15.05.2002

Buying into influence

The role of political parties in the ESF led understandably to a number of heated debates on the weekend - in the various meetings, as well as in the bars and pubs afterwards. Tina Becker reports

At the centre of it lies the WSF's Charter of principles, voted through by the WSF organisation committee and its international council in 2001. It states: "Neither party representations nor military organisations shall participate in the Forum. Government leaders and members of legislatures who accept the commitments of this Charter may be invited to participate in a personal capacity."

This position was confirmed by the international council at its latest meeting on April 28-30 in Barcelona. In Vienna, the Italian organising team proposed that the official participation of political parties should be limited to so-called "dialogues" in the afternoon, where the "social movements" could engage with "parties, trade unions and institutions". Almost all speakers over the weekend attacked the ban on parties and called on the ESF not to take the WSF formula on board. Why ban political parties? On the surface, this is extremely strange for a number of reasons. Firstly, political parties have played very important roles in setting up both the WSF and ESF. Naomi Klein describes how the Workers Party in Brazil was crucial to the formation of the WSF in Porto Alegre in 2000: "The city is part of a growing political movement in Brazil that is systematically delegating power back down to people at the municipal level rather than hoarding it at the national and international levels. The party that has been the architect of this decentralisation in Brazil is the Workers Party (PT), which is now in power in 200 municipalities with its leader ahead in the polls federally. Many PT cities have adopted the 'participatory budget', a system that allows direct citizen participation in the allocation of scarce city resources. Through a network of neighbourhood and issue councils, residents vote directly on which roads will be paved, which healthcare centres will be built" (The Guardian February 15). On a European level the foundations for the ESF were laid by the mass demonstrations of Genoa and Rome, led by Rifondazione Comunista and Cobas, the trade union federation. The ESF will be established in Florence, precisely because the Italian workers' movement is highly organised and led by political organisations. Most participants in the WSF and the ESF are members of one political organisation or another. Secondly, the effectiveness of such a ban would be highly dubious. As Tom Lines, representative of the Green Party, pointed out in Vienna, "We in Great Britain have unfortunately had a lot of experience recently with political parties setting up bogus campaigns in order to look more attractive on the outside." His little snipe at the comrades from the SWP points to a truth: political parties will not just disappear from the ESF; they will reappear in all sorts of different - mostly dishonest - guises. Quite correctly he asked why "people who are organised on a high level should be punished for their commitment", while looser groupings are rewarded. NGOs and other such institutions tend to be far more undemocratically organised and work on a more hierarchical basis. However, the resolution makes clear that, although only individuals can participate, these can include "government leaders and members of legislatures" - surely they will de facto be representing their particular institution. Naomi Klein has pointed out the predictable outcome: "Top delegates were jumping ship from the World Economic Forum in New York and coming to Porto Alegre: a European prime minister, World Bank directors, even corporate executives. NGOs were acting like corporations, corporations rebranding themselves as NGOs, and pretty much everyone claiming they were really there as a Trojan Horse," she reported from the WSF meeting in January 2002 (The Guardian February 15). Nearly every person at the meeting in Vienna spoke against banning political organisations. Why then is it that the Italian organisers in particular are happy to ignore the overwhelming majority? What they proposed after two days of angry debates on the subject was pathetic: platform speakers in Florence would only be advertised as individuals, not members of political parties, but they would be allowed to state their affiliation once they start speaking. That was the 'best' of the three alternatives presented. According to the second proposal, speakers would not be allowed to mention their party affiliation at all. And the third proposal would allow political parties to be mentioned only in the context of the national organising committees that are currently being formed all over Europe. Apparently, our comrades from Italy are under considerable pressure. The question is - from whom? Things became a little bit clearer on the last day, when it was mentioned - almost as a throwaway - that the Party of the Democratic Left (PDS) in Italy has donated more than €100,000 to the European Social Forum. The Florence council is run by the PDS - ie, the liquidated Italian Communist Party - which led the Italian centre-left government from 1995 until the return of Berlusconi two years ago. It has offered free public transport for all ESF participants. The council has also promised free accommodation for 5,000 people and offered to pay the wages of translators. The PDS is obviously trying to buy itself into positions of influence within the ESF - up to now dominated by Italy's Rifondazione Comunista, which is in the process of remaking itself as a strong, democratic and open Communist Party. Apparently, the PDS is the driving force behind the ban, we have been told. That sounds like a contradiction - the PDS itself is a political party after all. But if you pay for the whole show, your official presence is guaranteed. The PDS will not be slow to boast about its 'commitment' to the new movement. It seems that a similar deal has been struck in the World Social Forum, where the Brazilian PT has stood out as the main organiser and had no problem in getting its message across despite the official ban on parties. I do not know what financial commitments it made to the Forum, but it seems to have used its infrastructure and local influence to run the conference. So far, the main left political parties in the WSF and ESF affected by this ban (Rifondazione Comunista for a start) have remained very quiet about it. No RC speaker used the Vienna meeting to attack the ban. No petitions were being circulated, mobilising the other organisations to rebel. It seems the comrades are still in some sort of negotiations with the PDS. It is a tragedy that all of this is happening behind closed doors. If the ESF is to become a new, democratic force on the European left, we need transparency and openness. Maybe the majority of organisations in the ESF should consider raising €100,000 collectively themselves, if the PDS donation comes with such strings attached.