their own right can deliver little or nothing. This results in impotent resolutions and frustration on the one side and on the other an increasing contempt for discussion, votes and any criticism.
Hence the unofficial meeting held on Sunday June 13 which was actually called at the initiative of Babels (the volunteers' organisation that is providing the interpretation for our ESF). Their idea was to have a meeting before the Berlin assembly. Previously calls for this by some 40 affiliated organisations and individuals had been rejected by the SWP-SA. The reason? "We would simply be repeating the old arguments", as the SWP's Chris Nineham bluntly put it at the coordinating committee on June 3. So, rather than following normal procedures and actually discuss the position of the British delegation before a crucial European assembly, we will be only be doing so officially after Berlin - to avoid the airing of controversial issues and "wasting another Sunday afternoon"

The Babels initiative, supported by many others, was a way of getting round this absence of formal debate before Berlin. It provided an opportunity to vent anger and make demands and was attended by about 30 people. The overwhelming majority were part of the 'democratic opposition', which is, in fact, composed of more or less everybody outside the SWP-SA inner-circle. Nevertheless both these two 'government' organisations sent along chosen comrades.
Many concerns were raised, including about the official website (What will it carry? When will it be up and running? Who has been given the contract?); office space and staff (Who will be employed?); and finance and budget (Where is the money?). What was apparent was that nobody knew what was going on - well, nobody outside SWP and Socialist Action. SA member Sarah Colborne (officially representing the Palestine Solidarity Campaign) said, though, that she could not really report much. And she kept to her word. Obviously she was there to make sure that no decisions were made and no parallel structures established.

But there were 'decisions' taken. These were primarily to ask for proper reports on all of the issues mentioned above. There was also an agreement for a draft proposal to be taken to Berlin on how the media and communications should work. Reports were asked for in regard to the implementation of previous decisions taken at the organising committees. These included how the directors for the ESF company were to be selected. There was no more news on finance - nothing. Elaine Heffernan of the SWP tried to impress upon us once again that London Unison has promised £50,000. As this is still the only money pledged - and was pledged months ago, to be repeated ad infinitum ever since - nobody was particularly impressed.

The meeting ended with a general agreement that the participants could report the issues that had been raised to the Berlin assembly. Also open and detailed reports were to be demanded from the coordinating committee, which meets every week. It was generally agreed that we should push collectively for greater democracy. Without this the ESF will be a mere Livingstone rally. It is up to the critics to take the initiative. Reflecting the concerns of the current leadership, Sarah Colborne and Alan Freeman, both SA, complained that rooms in the Bloomsbury area are being booked up by participating organisations - but separate from the ESF process. This meant, according to them, that there will be a shortage of space for the forum itself.
This is clearly not good, but understandable in the current situation: nobody knows how the seminars and workshops will run and there is a deep distrust of the SWP-SA bloc. It is a symptom of the lack of openness that groups are doing this.

Workers wanted

As if there were not enough complaints about the lack of transparency and openness in the ESF process, another bureaucratic bombshell landed in the email inboxes of affiliated organisations on June 14. Without prior discussion in any official ESF body, this unsigned email announced that there were six job vacancies that would need to be filled as soon as possible: three for "ESF workers" and three for "project managers" for Babels (the volunteer organisation that supplies interpreters). The adverts are now also up on the ESF website.

The six are advertised at different rates of pay: the Babels managers are to be paid a pro rata salary of £24,500 per annum, while the ESF workers will be on £21,500. The ESF office, which sent out this email, is currently staffed by four "seconded volunteers", all of whom have close links to the SWP and Socialist Action. Their appointments were simply announced in May, without any proper, open consultation.

This email took many ESF activists by surprise, especially those who had attended every single meeting of the coordinating and organising committees. While we had of course discussed the urgent matter of employing staff properly (and thereby getting rid of the unaccountable seconded staff), we had never taken any decisions on the number of employees or their wages. In order to do that, we would have had to be told truthfully about any financial donations or pledges we have received so far.

Quite obviously, there is another, smaller committee in operation - one that takes all the major decisions, including details on employing ESF staff and how to spend the ESF's money. Unfortunately, membership of this committee is by invitation only and the main requirement is a close relationship to the SWP-SA.

Applications for the posts have to be received by June 21 and details can be found on www.fse-esf.org. All democratic forces should urgently consult in order to make sure that at least some of these six posts are filled by people who have a real interest in making this ESF a lively and truly democratic festival of the left. Forces in and outside Britain will have to work together more closely to make the SWP and Socialist Action 'government' answerable for their actions

ESF diary

European Social Forum, c/o TWGU, 218 Green Lanes, London N4 2HB; www.fse-esf.org
Every Thursday, 10am - coordinating committee: City Hall, Greater London Authority.

Saturday and Sunday, June 19-20 - next European ESF assembly, Berlin. Friday reserved for meetings of smaller working groups.

Friday June 25, time to be confirmed - outreach meeting for gay and lesbian groups: City Hall, Greater London Authority.