06.10.2004

Control-freakery dampens enthusiasm

The European Social Forum takes place in London from October 15-17. But, writes Tina Becker, do not expect any interesting debates among UK platform speakers at the plenary sessions. Socialist Action and the SWP have made sure that only those loyal to their own groups and London mayor Ken Livingstone will be heard. Rank and file trade unionists and independent thinkers from Britain will not be allowed to address the European left

The European Social Forum takes place in London from October 15-17. But, writes Tina Becker, do not expect any interesting debates among UK platform speakers at the plenary sessions. Socialist Action and the SWP have made sure that only those loyal to their own groups and London mayor Ken Livingstone will be heard. Rank and file trade unionists and independent thinkers from Britain will not be allowed to address the European left

s expected, the reconvened meeting of the ESF programme group on September 30 was as undemocratic a stitch-up as the meeting a week earlier (see Weekly Worker September 30). But this time the ruling Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Action clique made sure that they had enough members there to actually vote through their list of chairs for the most important meetings at the ESF, the plenary sessions. These are the only meetings that are the property of the whole ESF - all other meetings are organised by participating groups themselves.

While the CPGB is in favour of democratic decision-making, where majorities may, at the end of the day, insist on enforcing their will, the SWP-SA bloc has employed voting very cynically indeed. In order to keep on good terms with the leading groups in the ESF and the World Social Forum they proclaim the ‘principle’ of ‘consensus democracy’ … unless they cannot get what they want through this method.
A few weeks back, they threw out the whole list of agreed plenary speakers - because they suddenly ‘discovered’ that they were chosen in a manner that was “in contradiction to the principles of the World Social Forum”. They conveniently forgot that it was their own comrades who broke the ban by calling for a vote (see Weekly Worker September 9).

In reality, of course, neither the SWP nor Socialist Action could care less about the so-called ‘consensus’ decision-making process of the ESF and WSF. In truth, that list of speakers simply did not suit them, as Ken Livingstone had not made it onto it. So they cynically used the fact of having voted as an excuse to push through their new list through declaring a ‘consensus’. The difference? One method votes down the minority, the other simply ignores it.

This hypocrisy was once again laid bare when it came to choosing our chairs: The two groups had quite obviously arranged between them that a system of “indicative voting” should be used to push through their list. And, just in case you are wondering, there is, of course, no difference whatsoever between ‘indicative voting’ and normal voting.

Not one significant amendment to their list of chairs was accepted. The democratic opposition (basically everybody who is not a member of either the SWP or SA) proposed only seven changes to the list of 27 chairs. But only Jo Hamilton from the direct action group Rising Tide was accepted (it is still unclear though if she will actually accept the job after the stitch-up for the rest of the list).

All in all, there will now be 60 speakers and chairs from Britain on the platform of the plenary sessions. There will be 10 full-time officers from the top of the trade union bureaucracy (most of them with MBEs or OBEs graciously awarded by the queen) - but not one single rank and file militant. The CPGB’s Lee Rock, regional London organiser of the civil services union, PCSU, was twice voted down by the SWP-SA bloc - despite the fact that his general secretary Mark Serwotka had stated that he would personally welcome Lee as a chair.

There was an outraged response from the SWP when Asad Rehman (George Galloway’s political adviser) suggested Mike Marqusee should chair a session on the anti-war movement. Comrade Marqusee made the fatal mistake of turning on his former allies in the SWP, publicly criticising their role in the Stop the War Coalition and the Socialist Alliance. A similar reaction greeted the suggestion that comedian Mark Thomas should be invited to chair a session. Until recently he was a semi-god to the believers of the SWP - until he started to include a gag about Socialist Worker in his repertoire and made (mild) criticisms of the demonstration-centric STWC in Tribune.

Instead, there will be 14 people chairing the plenaries linked directly to either Socialist Action or the SWP. The rest consist of loyal hangers-on from the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain and various organisations sponsored by Livingstone or his Greater London Authority.

Parties and movements
Perhaps the most outrageous fixing of speakers and chairs has occurred for the two ‘special plenary sessions’ that will discuss the relationship between “political parties and the social movements”. One of these plenaries will focus on the anti-war movement; the other on the fight against privatisation.

The SWP-SA bloc decided how the five speakers from Britain should be put together. One is supposed to represent “the anti-war movement” (they proposed Andrew Murray, who is, of course, a member of a political party, the CPB). Four should come from political parties - one each for the “political families of the left”: one Green Party member, one ‘social democrat’ (Diane Abbott), one ‘far left’ comrade (the SWP’s Alex Callinicos) - and one ‘communist’. Unsurprisingly, the SWP-SA bloc did not have the Communist Party of Great Britain in mind… they have proposed Rob Griffiths, general secretary of the CPB.

