WeeklyWorker

11.03.2004

Control-freaks criticised

Around 150 people attended the March 6-7 assembly to prepare for the European Social Forum in London - and witnessed some rather inelegant twists and turns by the Socialist Workers Party, reports Tina Becker

Email lists are funny things. ‘Keyboard rage’ is a well-known phenomenon in the nerd’s world, which has led to often vicious fights between people with minuscule differences. Less frequently we encounter the opposite - what could be called ‘keyboard hype’.

A “resounding success” and “victory against the bureaucrats”, which “has broken the dominance of the Greater London Authority and the Socialist Workers Party” ... if anybody relied on email lists for information about the City Hall meeting, they could be forgiven for thinking they must have missed an historic event, the turning of the tide. While the main organisations involved in ESF preparations (the SWP and Ken Livingstone’s GLA) certainly got a good ticking off from our European comrades, the jubilation of some of those who attended the assembly might well prove a little premature.

Money

Certainly the assembly made some important decisions: most crucially, it gave us the green light to go ahead with the preparations for the ESF on October 15-17, although one important ‘deadline’ has been and gone. Ken Livingstone’s adviser and the ESF’s central organiser, Redmond O’Neill, declared at the last assembly in December that “we need to find some serious money by March 1, otherwise our preparations are simply not serious”. Well, apart from a donation of £50,000 from London Unison, money is still scarce. However, the GLA will chip in with a hefty sum (which could well be considerably higher than what they initially said they were prepared to give) and the TUC, along with a number of affiliated unions, will hopefully follow up its “in principle support” for the ESF with some hard cash (see box below). But it still looks as if registration fees will have to form a key part of the budget.

The question of entry fees was the first issue that led to a heated debate. The proposed charges of £40 waged and £30 unwaged (£10 less for advance registrations) did not go down well with our European comrades, especially those from poorer countries. A comrade from Turkey reported that “it costs us a fortune to get here and everything is so expensive in London. Many people simply cannot pay so much money.” This was backed up by many - for example, a comrade from Denmark: “This is not a viable budget. What if people do not register in advance?” he asked quite correctly. “We have to find another way to make sure the ESF happens - and at cheaper prices.” Jan Michel, a leading comrade from France who represents the CGT union confederation, even thought that “from what I have heard here today, I am still not sure that it will actually be held”.

Of course the French organisers of last year’s ESF in Paris received €3 million from the state and were able to start their sliding scale of entry fees with a mere €3. If we want the broadest participation possible; if indeed we want 50,000 people or more to attend our event; if we want students, the unemployed and pensioners to participate; we must find ways to bring the registration fees down. Somebody who receives benefits of £70 a week can hardly be expected to spend a big chunk just to get inside Alexandra Palace. For many activists in Europe, the situation is even more dire.

Comrade Sophie Zafari from the French mobilising committee (she is also a member of the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire) finally suggested that a working group should be set up to discuss a way forward on this issue and the question of inclusivity. Her sensible proposal was brushed aside by the somewhat brisk chairs, Alex Gordon from the RMT union and Sarah Colborne from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. “The fees are an integral part of our bid for the ESF. We cannot discuss them, because the event stands or falls with these fees,” Sarah ruled. Despite numerous calls from the floor, she refused to even put the proposal to the meeting, obviously following instructions from the SWP’s Chris Nineham and Redmond O’Neill, a Livingstone appointee and leader of the Trotskyoid group, Socialist Action.

Only after French and Italian representatives took comrades Gordon and Nineham to one side for earnest discussions did they change their mind. It was obvious that a lot of European comrades were angry that the organisers were not even paying lip service to the fact that the ESF is supposed to be controlled by ‘the movement’: “This is a European Social Forum, not a British one,” comrade Eric de Careau from Switzerland complained. “We all make the decisions, not just those from organisations which pay most of the money.”

So finally comrades O’Neill and Nineham beat a retreat and it was agreed that a special working group on ‘practicalities’ would be set up to discuss the question in more detail. However, in the end the kind of registration fees put forward by the majority of the UK organising committee were accepted “as a start”. All national mobilisations would set up a solidarity fund for people who could not afford the fee.

