15.09.2004

Unchallengable consensus con

At the second attempt, we have finally chosen the 26 speakers "residing in Britain" who will addressthe 27 plenary sessions at the European Social Forum in October. But was the process any more democratic or the decision taken by 'consensus'? You must be kidding. Tina Becker reports

At the second attempt, we have finally chosen the 26 speakers "residing in Britain" who will address the 27 plenary sessions at the European Social Forum in October.

Our first list was thrown out by the two main groups controlling the event, the Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Action. They suddenly 'discovered' that the agreed speakers had been chosen in a manner that was "in contradiction to the principles of the World Social Forum" - despite the fact that it was their own comrades who pushed through the prohibited voting procedure (see Weekly Worker September 9). Supposedly social forums are meant to operate according to the undemocratic and usually unworkable 'principle' of consensus - in reality decisions are taken behind closed doors by small cliques.

Was the second list achieved through consensus? You must be kidding. This time around, the comrades simply presented their speakers "chosen after a broad consultation process of the various sections of the movements". So "the trade unions" presented a list of five speakers, as did the NGOs and the "anti-racist, anti-fascist and black, Asian and minority ethnic organisations". The "anti-war and peace movements" were allowed to put forward four speakers, the "Irish organisations" one (they chose Gerry Adams), ditto the whole of Scotland (which put forward not Tommy Sheridan, but the pretty much unknown Veronica Rankin, who chairs the women's committee of the Scottish TUC).
How exactly it came to pass that those making up the amorphous category of "personalities and independent left" were able to consult with each other and choose Hilary Wainwright, John Pilger, George Monbiot and Ann Pettifor (Jubilee) is a bit of a mystery "¦

Nevertheless, it was stated by SWP-SA comrades that the outcome of these consultations "cannot be challenged", as Jonathan Neale from the SWP put it. SA's Redmond O'Neill expressed the same sentiment a little more mildly when he said they "should not be challenged". Needless to say, the 'consultation meetings' where speakers were chosen were not publicly advertised. Comrades who have, for example, attended various meetings of the trade unions involved in the ESF were not informed about any selection process. It looks like our comrades in the SWP and SA have, with the aid of a number of organisations in their orbit, simply stitched up a list that suits them much better than the first one did.

The differences between the two lists are small, but crucial. If anything, a pretty inoffensive - though conservative and unimaginative - first list has been ditched for a slightly more conservative one. The NGOs get the five speakers they wanted - nobody even questioned who their particular speakers were, although most of them are total unknowns. The Green Party will be represented by Jenny Jones and Caroline Lucas - maybe their presence in the GLA helped them get two servings. The SWP appears to have thought better of its previous omission and made sure that the main figurehead of the Respect coalition, George Galloway, is after all on the list (at the meeting last month, they voted against him on four different occasions).

Most of the trade union representatives are as rightwing and pro-establishment as those on the first list: Unison will be represented by Dave Prentis and Frances O'Grady ("the highest ranking woman in the trade unions ever - I cannot believe how anybody could question her right to be on the list," fumed Socialist Action's Sarah Colborne when somebody suggested she should be replaced by the politically far more radical Mark Serwotka from the public services union, PCSU). Barry Camfield from the TWGU and Debbie Coulter, deputy general secretary of the GMB, round up the list of trade union bureaucrats. The RMT's Bob Crow is the only union speaker with a commitment to some kind of socialism.

The real reason why the first list was ditched was that one particular person did not make it onto it. SWP-SA withdrew Ken Livingstone's nomination after Lee Jasper (Livingstone's adviser on race relations and the police) was soundly defeated by Asad Rehman, George Galloway's political adviser and, as a representative of the Newham Monitoring Project, a prominent figure in the anti-war movement. On the new list, comrade Rehman was demoted to chairing one session, not speaking at it.

London's mayor has finally been chosen for a plenary on anti-fascism. "He is the chair of Unite Against Fascism and one of the leading left politicians in Europe," gushed Lee Jasper. UAF was, of course, set up by, amongst others, Livingstone himself, so I imagine it would not have been too difficult to grab the top job. Jasper himself has been put forward to speak on a plenary on anti-racism - and brought with him a group of cheerleaders to make sure neither he nor Ken would be challenged.

Naturally, some did. I proposed that Asad Rehman should not chair the anti-racist meeting, but actually replace Lee as one of the platform speakers, as it seemed to me to be a bit of an overkill to have two representatives of the Greater London Authority speaking on pretty similar issues. That went down well. Simon Woolley of Operation Black Vote (of which Lee Jasper happens to be the chair) was "deeply offended that a white woman comes here and tells me which speakers the black and ethnic minorities should choose. I am deeply, deeply upset."

He was effectively challenged by Naima Bouteldja, herself a black muslim: "I find it really wrong that somebody uses their ethnicity or their religious background to stop a political opponent challenging them. Surely the main point is whether they have a valid point to make," she said pointedly. Needless to say, Lee was confirmed as the speaker thanks to the serried ranks of SWP-SA and Operation Black Vote members in the room (Simon Woolley, Lee Jasper and 10 or so of their colleagues showed how deeply interested they are in the ESF process by leaving the meeting immediately after the list of speakers had been agreed). Similarly, my proposal to move Ken Livingstone to speak in the plenary session on 'Labour rights across Europe', in which he could have effectively been challenged over his disgusting call on RMT workers to scab on their colleagues, was unfortunately not agreed to by the majority.

Interestingly, the SWP was able to push through only one of its own speakers and Lindsey German will now speak in a plenary on 'Troops out of Iraq' - with her Stop the War Coalition hat on. This is interesting, as Chris Nineham had made it quite clear that the SWP and/or its Globalise Resistance front would "insist" on an additional speaker. But it looks like their friends in SA-GLA convinced them not to bother.

However, two additional plenary sessions have been agreed at the small, international programme working group that met on September 13 in Paris. These two meetings will see debates between 'political parties and the social movements'. This is a very welcome development - it is ridiculous to try and keep political parties and politicians locked out of the process. They always come in through the back door, hiding behind this or that particular front. Much more honest to have the debate out in the open.

Undoubtedly, the SWP will have been promised a speaker or two in these extra plenary sessions. The speakers from Britain will be decided upon at the next programme group. But most certainly there will be no repeat of a similar meeting that took place at last year's ESF in Paris: There Chris Nineham addressed a meeting as a "representative of the social movements in Britain" - as opposed to a representative of the SWP, of which he is, of course, a leading member.