WSF: In search of a deeper dialogue beyond Addis and Bamako

Africa in search of a deeper dialogue beyond Addis and Bamako

Reflections on Africa and the Mumbai 2004 World Social Forum

By Thomas DEVE*

Introduction
The African presence at the World Social Forum (WSF) in India remarkably
improved the continent's chances of becoming a leading and formidable bloc
in the global justice movement mobilising under the slogan "Another world is
possible".

Armed with two big banners "Africa is not for sale" and "solutions to
Africa's problems are in Africa" the African Social Forum (ASF), which is
the prime mobilizing entity for African participation in WSF, joined
thousands of other activists who thronged Mumbai to register their protests
against neo-liberalism and proudly proclaim that the World Social Forum is
not an organisation, not a united front platform, but "...an open meeting
place for reflective thinking, democratic debate of ideas, formulation of
proposals, free exchange of experiences and inter-linking for effective
action, by groups and movements of civil society that are opposed to
neo-liberalism and to domination of the world by capital and any form of
imperialism, and are committed to building a society centred on the human
person". (From the WSF Charter of Principles).

This must be viewed against the background that next to the WSF venue,
another group known as Mumbai Resistance (MR) was organising a parallel
forum in the Bhagat Singh veterinary college, and had announced
"...Critiques of the World Social Forum and its antiglobalisation conference
have taken an organisational form."

Calling for more militant resistance, as part of their strategy to sharpen
the anti-imperialist struggle worldwide, the group reduced WSF to a puppet
of the bourgeois state and big business, simply because its charter excludes
representatives of national liberation movements.

Most major roads to Nesco grounds, the venue of mainstream WSF activities
and all bridges in Goregoan were visibly endowed with MR graffiti and the
most appealing of these writings on the wall was "Debate alone cannot change
this world".

This expose was an interesting entry into Mumbai and will definitely affect
our debates in Africa on the future and role of the Social Forum.

Having been energised and nourished by anti-capitalist sentiments and
resolutely positioned to fight neo-liberalism, most popular forces and
progressive organisations under the auspices of the African Social Forum who
managed to come to Mumbai will have a lot to discuss and write on, given the
two tendencies they confronted in India.

But most importantly, they have to put in place concrete programmes of
action and instigate debate on what is required for Africa to bid for
hosting the World Social Forum in the near future regardless of the fact
that MR 2004 now caricatures the global forum as W$F.

