27.10.2004

Controversy deepens

Almost two weeks after the London ESF took place debates are still raging over how much of a success our event really was, writes Tina Becker

Unsurprisingly, the two organisations who closely controlled the preparations of the London European Social Forum are full of uncritical praise. Socialist Action’s Louise Hutchins (appointed ESF office coordinator), sent out what looked like the official assessment. Signed by herself in her ESF position, she gushes that this was “a breakthrough for the movement” and “the biggest event of its kind in Britain”. As it was also the first “event of its kind”, this is not really surprising. No mention of the disruptions or protests.

Similar praise comes, of course, from the Socialist Workers Party, who played the role of outriders for Ken Livingstone and his friends in Socialist Action. Writing in Socialist Worker, Alex Callinicos thinks that in comparison to Paris and Florence, this year “the discussions were more serious and focused. Certainly the sessions I attended were of a very high standard”. Modestly, he goes on to describe the plenary on ‘Challenging US imperialism’ (where he himself was a speaker) as “by all accounts one of the best sessions” (October 23).

On various ESF email lists, comrades from the SWP and Socialist Action have shamefully implied that the storming of the stage at the session, ‘Stop fascism and the far right in Europe’, had racist motives - after all, “it was an entirely white group attacking a black and Jewish platform” (Weyman Bennett’s statement). After leading ESF participants from across Europe protested against this smear, comrade Callinicos is not so stupid as to repeat this particular slander in his Socialist Worker column.

Instead, he explains away the “few ugly incidents” with the “re-emergence of the anarchist black bloc”, which was “supported by some small and unrepresentative groups that had been consistently hostile both to the ESF itself and to the coalition that brought it to London. The physical attacks these people made on the forum no doubt reflected the frustration at the fact that the various rival events they organised attracted very small numbers.”

So much crap in so few lines. Firstly, by all accounts the various ESF fringe events attracted roughly 3,500 people over the three days and Indymedia’s event on Friday night alone saw almost 1,000 participants. So these two events attracted about a fifth of the number at the official event - not exactly small fry.

Secondly, the majority in the hall cheered on the few hundred protesters who took over the stage where Livingstone was due to speak. In their own way the anarchists succeeded in articulating frustrations with the control-freakery of the SWP. We are not uncritical of those forces - the traditions of anarchism are no more democratic than those of the SWP or Socialist Action. However, the reasons for the protest were obvious enough and it is typically disingenuous of comrade Callinicos to attempt to rewrite history.

Thirdly, I have not come across any group within the ESF process that “supported” the anarchists’ actions. But presumably, by “groups consistently hostile” to the ESF Callinicos means all those critical of the stitch-ups and exclusions: as well as the CPGB, such organisations as Friends of the Earth, the World Development Movement, Red Pepper, Attac UK and the volunteer interpreters from Babels - and of course all those European delegations who have criticised the democratic deficit.

European criticisms
Leading representatives from both Italy and France have agreed their initial reponses to the London ESF. Those signing the French statement include Bernard Cassen, founder of Attac France, who still represents it at the World Social Forum, Pierre Khalfa, also of Attac France, Sophie Zafari, representing the CGT and a leading member of the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire, Annick Coupé, vice-secretary of the Union Syndicale G10 Solidaires, Elisabeth Gauthier, a leading member of the French Communist Party, Laurent Jésover, webmaster of the international ESF email list, and Michel Rousseau, from the unemployed grouping, Marches Européennes des Chômeurs.

The comrades from France complain that “what may seem like minor incidents ... are in fact serious.” Specifically they note the “verbal attacks or even abuse and threats” made during a seminar on headscarves, the cancellation of the Iraq session because of a “small group which wanted to ban one of the speakers”, the arrest of militants, in particular Javier, a member of the Babels team, the negative assessment by the Babels network, the domination of British speakers at the Sunday demonstration, and the charges made in the press of “young protesters” being “anti-semites” or “black block”. “Collectively”, the statement concludes, “we must learn the lessons of these experiences to ensure that such things don’t happen again, in particular for the next social forum in Greece.”

The statement issued by the Italians was signed, amongst others, by Piero Bernocchi (Cobas), Luciano Muhlbauer (Cobas and Rifondazione Comunista), Raffaella Bolini (from the cultural association Arci) and Salvatore Cannavò (editor of Rifondazione’s daily paper Liberazione. The comrades make similar complaints. They deplore the fact that those organising of the ESF were not “able to overcome the conflicts and tensions that surfaced during the whole process, in particular the difficult relationships between the political organisations and the unions and grassroots organisations”.