Redmond O’Neill, who wisely decided to stay in the background for most of the meeting, was urged to provide detailed explanation of his budget plan. As we had feared, the expenditure for workshops is not even listed. He has previously insisted that the booking of venues for workshops is the responsibility of those wishing to put them on, which would mean that a small organisation from Croatia or Finland would have to sort out a room for themselves. This ludicrous suggestion has been criticised at various meetings. But, judging by the non-appearance in the budget, he is still sticking to his guns.

Inclusion?

It was heartening to learn how aware European comrades are of our problems - which in no small part is due to the extensive coverage in the Weekly Worker and Indymedia (incidentally we sold just over 40 copies at the meeting). Pierro Bernocchi, representing the Italian leftwing trade union federation Cobas, said that he was “still horrified, despite all the progress that has been made. I can see people from smaller organisations being brushed aside. I can see people with different opinions being insulted as troublemakers. The ESF will be nothing if we cannot discuss our problems and disagreements openly.” Matyas Benyik from Attac Hungary demanded that “the serious lack of democracy should be an item on today’s agenda”. Panayotis Yulis from the Greek Social Forum even thought that “it might have been a mistake to give the ESF to London”.

A number of SWP members rushed to defend their undemocratic shenanigans. Chris Nineham, who on this occasion was representing Globalise Resistance instead of the Stop the War Coalition (so easy to pick up the wrong hat), insisted that “all meetings are open to everybody: there are no exclusions”. It must have slipped his mind that he was one of those who succeeded in keeping me out of two recent meetings of the coordinating committee. Alex Callinicos - again representing the dubious ‘Project K’ - praised the ‘ESF statement of affiliation’, which “enshrines inclusivity”. Rahul Patel, an SWP member and rep from London Unison, insisted that the “only democratic deficit we have is that more organisations and trade unions aren’t involved yet”.

The comrades’ contributions were greeted with loud heckles and laughter from around a quarter of the people present. A few dozen from anarchist and libertarian backgrounds have got together under the name ‘the horizontals’. While they are certainly energetic in their opposition to the control-freakery of the SWP and Redmond O’Neill, they have not always employed the most democratic methods themselves. Some of them have taken to hijacking microphones or insisting that they cannot possibly allow delegates to speak for them. Also, the comrades often concentrate on purely technical solutions - eg, the rotation of chairs - and are amongst the most stubborn advocates of the grossly undemocratic ‘consensus principle’ (“I withhold my consensus”, thereby claiming the right of a single individual to veto decisions).

Luciano Muhlbauer from Cobas and Rifondazione Comunista questioned the SWP’s claims: “When half the people say, ‘There are no exclusions; everything is fine’ and the other half complains about feeling excluded, then quite obviously, there is a democratic deficit and there is exclusion.” Annik Coupe from the French ESF organising committee urged the “big” organisations to include “all those networks, groups and associations that want to be involved. If we achieved this in France, why can’t you do it here?” She also argued against censorship: “We have nothing to hide. It is much better if there is too much information about the ESF out there than too little.”

Again, a working group had to be set up in order to deal with this. For the first 60 minutes, this group was open to everybody interested. But when City Hall was about to close down, Pierre Khalfa from the French organising committee (and the LCR) urged that “both sides” should choose three representatives to discuss the matter further. So Chris Nineham decided that his good self, Peter O’Leary (a particularly unfriendly member of Socialist Action) and Hilary Wainwright from Red Pepper should “represent the organising committee”. Comrade O’Leary has to my knowledge attended only one or two meetings of the OC and has yet to show up at the smaller coordinating committee. But no doubt he was a useful ally for comrade Nineham. Comrade Wainwright, is, of course, a feminist-liberal/leftist, and distrustful of the SWP and, though she brings her own baggage, is always at pains to be seen to be fighting for democracy. Everybody else was allowed to stay, but only as non-speaking observers.

And what a meeting it turned out to be ... It started with the harmlessly sounding suggestion to include “networks and local social forums” in the list of organisations that should be involved. The SWP had previously brushed aside and such idea. They do not want any mention of local social forums. Why? Because Globalise Resistance is supposed to organise the anti-capitalist movement. Now, in front of the French and Italians comrade Nineham beat another hasty retreat: “Of course, no problem - we’ll include networks and local social forums.” The ‘horizontals’ could hardly believe it.

