home

contact

action

weekly worker

respect the unity coalition

european social forum

theory

resources

what we fight for

programme

join

communist university

links

our history

Enjoy the
Weekly Worker?
How about showing us your appreciation? Producing the Weekly Worker costs a substantial amount of money. Our only source for that financial backing comes from people like you: readers and supporters of our newspaper. You may not agree with the CPGB on every dot and comma, but we know that 1000s of comrades appreciate our open, critical and democratic press

Send cheques, payable to CPGB, BCM Box 928, London WC1N 3XX or donate online:

Weekly Worker 557 Thursday December 16 2004

Which way for ESF?

Things have to change - a lot. The lack of democracy and accountability in the run-up to this year’s European Social Forum in London has had the positive side effect of finally provoking sections of the European left to question the nature and effectiveness of our cooperation. In that sense, the small clique who kept the ESF London under such firm control has done us a favour. The ESF assembly in Paris on December 18-19 must now take some serious and concrete decisions on the way ahead, says Tina Becker

The first two European Social Forums in Florence and Paris were universally greeted as great successes, with only minor squabbles over this or that practical issue. Not this year. For the first time, various national delegations and international networks have felt the need to present in writing their assessments and criticisms of the preparations, the event itself, as well as proposals for future left cooperation.

This overdue discussion will take place this weekend, when around 150 representatives from many of the most important left parties and organisations from across Europe are expected to come to Paris for an extraordinary assembly of the ESF. No doubt, the crass way in which the Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Action (the sectlet around London mayor Ken Livingstone) railroaded through this year’s preparations has helped to focus people’s minds: critical voices were physically excluded from meetings, all major decisions made in backroom deals and the British plenary speakers pushed through against major opposition. The ensuing protests of a group of disgruntled anarchists and autonomists at the ESF - while to be criticised as similarly undemocratic - have to be viewed in this context.

Like the CPGB, most delegations from across Europe describe the ESF 2004 as a success, albeit a qualified one. Many delegations and networks make a number of practical proposals on how the ESF preparatory process could be democratised and made more effective, in particular the highest decision-making body, the ESF preparatory assembly (EPA), which in the past has met every two months.

Reform is desperately needed: the EPA is in effect a huge talking shop. Typically, there are no written agendas and no discussion documents available (though many groups and national delegations do come with their - unwritten - proposals). In the rare case that minutes are taken, they are written up to match the political agenda of the minute-taker - in the run-up to the London ESF, it was always somebody from Socialist Action that announced that they were “already taking the minutes”. Most of the time, these minutes were not distributed until the next EPA (if at all).

A massive amount of time is spent discussing minor organisational details in meetings of up to 250 people. Often, people seem to fear that they might not get another chance to speak, so they queue up just in case - maybe they will have something to say by the time they reach the microphone. The SWP and its international sectlets have perfected the method of ‘torture by repetition’: if they are told by their leaders (Alex Callinicos and Chris Nineham) to push for a particular line, they will send up to a dozen of their comrades to speak - often using exactly the same phrases to repeat their position over and over again.

Of course, none of them will admit to being a member of the SWP or its International Socialist Tendency. Like most EPA participants, they simply accept the ridiculous and hypocritical ban on parties, imposed by the World Social Forum - which is itself dominated by the Workers Party of Brazil. The vast majority of people at each EPA are members and representatives of political parties - but they hide behind this or that particular front organisation. Unfortunately, no national delegation seems to want to change this system.

On the positive side though, it is good to see that many of the proposals on the future of the ESF also include a more general understanding that our political cooperation so far has been inadequate. Many suggestions contain an understanding that we need to seriously move up a gear when it comes to the state of our international networks and campaigns.

