Who controls the European Social Forum?

Despite the media image, the European Social Forum is not a radical gathering. It is an instrument of large NGO's, political parties, and business - with a neo-corporatist agenda. Unofficial, unauthorised background to the ESF, opening in Florence today, 06 November 2002.

For a longer version of this, with more background and links, click:
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/esf.html

At the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, the WSF International Council decided to organise a separate Social Forum for each continent. It is not clear who exactly forms this International Council: there is no definitive list of its current members online. So far, there are plans for an Asian, a European, and a pan-American version. The European Social Forum opens this evening, Wednesday 06 November, in Florence (Firenze) and continues until Sunday 10 November.

What are the reasons for these large assemblies of social movements? They were specifically created as an alternative to meetings of global business and political elites - such as the Davos Forum. However, they are not simply an 'anti-summit demonstration'. They have specific functions.

First, the organisers hope to establish their credibility as 'The Leaders' of the social movements. The similarity to the global business forums also suggests, that they are equal partners of the global business leaders. Among the organisers there is some support for global corporatism, under the name of 'global civil society' or 'global governance'. This model implies that there are three main actors in global politics - global business, national governments, and transnational NGO's (non-governmental organisations). According to the global governance model, they should run the world together. Cynically defined, the World Social Forum is a step towards a Greenpeace-Shell World Government.

Second, the organisers usually define some form of political programme for 'the movement' - according to their own priorities. That does not mean the organisers are a monolith - but only well-organised and well-funded groups can exercise influence, in the preparation of large international meetings. Because they control the organisation and structure, these established groups can influence any policy declaration of the Forum.

Third, the Social Forums are an opportunity for official institutions to influence their opponents, with strategies of co-optation - and their so-called 'opponents' are often very happy to be co-opted. The World Social Forum was sponsored and influenced by the Ford Foundation, the Canadian Foreign Ministry, and the German Green Party. Its international Secretariat is also negotiating with the existing World Parliamentary Forum and the Forum of Local Authorities, for future joint activities.

The initiative for the World Social Forum came primarily from ATTAC - a group close to the French Parti Socialiste, especially when Lionel Jospin was prime minister. ATTAC began as a simple lobby for a Tobin Tax, but became a focus of a wider economic-nationalist trend in France. It is supported by many NGO's - which is not surprising, since they propose to give the NGO's part of the money raised by the Tobin Tax.

In the case of the European Social Forum, the organisers want to establish themselves as 'the leaders of the European social movements'. They want to become a negotiating partner of the European Union / European Commission. They probably hope for some official recognition of this status - and perhaps subsidy from the European Commission. (Note that there was already a body called the 'European Social Forum' in 1997/1998, it was a consultative group with the European Commission). So the underlying ideology here is neo-corporatism - the idea that Europe should be controlled by a tripartite structure, of business, NGO's and governments.

The Italian context of the European Social Forum

Despite the media image of an 'anarchist gathering', the European Social Forum is a semi-official meeting, under the patronage of the Region of Toscane (Tuscany) and the City of Firenze (Florence). Apparently the initiative came from the President of the Regional Administration - Claudio Martini of the Democratic Left. He was present at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, leading an official delegation. A clever man, several steps ahead of politicians in other countries, he saw the voter potential of the anti-globalisation movement.

France and Italy were the two possible locations of the European Social Forum. In Italy, the location seems to be a question of money. The Region of Toscane and the City of Florence had more to offer than the other possible venues - Venice and Naples. The City of Florence subsidises the ESF, for instance with free accommodation for 5 000 people, and translation services. The Region of Toscane provides the Florence conference centre, without asking for payment in advance, and knowing the bill will probably never be paid. It is unclear who decided to locate the ESF in Italy: some reports mention a 'a delegation of European social movements' in Porto Alegre. However, there is no public record of this meeting, or the participants. Martini may have offered Florence as a location at that time. In any case, the choice of Florence aligned the European Social Forum with the 'Democratic Left' party, and made it part of Italian domestic politics.

Two parties are especially involved, both descended from the old Italian Communist Party: the Democratic Left (Democratici di Sinistra, DS) and the Communist Refoundation (Partito della Rifondazione Comunista, PRC). The Democratic Left mayor of Florence, Leonardo Domenici, also supports the ESF. The city councillors of premier Berlusconi's party Forza Italia opposed it, but until October, there was no attempt to obstruct or harass the ESF by the Berlusconi government. Probably for domestic political reasons, Berlusconi decided (relatively late) to characterise the ESF as potentially violent. It soon became a national political issue.

In a meeting with Claudio Martini on 17 April, the representative of the Italian Social Forums (Vittorio Agnoletto) gave assurances about the structure of the ESF - in defiance of all the propaganda about it being an 'open' structure. Martini demanded that the meeting should include a dialogue with 'the institutions' and insisted on a special role for the social organisations in the Region - many traditionally associated with his own party. (Vittorio Agnoletto himself stood as an independent candidate on the provincial list of the Communist Refoundation, in 2001).

