Putting the ASF in order
By Charles Mutasa
The World Social Forum is one of the most significant civil and political initiatives of the past several decades. Since the first World Social Forum (WSF) was held in Porto Alegre in January 2001 in Porto Alegre, Brazil, as a counterpoint to the World Economic Forum held in Davos, Switzerland, its call for ‘Another World is Possible!’ has been echoing as an alternative to challenge the neoliberal order. This year’s gathering in Mumbai, India, between 16-21 January was the fourth edition.

Official statistics estimate that about 80 thousand people represented by 2 660 organisations from 132 countries participated. Others put the number of participants at 150 000. The Mumbai gathering was different from the previous WSF meetings. First, Mumbai as a venue was no place to romanticize about poverty, unlike Porto Alegre, where poverty can be hidden. Despite the fact that it is India’s financial capital, two-thirds of Mumbai's people live in indescribably dirty shantytowns, where there are no water, taps or toilets in most homes. Taking a walk through Mumbai, one could not afford to ignore the signs of a sick economy.

Secondly, bringing the WSF to India afforded an opportunity for most poor Asians who could not in the past meet the cost of flying and living in the rather posh Brazilian city of Porto Alegre to have a feel of what happens at such world jamborees. One can safely say the majority of those who attended were from India and its neighbouring countries. Besides the usually refined criticism about the lack of transparency and democracy in the World Trade Organisation, International Monetary Fund and World Bank that characterizes these meetings, this time the majority, mostly Asian delegates, came, spoke, sung, danced, marched and denounced problems associated with the caste system, war, cultural imperialism, deep social and economic injustices and capitalism. They condemned the “Bushes and Blairs” of this world for the allied forces’ presence in Iraq, hailed socialism/communism and condoned Dalitism, as well as denounced the apartheid regime of Israel. Issues about dwelling rights and liveable cities, the caste system and “untouchable” Indians, the unsustainable situation of debt in poor countries of the world, and the coercive use of force by governments, multinational corporations and international financial institutions dominated the discussions.

The third difference was the African Social Forum (ASF) scenario. Of prime importance, Africans made a break-through in terms of their numbers at the WSF. Compared to the past three gatherings I attended, the Mumbai edition recorded the highest attendance of African civil society activists in the history of the WSF. I think around 350 to 400 Africans residing and working in Africa were in Mumbai. This was a big enough group to put the continent’s problems across. The ASF under the leadership of its secretariat in Senegal produced a daily paper, Africa Aflame, that captured and took into consideration Africa’s uniqueness and issues.

The heavy presence of Africans at the WSF in Mumbai was also taken by others to be a time to put the ASF house in order, with a feeling that greater democratisation of the ASF secretariat was needed. What made issues tense for the ASF camp was not the lack of brilliant and contemporary issues to talk about. It was the mere absence of good organisation and recognition of various talents among colleagues. The failure by the secretariat based in Senegal to host a regional ASF meeting prior to Mumbai was in itself a blunder as it left the camp disorganised and exposed the lack of transparency and accountability on the part of the secretariat and the non-functioning of a Steering Committee supposed to check on the secretariat. Although the secretariat managed to send some delegates to Mumbai, there was no transparent and accountable means of selecting the delegates. The workshop speakers have been the same since the first meeting in Bamako, thrice in Porto Alegre and once in Addis Abba.

What was and is still mind-boggling is the pessimism among colleagues that Africans cannot host the WSF in 2006. This of course emanates from some quarters where people feel that there are more cracks within the African camp than necessary. The ASF Steering Committee has also not been very active in mobilising regional and national meetings in the continent, which need to become popularised.

Needless to say that the ASF needs to have its priorities right and needs a more legitimate leadership. There is a lot of opportunity for social movements to push for political and economic changes in Africa that many of us believe will not come on a silver plate. Whoever thinks that he has Africa at heart in the ASF must lead by ensuring that national forums and regional forums are the bases upon which the voice of the voiceless is heard.

* Charles Mutasa is a Research & Policy Analyst with AFRODAD, a research lobby and advocacy regional organisation seeking to secure positive policy changes to redress Africa's Debt and development crisis. Mutasa attended the WSF as a ASF delegate and is a facilitator of the Southern Africa Social Forum(SASF).