A few networks have emerged from the ESF: on the weekend of December 4-5, organisations working on education met in Paris. There is an international network that combines groups working on the issue of Palestine, while another brings together those focussing on Latin America. There is also, of course, the anti-war network and the ‘Campaign for a Social Europe’, in which the CPGB is involved. That pretty much sums it up, unfortunately. Most of these campaigns meet sporadically (if at all) and are very narrow indeed. And do not ask me how to get in touch with any of them - I have no idea.

As an amusing aside, when Dave Stockton from Workers Power criticised the lack of such networks at the only post-ESF meeting of the British coordinating committee on December 14, SWP member Guy Taylor made a rather sorry attempt to contradict him: he proudly reported that “in terms of successful campaign work, I can tell you that Globalise Resistance has been able to build a few new branches across Britain”. That just about sums up the SWP’s vision for Europe.

While the establishment of (real) networks and campaigns would be welcome as a first necessary step, they are quite obviously not enough. Even if those campaigns were meeting regularly, coordinating their activities across Europe and formulating joint demands, they would still be woefully inadequate, considering the massive tasks facing us: the European constitution; the formation of a European army; the levelling down of working conditions across Europe; the threat of ‘outsourcing’ to cheap-labour countries; the cutbacks in social services and benefits; the privatisation of rail and postal services, etc - these are all tasks that require the united defensive action of the working class of the whole of Europe.

But we must also begin to strive for our political unification: where are the debates that discuss which kind of Europe we want to build? So far, no attempt has even been made to clarify where our political differences lie - let alone a way of overcoming them.

Proposals from France
Most explicitly critical is the assessment from the reformist lobby group, Attac (France), which locates an “ideological drift” in London: “Preceding forums had successfully avoided this, but there were expressions of intolerance, exchanges of insults, and pseudo-debates without democratic contradiction in London. Responsibility for this lies with some sectarian political groups and religious organisations, as highlighted during the seminars on Iraq or in debates over the French law on religious symbols in schools. These drifts threaten the ESF’s existence and cannot be allowed to continue.”

The comrades are obviously quite upset that most people on the British and European left openly condemn the ban of the hijab in French schools (and in some parts of Germany). Much of the French left, however, has welcomed the state’s dishonest use of the term ‘secularism’, with which they justify the banning of religious (and political) symbols at school. In fact, the French state has not defended secularism (ie, the separation of state and religion, and the equality of believers and non-believers) - by telling school students what they can and cannot wear: it has done exactly the opposite.

Just like much of the French left, the SWP has attempted to gut secularism of its democratic content. It is a concept that should be vigorously defended by the left - against populist attacks on muslims by the state, as well as the opportunist bowing to the mosque by groups like the SWP.

The Attac comrades are right, however, in locating a lack of real debate (although the hijab workshop was no worse than most of the other sessions): speakers in the overwhelming majority of meetings simply agreed with each other: “The plenary sessions are often reduced to a juxtaposition of speeches prepared in advance and to media-focused rhetorical exercises designed to enhance the organisations which fought their way to the podium.”

However, Attac’s solutions appear to be on the wrong track: it looks like they want to do away with the plenary sessions completely, which are of course the only centrally organised events at the ESF - all other events are put on by groups or networks themselves. Instead, I believe that we can find a way that actually ensures that there will be debate from the platform (see CPGB proposals).

The comrades correctly suggest that the EPA should be transformed into “a real locus of decision-making”. However, they are less clear about who should be making these decisions. They criticise the fact that “some organisations are far more active [in the ESF] than others because they benefit from permanent memberships, financial means and political determination”. Instead, they propose a delegate ESF structure: they argue that “more democratic and representative national committees” should be created.

Quite obviously, Attac with its loose structures wants to prevent relatively well organised groups like the SWP and its International Socialist Tendency from calling too many of the shots. While an elected ESF leadership in one form or another would certainly help to make proceedings more transparent, it is clear that Attac sees this as a way to punish, and restrict the influence of, political parties.

