10.05.2006
Extremely pleasant, but...
Over 35,000 people attended the fourth European Social Forum in Athens from May 4-7. While the organisation was generally good and the event enjoyable, the open question remains: what is the point of this biennial carnival - apart from deepening divisions amongst the left in the host country? Tina Becker reports
There is, of course, nothing wrong with staging a left festival. In fact, this one was extremely pleasant. All 270 seminars and workshops took place under the same roof (an old airport by the seaside) and the long lunch break allowed participants plenty of time to browse through the hundreds of stalls put on by organisations from across Europe.
There were many good meetings in which the need for the organisational unity of the left was debated. For example, there were half a dozen gatherings where the various existing ESF networks discussed joint campaigns and days of action (for instance, there are plans to organise an ESF-style conference on the fight against privatisation).
It was again very encouraging to see how many people have been following the Weekly Worker's critical coverage of the ESF and by the end of the Friday we were already just about sold out of papers, back issues and books.
However, being a member of an organisation that tries to start all its meetings on time, it was slightly disconcerting to see the translators wandering in about half an hour late for the morning sessions - just before the technical support and the speakers arrived. Almost all meetings in the morning started an hour late. But then, the relaxed and warm attitude of our Greek comrades more than made up for the few little problems (another one was the real lack of any decent food and drink at the event - you had to queue for a long time for a soggy sandwich).
These things aside, the event was in itself worthwhile. But surely such a carnival should be the cherry on the cake - the culmination of serious political work, not the only thing we do. The ESF is currently the only real avenue that exists for the cooperation of the European left. The European Left Party, on the contrary, is nothing more than a minimalist lash-up on the basis of the lowest common denominator, its main purpose being to secure extra funding from the European parliament.
So, measured by what the left in Europe actually needs - ie, the highest organisational unity in a party we can achieve - the event was rather disappointing. This is of course not the fault of the Greek Social Forum, the key organising force of this year's ESF. Rather, the main working class organisations across Europe are criminally negligent in relation to our historic tasks.
This is perhaps best illustrated by the way the supposedly non-existent 'leadership' of the ESF acted over the five days. Between 30 and 50 people (most of them members, though not always 'official' delegates, of political parties) met every day for at least three hours. Formally, they were discussing the Assembly of Social Movements (ASM), which took place on the Sunday and is not officially part of the ESF (as well as the venue for our next ESF - see below). In reality, they were talking about what is likely to happen in Europe over the next 24 months - ie, until the next ESF.
No joint action
The ASM was set up by our Italian comrades just before the first ESF in Florence 2002, in order to circumvent the ban on the ESF taking political decisions or organising united action. The coordinators of the World Social Forum imposed this measure on all regional forums - in order not to lose the support of the various NGOs, trade unions and other forces that are dependent on maintaining good relations with their governments. So it was an ASM that called for the massive anti-war demonstrations on February 15 2003 (undoubtedly, they would have taken place anyway, but the ASM helped spread them).
The ASM, then, has some potential power and it is not surprising that the main left parties send representatives to its preparatory meetings. Yet the comrades are not prepared to use it as an effective instrument for the organisation of our forces across Europe.
The ASM evening meetings wasted hours haggling over a text that in reality will have very little or no impact at all. Why? Because our joint actions are so small and insignificant that they will have virtually no impact. Instead of deciding what kind of campaigns the left across Europe should organise, the ASM evening meetings fished around for events that are being organised anyway in one European country or another. We then simply put the ASM stamp on it.
A proposal by the CPGB's Anne Mc Shane to organise a "day of action in support of migrants" was more or less ignored. She suggested that the European left could very effectively highlight its opposition to 'fortress Europe' by drawing attention to the plight of foreign workers and refugees and by pushing the campaign for 'residence citizenship' - a campaign that in effect fights for a Europe without borders.
But this suggestion fell on deaf ears - just like our demand to finally transform this 'non-existent leadership' into a real one. If it were elected (either by an ESF preparatory assembly or at the ESF itself), we could insist that such a body be held to account and open to scrutiny. The ESF participants who complained to us about the lack of joint actions would then actually know who to take it up with. Only Workers Power agreed with our proposal.
At the moment, there is only one way to find out what the unofficial leadership body is up to: you have to identify one of the people on it and then nag them until they tell you details of the next meeting. Sure enough, these meetings are then "open to everybody" - you just have to know when and where they take place.
This is a disgraceful practice. Until the left learns that our movement needs democracy, transparency and accountability, we will achieve nothing worthwhile.
Parties allowed
One of the most positive developments was that for the first time political parties were allowed to participate openly - not just in the Greek organising committee, but also in the seminars and workshops held at the ESF. Until now, representatives of parties had to pretend to be members of this or that 'movement' or 'network' in order to be listed as speakers in the programme.
The ban on political parties was 'ordered' by the World Social Forum in 2001 in its 'Charter of principles' - which, rather ironically, was drawn up mainly by members of the Workers Party in Brazil. No distinction was made between revolutionary communist organisations on the one hand and on the other hand Tony Blair's Labour Party or general Musharaf's military government in Pakistan: "Neither party representations nor military organisations shall participate in the forum. Government leaders and members of legislatures who accept the commitments of this charter may be invited to participate in a personal capacity," the paragraph in question reads.