Leading Socialist Action member Redmond O’Neill (Livingstone’s well-paid adviser on transport) has been put forward to chair the anti-war plenary - and admitted that it was not “the anti-war movement” that nominated him, but Livingstone himself.

The SWP’s Chris Nineham felt he had to put his weight behind comrade O’Neill and was at pains to praise Ken Livingstone to the skies: “The mayor has played an exemplary role in the anti-war protests,” he gushed. “Livingstone helped to organised a tremendous anti-Bush reception last November.” That might explain why Livingstone should be a plenary speaker (which he is) - it does not explain why one of his employees should be chairing a session at the ESF, particularly as a supposed representative of “the social movements”.

Finally, when Redmond’s credentials were further questioned in the meeting, the SWP-SA bloc suddenly remembered that in fact “the movements” and “the parties” themselves should be making the decision as to who should be speaking on their behalf - not this meeting of the programme group. “They must consult with each other to decide on their speakers”, said Chris Nineham. So, once again we are to be presented with an SWP-SA fait accompli.

Accommodation crisis
The two groups have spent considerable time and effort ensuring total dominance and control over the programme. Now that the lists of speakers and chairs have been finalised, they have had some time to look into other things that need sorting out. Like accommodation, for instance. At the last two ESFs in Florence and Paris, well over half of all ESF activists were able to stay in free accommodation, most of it communal.

However, things are looking considerably bleaker this year. Only “around 3,000 communal places” (in sports hall, community centres, etc) and a mere 70 ‘home-stay’ places for the 600 volunteer interpreters from Babels have so far been found, reported ESF office coordinator Louise Hutchins (Socialist Action) at the latest coordinating committee on September 30. She accused those present of “not having pulled their weight” and demanded to know who in the room would be doing what to resolve the crisis. She particularly singled out participating NGOs like Friends of the Earth and the World Development Movement - no doubt as a kind of punishment for their representatives being very critical of the undemocratic way in which this year’s ESF has been organised.

This lack of accommodation is not simply a technical question: the fact that so few groups and individuals have volunteered free accommodation is a reflection of the way the event has been organised. Many hundreds of leftwing, liberal and charitable groups will be attending the ESF - putting on their own meetings, staging cultural events or running stalls. However, hardly any of them are still involved in organising it.

Why should they? Every important decision is in reality taken by the ruling clique - either in meetings (when they have an absolute majority and can vote things through) or, more usually, behind closed doors, outside any official ESF body. Only 13 people, for example, attended the September 30 coordinating committee - most of them from the SWP or SA. Every other organisation has been thoroughly sidelined and alienated in the process. No wonder then that those who have in effect been excluded do not feel particularly inclined to throw their weight behind solving the accommodation crisis.

Babels, the organisation of voluntary translators and interpreters, has sent out an open letter pinpointing the reasons for the crisis: they do not expect participating organisations to sort out the mess, but complain about the lack of support they have received from those in control in the ESF office (which is run by employees of Ken Livingstone). Babels even warns that “some of our volunteer coordinators are contemplating withdrawing their participation in the ESF 2004. This is because some essential conditions required for volunteer interpretation to take place have not yet been met, and if the ESF organisers continue to ignore our concerns and demands those conditions are unlikely to be met”.

Kate Hudson, on behalf of the ESF organising committee (though without consulting this body), penned a reply to the letter and, strangely, this appeared on ESF email lists before the letter from Babels. Reading Kate’s reply, you would not have guessed that there was any problem at all - she appeared keen to approve all their requests. But this was not Babels’ first attempt to receive clear assurances from the powers-that-be. Threats and open publicity seem to be the only weapons that are able to trigger any response.

We have yet to see how big a problem accommodation will be in any case: so far, only 9,000 people have registered to attend this year’s ESF. No way will we have anywhere near the 50,000 participants that came to Florence and Paris. Nevertheless, despite SWP-SA control-freakery, both in the organisation and during the event itself, there is every chance that there will be a genuine exchange of views conducted in a vibrant atmosphere.

Another positive note on which to end: comrades from across Europe have successfully insisted that there will be daily meetings at the ESF to prepare for the Assembly of Social Movements, which will take place on the Sunday morning. There, the most influential groups from across Europe will decide on their forthcoming actions for the next 12 months - including, amongst other things, how a joint campaign against the EU’s constitution can be linked with our vision for a social Europe from below.