This is deeply dishonest. Not only because the Communist Party of France and the Ligue Communiste Révolu-tionnaire hold leadership positions in Attac and effectively run many of its structures. But also because it wants to restrict the influence of the more politically radical elements in the ESF - which are generally better organised than this big, but loose networks.

The comrades want to allow political parties to take part in the ESF, because they are “omnipresent, either directly or through screen organisations”. However, they only want to “allocate them a circumscribed space in the forums” - ie, roundtable discussions and so forth. This is, of course, the reality at the moment. Quite clearly, it is utterly unsatisfactory.

Attac France favours - like many other delegations - a biennial ESF. Before the London ESF, the proposal for a gap of 18 or 24 months was definitely that of a minority and many national delegations feared that this would lead to a slowdown in our coordination. Now it seems to be the majority position - no doubt, the unpleasant experience of preparing for London has helped to bring on this shift.
However, I do not believe that the same can be said of the other Attac proposal - that “a European gathering of the different ongoing campaigns” should be held between ESFs. I am not sure what exactly the comrades are proposing. If they mean that there should be just one single gathering in the year where no ESF takes place, surely that is not sufficient - and this would most definitely lead to a slowdown of our coordination. But if they mean that this gathering should be a decision-making forum leading to action, to be held in addition to the EPAs, then this would certainly be worth pursuing.

The proposals from the French Initiative Committee for the ESF (CIFS) are almost identical to Attac France’s - no doubt reflecting the fact that many of main French organisations involved in the ESF are also active in Attac (PCF, LCR, etc). The CIFS proposals are a little more hesitant, but clearer: they suggest that the “ESF capacity to build a frame for mobilisations is still problematic, especially concerning the follow-up of thematic campaigns”. They want the ESF to “centre on themes relevant for Europe … including its relationship to the rest of the world”.

That seems a perfectly sensible suggestion, but will undoubtedly be condemned and criticised by the SWP and some of the NGOs involved. While many NGOs work on themes relating to the ‘third world’, Latin America, etc and warn against Eurocentrism, the SWP has generally very little interest in anything to do with Europe. According to leading SWP member Chris Nineham, the EU and its constitution are “boring” and a “non-issue”.

Interestingly, some organisations in the CIFS seem to disagree with Attac France’s suggestion of an (elected?) delegate leadership body, as this proposal is missing in the CIFS paper. They are, however, agreed on a change in the official sidelining of political parties, which should be allowed to “express themselves and dialogue [sic] (specific spaces, discussion tables)”.

Proposals from 14 national Attac bodies
The comrades think it “out of tune with political realities that the last ESF had so few seminars on themes such as unemployment and the struggle against pension reforms” and locates a problem of method: “the process does not permit us to have the political discussions that are so essential for advancing together. We must find a way of working that allows for better confrontation of ideas and practices, elaboration of alternatives, strategising and decision-making for common action.”

Quite right - though the comrades make very few suggestions on how to politicise the ESF movement. They do, however, make correct proposals on how to democratise the EPA, where “transparency and accountability for decision-making” have been “neglected”. They insist that documents should be made available before meetings, the chairs of meetings should be properly prepared and participant lists and minutes made available after meetings - incredibly, none of this is currently the norm.

Proposals from Italy
Unfortunately, the translation of this document is rather bad and it needs a little imagination (and knowledge of the comrades’ practice so far) to work out what exactly they are saying. They believe that a reassessment of “the whole preparatory process”, as well as the final event, is needed, with more emphasis on the joint activities decided in the ‘Call of the assembly of social movements’: “The list of targets, as defined during the London Social Movement [?], against war, neoliberalism and racism cannot be achieved alone by the regular meetings: they need to be incorporated into activities as part of the European networks with the scope of creating an ‘auto-reform’ within the boundaries of the social forum. The preparation and the ‘managing’ of the European initiatives - already decided in London - must be brought to common responsibility and, in Paris, we need to define methods, contents and workshops to achieve these goals.”

