14.07.2004

European Social Forum: Down the plughole?

Phil Hamilton wonders how the website of the European Social Forum could have ended up costing a rumoured £40,000

Unless you are a member of the increasingly embourgeoisified Socialist Action, £40,000 is a lot of money. Incredibly this sum is rumoured to have been allotted to the development of the European Social Forum’s website, so is this the case of money well spent or an exercise in how to throw cash down the drain?

If true, he reason for such a huge expenditure is not immediately apparent - though it has to be said that no official budget has so far been seen by any ESF activist, so for all we know, the site might have cost even more. Other than the slightly skew-whiff ESF logo, it appears as a dull, text-based effort (hardly indicative of the rainbow coalition of social movements from which the ESF is supposedly constituted). This is the theme which the ‘About the ESF’ statement begins with, before launching into a list of topics around which forum activities will be organised. This is followed by a number of introductory links.

The first is the pretty unobjectionable ESF info pack, which points applicants for seminars and the Babel translation service in the right direction. As ever, it is what is not said that is most revealing. The UK organising committee statement is the same old vacuous nod to “trade unions, social movements, organisations, networks, and local social forums” that we have come to expect from ESF documents over the last few years. However, regular readers of the Weekly Worker will note that the actual organising of the ESF is being arranged by the Greater London Authority (local government) and the Socialist Workers Party - bodies far removed from “movements” and “networks”. So why not be open about who is setting the ESF up?

Comrades seeking answers will find them in point nine of the ‘Charter of principles’ of the World Social Forum, of which the ESF is part. This now infamous document states that “neither party representations nor military organisations shall participate in the forum”. It goes on to add that “government leaders and members of legislatures … may be invited to participate in a personal capacity”. So that explains why the SWP and Socialist Action are happy to hide behind numerous front groups, without caring about how absurd these antics actually are. Also, I assume the statement’s fudge around the question of governmental participation in social forum processes is recognition that the “movements of civil society” will not always be capable of organising an ESF without the involvement of some levels of the state. While this is the case where October’s meeting is concerned, do not expect any acknowledgement of it.

The rest of the statement of principles is clearly informed by ideas current on the postmodern academic left, and consequently is of limited use to even the most reform-minded single-issue activist. While the existence of the WSF (and therefore the ESF) as “an open meeting place for reflective thinking, democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free exchange of experiences and interlinking for effective action” is to be welcomed, the WSF hobbles itself by refusing to become “a locus of power to be disputed by the participants in its meetings”. Is the WSF scared of its own shadow? One has to wonder what authority the organising committee and international council have to tightly circumscribe the development of the WSF movement, given that their statement rules out the possibility of anyone doing anything. It is high time this document was filed away in favour of something more pro-active.

The other section of the site of political interest has to be ‘Minutes of meetings’. These are grouped under ‘Organising committee’, ‘NGO’, ‘European assembly’, ‘Coordinating committee’ and ‘Programme sub-committee’ headings. The most recent addition is from June 24, and whitewash seems the most appropriate description. These minutes are strictly business, noting the odd concern here and there: structures for meetings and the like. The only clue that not all is rosy in the coordinating committee garden is that apparently some unspecified participants engaged in “aggressive and abusive heckling” at the recent Berlin meeting. Perhaps the minute compiler should look again at the WSF charter and ask themselves whether the efforts of the UK organisers really facilitate “reflective thinking” and “democratic debate”. 

Overall this site is far from impressive, given the resources available. In fact, its very basic design and lack of interesting features begs the question: where has the money gone? Yes, there are hidden costs: I would imagine any web design team worth its salt would have purchased enough bandwidth so the site does not crash when it gets busy. But all the translations, for example, will be done for free by volunteers. This layout would not amount to £2,000, let alone the rumoured £40,000. Someone has got some serious explaining to do.