To that end the comrades say that they “intervened” so that the ESF opened its doors to the “hundred or so individuals who on Saturday afternoon organised the interruption of the plenary where mayor Livingstone was originally scheduled to appear”. Nevertheless, the comrades likewise regret that for the “first time” collectively agreed debates were not able to be held. They also stress their intervention on behalf of those held by the police at Kings Cross and arrested on Sunday’s demonstration, where the “common platform”, agreed in Brussels, was “obscured” by the slogans selected by the British organising committee.

“Democracy inside the movements”, admit the comrades, “is a complex issue”. But they make it plain that instead of differences only being seen as a problem, they should instead be made into the “motor of growth and enrichment”. That means “inclusion, listening and reciprocal respect”.

Incidentally these statements from France and Italy underline once more how ridiculous the charge against the Weekly Worker’s coverage of the various problems has been. Over the past year we have been accused of being “only interested in damaging the ESF” (Socialist Action’s Milena Buyum), of “launching a smear campaign just to get good copy for your rag sheet” (SWP’s Rahul Patel) and - of course - “almost bringing down the ESF” (Socialist Action’s Redmond O’Neill). Our crime? Pointing to exactly the deficiencies highlighted by the French and Italian comrades.

Reform plans
Just after the first ESF in 2002, the entire French delegation proposed that an elected leadership of 100 comrades from across Europe should take over the running of the ESF (see Weekly Worker November 28 2002). This was roundly defeated, including by comrades from Italy.

The comrades from France do not want to revive this plan. However, I am told that at the extraordinary ESF assembly on December 18-19 in Paris (which will discuss more generally the future direction of the ESF) they intend to put forward proposals for proper international working groups that could take on the organisation of our intervention in various areas: the fight against welfare cuts, the EU constitutional treaty, campaigns for joint trade union work, etc.

Many comrades across Europe are quite wary of proposals coming from France. Undoubtedly, this has to do with the influence of Bernard Cassen over the process there. The founder of Attac, he is quite clearly on the right of the ESF process and is seen as wanting to ‘institutionalise’ the ESF in a way similar to the World Social Forum.

Many comrades quite rightly warn of how the WSF has been set up in a totally undemocratic manner by the Workers Party of Brazil (PT): it simply announced an ‘international secretariat’ made up of seven organisations, which, for example, issued the ‘Charter of principles’ (that, amongst other things, bans political parties). This secretariat then took it upon itself to ‘invite’ others to the ‘international council’, including Bernard Cassen. Various things have since been voted upon, but the foundation of the structure is deeply undemocratic - mainly in order to secure the PT a position of control in years to come.

Hardly anybody criticises this in public, but quite clearly it is time to challenge the WSF, its undemocratic structures and many of its backward rules, which only slow down the coming together of the left: the banning of the open participation of political parties; the prohibition on organising joint actions or releasing statements in the name of the ESF; or the undemocratic consensus principle (which this year has more and more often been replaced by ‘indicative voting’).

But our opposition to the WSF’s lack of democracy should not lead us to throw out the long overdue baby of structural reforms with the bathwater. The proposals from France should be viewed in this light. Yes, beware of the political motives behind some proposals - but we should judge them on their merits in relation to their ability to move forward the ESF. Establishing proper working groups that can coordinate and plan European-wide actions and campaigns seems a very sensible idea. If anything, this is too little, too late. Comrades from the CPGB supported the initial French proposal for an elected leadership. While it was unlikely that we would have been elected onto it, it would have made the whole ESF process more transparent and accountable.

If we are against an elected leadership, then we must be prepared to accept that another kind of leadership will carry on deciding the fate of the ESF - this one has not been elected, though. There are about 20 comrades from across Europe who huddle up together to broker all the important deals and make all the crucial compromises. But they are not accountable to us. We have no way of challenging them, as they do not officially exist - they are just influential people who happen to talk to each other.

Opponents of such accountable structures often say that the ESF is a “space” where different movements can meet and discuss. But meet in order to do what exactly? Surely in such a space we want to debate our differences not for the sake of debating - but in order to overcome them (of course without crushing or silencing minority viewpoints). A space where, crucially, we come together to organise. Fighting together, we could be so much more effective than the sum of our parts.