They argue that the ESF should not be seen simply as an event - instead, the EPA should become the place where European campaigns are coordinated: “in short, put words into action and practise what we preach”. They reject the idea that the ESF should be simply a “space for learning” and insist that it must facilitate the “organisation of networks, campaigns, struggles”.

These suggestions go to the heart of what the ESF is (and the World Social Forum, too). The WSF’s ‘Charter of principles’ defines the social forums as “open meeting spaces” (point 1) that cannot agree on joint positions or joint actions. Reality has long overtaken this formulation, though, and it had to be updated: “organisations or groups of organisations that participate in the forum’s meetings are assured the right … to deliberate on declarations or actions they may decide on”.

Still, many organisations in and outside Britain have again and again emphasised the “open meeting spaces” formulation, using it to rule out joint action: one of the few points where some autonomists around the London Social Forum were in agreement with the bureaucrats from Socialist Action - both for their own reasons, of course. In any case, it is excellent that the Italian comrades are explicitly distancing themselves from the ‘meeting space only’ concept.

The comrades also suggest a biennial ESF and propose stretching the time in between EPAs to “every three to four months”. Presumably in the meantime ESF networks and campaigns would meet autonomously.

Proposals from Britain
In short, there aren’t any - at least none that have been made public, as we go to press. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, if we truly believe that the ESF 2004 was a “huge success” - as the SWP and Socialist Action tell us - why bother with changing anything? Also, Socialist Action has not much interest in the ESF process as such. They want to make sure that their event, the 2004 ESF, goes down in the history books as a massive success for themselves and Ken Livingstone. Naturally, they will be in Paris for this particular reason - but do not expect to see any of them again at the EPAs to plan for Athens 2006.

The SWP, too, has not exactly been known for its inspiring visions for Europe. On the contrary. Its deep econ-omism leads it to dismiss the EU and its constitution. No wonder the SWP has nothing to say on the future of the European left - apart from repeating ad nauseum that the war is a bad thing and we should really do something about it (how about a demo?).

Also, there has not been a meeting of any official committee since the ESF, which could have adopted proposals similar to those from France or Italy - apart from a small meeting of the coordinating committee on December 14 that was called at four days’ notice for a Tuesday morning. Naturally, not many people turned up.

I guess that the ruling ESF clique of SWP and Socialist Action might have planned to stitch up a number of points that could have been presented as “the British position” in Paris. But unluckily, myself and two comrades from Workers Power attended and ruined that particular plan. For example, Chris Nineham tried to persuade us that “in Paris we all have to be careful about not being defensive about the ESF. Particularly in the face of criticism from across Europe. We have to be clear that the ESF was an absolute success.”

He also - similarly unsuccessfully - tried to get the meeting to endorse a statement on the various disruptions of the ESF, which shamelessly put a positive gloss on the problems of the London ESF. There were no reason for complaint, the statement says, because the ESF was “entirely inclusive” and “open to anyone who wished to participate”, while “every viewpoint wishing to be there was given space”.

It goes on to note that “the censorship of views by premeditated physical violence at the ESF is completely unacceptable”. This is true, but what about the routine censorship imposed by Socialist Action and the SWP? That was presumably OK? A number of items at almost every ESF meeting were withheld from the majority of participants, and others were supposed to be “not for publication”, irrespective of whether the Conservative Party or The Guardian had already published the information concerned.

“The UK Organising Committee excluded nobody”, the statement says. True, but the small coordinating committee did. In fact, I was twice thrown out of its meetings - for refusing to accept the ruling clique’s imposition of censorship. Also, the coordinating committee met on a Thursday morning for two hours - in order to keep trouble makers out, of course. Such a short meeting could have just as well taken place in the evening, allowing more (and different) people to participate. This certainly was another kind of exclusion.

Anyway, there was definitely no consensus on adopting this particular rewriting of ESF history. The only thing we all seemed to agree on was the fact that the plenary sessions need a major overhaul - but who would not agree with that?