This is of course daft, if one considers the role of socialist and communist parties and groups across Europe. They have been at the heart of many mass movements, especially in France, Spain and Italy. The foundations for the ESF were laid by the huge demonstrations that took place in Genoa and Rome. The first ESF was held in Florence, precisely because the Italian workers' movement is so highly organised and political and has produced Rifondazione Comunista. The second was to a large extent organised by the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire and the Communist Party of France, while the Socialist Workers Party acted as loyal foot-soldiers for London mayor Ken Livingstone in putting on our third forum.
Therefore it was very refreshing to finally see speakers from Rifondazione, the German Linkspartei.PDS and the Greek Synapsismos being advertised as such. This does symbolise a certain change in European politics: the buzz around the 'social movements' has certainly died down - in favour of a more honest turn towards the political parties of the left. That should facilitate a better examination of their role, rather than pretending they do not exist in our movement. For example, Rifondazione's turn to government is highly problematic, to say the least - its leader, Fausto Bertinotti, was elected speaker of the chamber of deputies at the end of April. Other developments, like the formation of a new joint party in Germany, should be welcomed by all socialists across Europe.
Interestingly though, not all political parties chose to openly participate in the forum. It will not come as a big surprise to readers of the Weekly Worker that members of the SWP's International Socialist Tendency decided to continue hiding under various fig leaves - despite the fact that the SWP officially favours the open participation of parties.
IST leader Alex Callinicos appears as Globalise Resistance; long-standing SWP member Mike Gonzales was advertised as "university professor of Latin American literature"; Jonathan Neale these days never takes off his Campaign against Climate Change hat and Chris Nineham is of course "the representative of the British anti-war movement" (ie, the SWP-run Stop the War Coalition). The Greek SWP section, SEK, only puts on meetings under the name of its 'anti-capitalist' front organisation, Genoa 2001. Obviously the comrades think that their own sect-projects are not particularly attractive to young people from across Europe - and they are probably right.
The SEK has played a typically obstructive role in the organisation of the ESF. "Anything they cannot run they try to destroy" is how one member of the Greek Social Forum described it to me. The SEK formed a very small, but vocal minority in the ESF organising committee, which was dominated by a number of trade unions and particularly the Greek Social Forum (including the centre-left party Synapsismos, a large number of leftwing and socialist groups and various campaigns).
The SEK vetoed a range of decisions by refusing to give their 'consensus' - though of course officially the comrades are in favour of taking decisions by a majority vote. Just not when they are the minority (see interview with Panayotis Yulis in Weekly Worker January 12). At a rather dull seminar on 'The future of the movements', Alex Callinicos had very little to say on the subject, but concentrated instead on rallying the SEK comrades present: He complained about "a split in the movement" which found its expression in the Greek organisers putting on "big meetings like this one" at the same time as "important seminars" (for "important seminars" read IST-organised events).
Hostilities between the SEK and the rest of the left were certainly present before the preparations for the ESF started - but they took on a different character over the last 12 months or so (which maybe explains why the stewards at the Sunday demonstration were happy to answer the IST's attempt at sabotage with their fists - see article opposite).
As can be expected, a handful of diehard defenders of the 'social movements' have demanded that parties be banned once more. On the ESF email discussion list, they have used the presence of a banner of Marx, Lenin and Stalin - which was hung rather prominently right above the entrance to the forum - to kick off a debate on the subject. At the first day of the ESF, a group of people actually climbed up the building and took down the banner. The Turkish Maoist group MLKP complained to the Greek organisers, who agreed that the banner could be hung.
Judging by the silence of the ESF leadership on this matter, though, I do not think that the 'official' ban will be re-introduced. Instead, it looks like it will be left to the organisers of the next ESF to make that decision. This is wholly unsatisfactory, of course - we need a clear commitment that political parties will be able to play a full and open part.
Next ESF
That brings me to the delicate matter of the next, our fifth, forum. The bad news: there is still no venue. The ESF 'leadership' tried in its evening meetings to persuade members of the Belgian Social Forum to organise the next forum in Brussels. I venture to predict that this will not happen, for one simple reason: there is no big political party involved in the BSF that could actually pull it off. The Belgian comrades I have been speaking to seem similarly pessimistic.
However, comrades from Italy have indicated that they would be prepared to stage the next forum if no other host can be found.
This lack of enthusiasm symbolises the crisis which is rapidly approaching - the ESF cannot continue for much longer in its present format. This crisis could be resolved in a negative manner - ie, the ESF could simply wither away. This option is far from unrealistic, as many leading ESF participants confirmed to me. There is an awful lot of work involved in putting on the ESF - with very few tangible results.
Alternatively, though, the organisations involved in the ESF could use this opportunity to dramatically turn around our cooperation and thereby resolve our crisis positively. The programme the CPGB has been putting forward from day one is still as politically necessary as it was five years ago. We will again present these proposals at the next ESF preparatory assembly in September, where the future of the ESF will be one of the key debates.
l A democratically elected and accountable leadership of the ESF that can take decisions and act. All meetings at all levels to be open to observers.
l A clear commitment that welcomes the full participation of political parties. For the open clash of ideas in front of the whole movement.
l An end to the 'consensus principle'. It is undemocratic, inflexible and holds us back. For the right of the majority to decide.
l Structures that allow us to debate a joint programme to challenge the Europe of capital and its bureaucrats, as well as our own national ruling classes.
l The recognition that coordinating our campaigns and activities is not just a nice idea, but vital. We need continent-wide campaigns, strikes and demonstrations against cuts, privatisations, war and all attacks on our class and the democratic rights it has won.
l Towards a Communist Party of the EU. Not bureaucratic centralist, but democratic centralist: transparency, accountability and the right to publish and circulate minority viewpoints are crucial.