19.02.2004

European Social Forum: No bans or exclusions

The February 12 meeting of the European Social Forum UK organising committee saw a lively discussion on inclusivity, openness and the participation of political parties. Tina Becker was there

One of the main issues discussed was the exclusion of myself and Jeremy Dewar (Workers Power) from the previous day’s meeting of the smaller coordinating committee (see Weekly Worker February 12). Firstly, we had some semantic differences about the event: “You were not excluded and you were certainly not thrown out,” Redmond O’Neill (Ken Livingstone’s appointed policy director on public affairs and transport) insisted. “We asked you to leave and you followed suit.” Ouch, I wonder what kind of tricks Redmond has in mind if he really wanted to exclude us …

Jeremy Dewar tried to paint himself solely as a victim of the exclusion, conveniently forgetting that it was his proposal that got us thrown out in the first place. He presented a long protest letter, which really did not go down very well at all. Milena Buyum from the National Assembly Against Racism reminded him that it was his own suggestion that had led to us being “asked to leave”.

Comrade Dewar tried to wriggle out of this by stating that he had called for “substantiated evidence” to support the exclusion of journalists on the grounds that they were “leaking information”. The kind of “evidence” that has only been reproduced in the Weekly Worker, I presume. Comrade Dewar thought he would be safe only asking for our exclusion, but his attempt backfired badly and he will be kept out from now on, too, whenever financial details are under discussion. Ditto Hilary Wainwright from Red Pepper, who was understandably surprised to hear about this. She suggested that the coordinating committee should draw up a ‘code of conduct’, which would outline when people could be excluded from meetings, which was agreed.

Thankfully, there was no recurrence at the February 18 meeting of the coordinating committee.

Of course, at the bottom of all this is a serious problem that some people would prefer was not mentioned: there is still no money in sight and no done deal with any of the bigger trade unions - and we have got exactly two weeks to find about £1.5 million. Our European assembly on March 6-7 will make the final decision as to whether the 2004 ESF will actually take place in London. As the Weekly Worker has been asked not to mention the financial contributions that might be expected from the Greater London Authority and the trade unions, we will of course stick to it (though, needless to say, our exclusion certainly did not prevent us from finding out what had been discussed at the meeting).

Still, it does not take a genius to work it out. As comrade O’Neill (who is a leading member of the Trotskyoid sect, Socialist Action) said at the organising committee meeting, “I cannot openly report about the finances in this meeting, because certain people are present, but I can say this much. If we charge 30,000 people £25 each, that will bridge the gap between what we need and what the GLA and the trade unions bring in.” Get your calculators out, boys and girls.

Yes, it is quite a large sum of money we need to find very quickly. I would suggest that treating this important question as a private matter will solve nothing. And it looks as if our European friends know this too: apparently, comrades in Greece have restarted preparations to host this year’s forum in Athens, in case London does not happen. In two weeks time, comrade O’Neill will have to come clean and tell us whether Ken Livingstone’s talks with trade union leaders have come to anything.

Another contentious subject proved to be - yet again - the question of the involvement of political parties. While comrade O’Neill and Hilary Wainwright agreed that “there is no question - parties are not allowed to participate”, Chris Nineham was more ambivalent: “Personally, I do not agree with the rationale or the principle. But it is not in our gift to challenge the charter of the World Social Forum.” This is rather misleading, as comrade Nineham is very well aware that the ban has been challenged at many international ESF meetings. Moreover a compromise has been reached: according to this, it is up to individual countries to decide if they will allow parties to openly participate. So far, neither he nor any of the numerous SWP members present at ESF meetings have supported me whenever I have reminded them of this agreement.

Rather than fighting for the open participation of parties, every single British organisation (apart from the CPGB) has chosen to hide behind a range of fronts: be it Unite Against Fascism, Globalise Resistance, Workers Power newspaper, No Sweat or - my favourite - the dubious Project K, which functions as Alex Callinicos’s fig leaf. The CPGB had to affiliate with a Weekly Worker cheque, but there can be no question that we will pretend to be non-party members.

If there was any reason needed as to why the open and honest participation of parties is preferable, it was underlined in a short speech by comrade Roberto Ferdinand from Brazil. Firstly, he suggested that Redmond O’Neill’s presence was controversial and that “WSF meetings should never take place in government buildings” like City Hall. Luckily, comrade O’Neill ‘remembered’ that a WSF meeting in Barcelona in 2002 decided that government bodies of the host country “could be invited to participate in the organisational process”. Jane Loftus (SWP member representing the Communication Workers Union) dutifully requested that we should officially allow the GLA to participate, which was of course agreed.

Comrade Ferdinand - who introduced himself not only as “a founding member of the World Social Forum”, but as a member of the Workers Party and the government in Brazil - went on to explain why political parties are banned: “When I am here at an ESF meeting, I am not a member of the government and I am not a member of a party. Here I am simply part of civil society - because parties are not allowed at the WSF: it is very simple.” Equally simple was his argument - and you just have to admire his chutzpah: “Wider society does not trust political parties and they do not trust governments. But people do trust the World Social Forum. So, parties can give support and they give money, but they cannot run the WSF.”

This is of course claptrap. Even the most loosely organised political party has a far higher level of discipline and collective conscience than the fluffy WSF. Consciously or unconsciously, officially or secretly - comrade Ferdinand represents the Workers Party, Chris Nineham the SWP, Luciano Muhlbauer represents Rifondazione Comunista and the leading members on the French organising committee represent the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire and the Communist Party of France. It is those organisations that run the WSF, the ESF and all other regional forums - not some non-identifiable ‘civil society’. As comrade Toby Abse from the Lewisham Social Forum (ex-Resistance supporter) pointed out, “I know of at least one social forum in Italy where Rifondazione is officially affiliated. I am sure it is not the only one.”

However, in the hope of attracting more recruits to the social forums (and ultimately of course to the political parties behind them), most comrades keep quiet about their affiliation and in so doing reject the notion of partyism itself. A dangerous tactic, which denies the undeniable: that the working class is nothing without a strong, democratic and centralised Communist Party.