The 'organising meetings' for the ESF in other countries were therefore unreal, they had nothing to say about its structure. The organising committees in Italy made all the major decisions about the ESF - about who to exclude, about censorship, and about co-operation with the sponsors, acceptance of their conditions, about the structure of the ESF, and its agenda.

The first decisions on the ESF in Italy were taken by a group of six people, meeting at the Rimini congress of the Communist Refoundation, PRC. The six original organisers were:
- Peppe De Cristofaro of the Giovani comunisti, PRC youth organisation
- Pierluigi Sullo of Carta
- Alfio Nicotra, PRC representative at the Italian social forums
- Tom Benetollo, national president of the ARCI
- Marco Bersani - ATTAC Italia
- Bruno Paladini of the Cobas (union local committees).

At the meetings outside Italy, a small group of people had a disproportionate influence - for instance Christophe Aguiton of ATTAC France, Rafaela Bolini (ARCI), and Angela Klein (Euro-Marsch-Bewegung). It is inevitable that well-organised groups, with previous experience of European-level organisation, dominate the organisation of the ESF. However, there is always a price to pay for their efforts: they control the agenda, and probably the final political direction of the ESF.

A slogan of the European Social Forum says that "another Europe is possible". But ultimately the organisers of the ESF accept the existing world, the existing Europe. Despite their leftist rhetoric, they believe in a liberal market democracy, a pluralistic parliamentary form of government, the rule of law, and property rights. They reject egalitarianism and the forced redistribution of wealth. They reject the use of force against democratically elected governments, no matter how racist or unjust they are. They insist that inequality and injustice in democracies must be accepted, until such time as it can be remedied by democratic means.

Their see 'the movement' as their property, and they think 'the movement' is being damaged by radicals. They see it as their duty to exclude these radicals, and protect the status of the ESF as a 'responsible and moderate' negotiating partner for the European Union. From their own perspective, it is easy to understand why the organisers censor and manipulate the ESF. It is also easy to understand their attitude to, for instance, the Berlusconi government or the global financial institutions such as the WTO. They have different views - but Berlusconi and the WTO are their negotiating partners, not their enemies.

Agenda and structure

The first 'leaders' of the European Social Forum took important decisions about its structure . The agenda was at first very limited. Subsequently it expanded, but it remained under the control of the Italian organisers. Ultimately, they decide who speaks in Florence, at what time, and on what subject - and they insisted on a 'loyalty oath' to the WSF. Delegates must declare on the registration form that they support the 'ESF Charter' - which in fact is the WSF Charter. If not, people can only attend as a non-participant observer. Organisations must agree to the Charter, they can not get even observer status. If they refuse to sign: no admission. All events inside the conference centre must also "comply with the Charter". With these restrictions, the organising secretariat controls the topics and the speakers at the ESF - their opponents can attend, but only as spectators.

The chosen structure is: six simultaneous plenary sessions every morning, for 2,000 people each, and 'debates' in the afternoon, shorter plenary sessions in the evening. All main speakers are chosen in advance by the organisers - anyone else gets a maximum of 3 minutes speaking time. Big international NGO's such as Amnesty have priority as main speakers. There are seminars in the afternoon, but only by organisations registered for the conference - remember that registration is on condition that they support the ESF Charter. Here too international NGO's such as ATTAC get priority in the allocation of seminar space. Even the many smaller workshops are only accessible for organisations which sign the Charter.

A note on violence

Remember that the ESF is not an anti-summit protest: it has no local target. There is nothing specific to demonstrate against, in Florence in early November. A large demonstration was planned, but it had no specific theme at first. The coming war in Iraq supplied the theme. But in principle, it means that the delegates will march around the city, and then go back to the conference centre. Not everyone will be satisfied with that, and some bank windows might be smashed. Probably, that is all. However, it is not just the actual violence which has an impact, but the atmosphere in the city, which itself is dependent on the media coverage prior to the ESF. In recent weeks Italian media coverage has been hostile - with exaggerated fears of the 'black block', and the idea that demonstrators specifically target the historic buildings of Florence. So even without much real violence, the image of a 'violent clash with anti-globalists' might be created.

The organisers will condemn any violence, and say their movement is being discredited by a small minority. But in reality, as everyone knows, it is the violent minority which attracts the media. The organisers profit from the violence which they condemn, because it establishes them as representatives of an important social movement. The Italian dentist's convention, which is being held in Florence at the same time as the ESF, will get no international media coverage. If the ESF was as quiet and predictable as a dentists convention, it would get no coverage either.

arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)

Who controls the European Social Forum?

by Paul Treanor Wednesday, Nov. 06, 2002 at 11:23 AM

Malaise

by Janovitch Wednesday, Nov. 06, 2002 at 1:30 PM

interessante kritiek?

by het rooje nest Wednesday, Nov. 06, 2002 at 3:57 PM