Discussion then moved on to why people had been excluded from meetings (only myself and Jeremy Dewar from Workers Power have been kept out, of course). “When people undermine the event, they need to be excluded” - both comrades Nineham and O’Leary repeated the outrageous and stupid suggestion that by honestly reporting problems, the Weekly Worker had “threatened” the ESF. We are still waiting for evidence of the so-called “inaccuracies” and “misleading information” that we are supposed to have published. In fact, our ‘inaccuracies’ have turned out to be ‘accuracies’ - which for their own reasons the SWP and Socialist Action dislike. Needless to say, we will carry on reporting thoroughly on the ESF and, because we enthusiastically support the whole process, whenever necessary we shall criticise opportunism and bureaucracy where it appears.

“You cannot participate in the ESF on the basis that somebody might have to be excluded from a meeting,” said Pierre Khalfa. He was backed up by all the other Europeans. In fact, only comrades Nineham and O’Leary made any attempt to keep exclusions in the London ESF founding statement. After a heated exchange, it was eventually decided that the formulation should be deleted. A new sentence was added, according to which all meetings will be open “to those who agree to the Charter of Principles of Porto Alegre and abide by the rules and trust-building process of the UK ESF”.

While this might seem like a step forward, the devil, as usual, lies in the detail. There are currently no “rules”, let alone any “trust-building process”. Chris and Redmond will undoubtedly be getting their heads together to concoct some rules which will in effect censor reporting. The ‘horizontals’ might have been too quick to celebrate.

Keynote speakers

Another lively debate took place on Sunday morning on ‘keynote speakers’. The idea, put forward by the majority of the UK ESF organising committee, was that a list of 10 or so speakers should be invited immediately for the plenary sessions, to make sure that at least three or four of them would be able to attend. The list of names mentioned included the usual suspects like Naomi Klein and Walden Bello, but also Nelson Mandela and Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

While this seemed a sensible suggestion, most European comrades would not have any of it. They insisted that first we would have to agree on a method to select speakers, then we could start to invite them. “You cannot simply put these choices in front of us when we get here, without even publishing them on email lists,” said an angry Pierro Bernocchi from Cobas. “Who are these gods of the movement, that they need to be there, while we carry on ignoring workshops and networks?” His comrade, Luciano Muhlbauer, added that “we need to discuss a format first”, pointing out that many organisations had been extremely unhappy with last year’s method, where speakers were chosen according to national quotas. Comrade Eric de Careau insisted that we should choose speakers who actually disagree with each other, “according to how they fit into a debate”.

The prize for the most naive contribution must go to Milena Buyum, of the National Assembly Against Racism: “I am very concerned about what is going on here. I really cannot believe that people seem to have a problem with Nelson Mandela speaking, whom I feel very, very passionate about. We should all be united in bringing him here to London,” this SWP ally said, totally missing the point. The European comrades were discussing the method of inviting speakers - not one of them said they did not want Mandela to speak.

However, a couple of Socialist Action members - Lee Brown from the Student Assembly against Racism and Anne Kane from Abortion Rights - thought this was a really good line of attack and repeated comrade Buyum’s contribution almost word for word. Comrade O’Neill had to step in to tell his own comrades that “we should not insult the intelligence of anybody in this room by attempting to explain why people like Nelson Mandela would be good speakers”. He suggested quite sensibly that the 10 or so named individuals should simply be invited as visitors to the forum, not in any particularly speaking capacity. This was agreed.

Overall, the two-day meeting was certainly not the “resounding success” claimed by the ‘horizontals’ in getting rid of control-freakery and exclusions. But undoubtedly, our European comrades have struck a moral blow for democracy, inclusion and transparency.

Now everyone should be allowed to play their part in building an ESF which involves masses of London people as well as militants, anti-capitalists and revolutionaries from across Britain and the whole of Europe. Together we can ensure that London October 15-17 2004 builds upon the achievements of Florence and Paris.

Essential information