Reviewing the Agenda
The challenges for Africa became clear during the African seminar which was
occasionally punctuated by heated debates and fireworks in which delegates
sought for a deeper dialogue beyond Addis and Bamako declarations.
The first of these challenges arose when Oupa Lehulere from South Africa's
Khanya College requested that the agenda be amended so that the meeting
concentrates on how Africa could turn its perspectives against
neo-liberalism into practical programmes of action to mobilize and build
movements on the ground.
The circulated agenda covered the following:
Overview and objectives of the African seminar by Taoufik Ben Abdallah.
1) NEPAD and the African Union (Mohau Pheko and Yash Tandon)
2) Cancun and beyond (Dot Keet)
3) Debt and International Financial Institutions' policies (Demba
Moussa Dembele)
4) The farming issue (Ibrahima Coulibaly)
5) Peace and conflicts (Bakary Fofana)
6) Culture (Aminata Traore)
7) The gender issue (Sara Longwe & Elizabeth Eilor)
8) Activities of ASF membership (overview of national and sub-regional
initiatives undertaken in 2003 or planned for 2004)
9) Seminar on the relationships between social movements in Africa,
Asia and Latin America with Samir Amin, Mohau Pheko, Aminata Traoré, Walden
Bello, Vandana Shiva and Roberto Bissio billed to be some of the speakers.
10) And finally, an exchange of views on "the African social movement
and the WSF" where WSF organising committee members from India and Brazil
would interact with the ASF.
Lehulere argued that this programme should create room for a special
discussion of exactly how Africa organises itself, its networks and give
each other support in-between the international meetings, World and African
Social Forum meetings.
Efforts to debate the issue in the 300-seater hall which was packed to
capacity were thwarted by trade unionist Hassan Sunmonu who argued that an
agenda presented before him provided the basis for approaching the Mumbai
seminar and any other issues people were raising should be restricted to an
"African" audience only, adding that preferably, such matters have to be
discussed on the African soil.
But some delegates were not satisfied with this response and indicated that
Mumbai had attracted a big number of Africans and no such opportunity was
available in the near future on the continent, an argument that forced some
Steering Committee members to caucus and establish if a venue could be found
in Mumbai for such a meeting.
Before this exercise was completed, George Dor from Jubilee South Africa,
sought clarification on the matter, but was ruled out of order by Sunmonu,
who in turn attracted the wrath of some delegates who felt that he was being
too harsh.
Arguing that a chair could not be ruled out of order by the public led to a
temporary disruption of the meeting's proceedings, as there was some
heckling and walkouts.
"If we cannot be heard here in an open forum, where else do you want us to
speak?" murmured some delegates.
One delegate from Kenya jumped to the podium and bawled out "African issues
cannot be discussed in Mumbai!!!"
His sentiment resonated with those of the chair and was not ruled out of
order despite the agreement that all issues to be raised from the floor were
now directed at the ongoing discussion on NEPAD and the African Union.
Mondli Hlatshwayo another delegate from South Africa who had been noted as a
contributor to the NEPAD debate by the chair never got round to speak,
leaving many wondering whether the chair was panicking over the enthusiasm
of South Africans to intervene.
Ironically, the lead resource persons, Mohau Pheko and Yash Tandon on the
NEPAD panel were from Southern Africa.
Their presentations and barrages on NEPAD not only exposed weaknesses of the
development paradigm the programme is rooted in, but also proceeded to state
what should be done.
Solutions offered and action they proposed, ranged from slowing down
Africa's integration into the global economy to reorienting economies of the
continent so that they satisfy basic needs of the people before placing
emphasis on linking economic growth to export performance.
The controversial NEPAD is closely associated with South African President
Thabo Mbeki.
"What is wrong with you South Africans?" quizzed one journalist from Kenya.
Efforts to influence the agenda of Mumbai had started well before getting to
India.
It has been learnt that Trevor Ngwane from South Africa had written to the
African Social Forum Secretariat suggesting that the Mumbai Africa seminar
considers some of the main issues that came about during the campaign
against the World Summit on Sustainable Development that was held in
Johannesburg, South Africa in August 2002.
In addition to his request, he endorsed the strategic proposals made in
Maputo, Mozambique binding the African Social Forum to hold a meeting that
could deliberate on some of the thorny issues related to mobilising Africa.
" We fully endorse the decision of the Maputo meeting (held in December
2003) that the ASF should, in addition to the seminar, have a meeting to
discuss organizational and programmatic issues, namely, the structure and
function of the ASF, the role of regions, the role of the Secretariat,
programmes to build and support social movements, etc.
"We suggest that this meeting is very important and should be
well-advertised to the relevant comrades and be given enough time to deal
with ASF matters. This is especially so in the light of the failure of the
annual ASF meeting to sit in 2004. We feel that it is very important to
discuss how we will practically build the struggle to defend the African
masses from neo-liberal attacks in between the international meetings we
attend," the letter noted.

A response from the Secretariat noted the concerns, but highlighted that it
was too late to make any amendments because this was an agenda that would be
reflected on the registered events and printed version of WSF programme.

Part of the note read, "Regarding the Seminar, as you know, the agenda was
discussed in Maputo. We ask speakers to focus on activities that took place
on the ground.
As for a discussion on the future of the ASF, it was decided in Maputo to
have a special meeting on it next April. I agree that these are important
issues that we should discuss."

It is interesting to note that the framework document for the Mumbai meeting
spells out clearly that the purpose of the African seminar was "to enable
African participants to express their opinions on issues of concern to the
continent and exchange their views and experiences. It also aims to make
African issues more visible to the media and other components of the world
movement."

The above pronouncement and call to Africa sounded fine before the "washing
of dirty linen in public" doctrine was invoked as a way of defending the
programme.

Inside the seminar, the presentations proceeded as outlined in the programme
and the African seminar was once again running as a "festival of good
intentions" which Outtara Diakalia, a delegate from Cote d' Ivoire, felt was
stuck in some routine discourse that seemed not to be changing.

"We seem to be having the same discourse. What happened to our action
programme and resolutions?" he noted.

If one constantly attends some of these meetings and is exposed to the same
speakers all the time, there is need to listen to them much more closely.

When something new comes out, one might miss it because you think you have
heard it all before.

As much as the presentations sounded like another round of Addis and Bamako
and even the 2003 African seminar in Porto Allegre, they recognised the new
issues and challenges coming out of the struggles versus neo-liberalism, the
latest triumph being the resistance in Cancun.

There were open calls to set up democratic institutions, challenge
dictatorships and most importantly, resist imperialist manipulation of
Africa's political leaderships through processes like the African Peer
Review mechanism in NEPAD.

For the latter intervention, South Africa was cited as being manipulated by
the British and Americans in its handling of the political crisis in
Zimbabwe.

Beyond the Issues
The second day of the African seminar proceeded without any incidents.

The seminar focussed peace and conflicts, culture and gender. There was not
enough time to deal with report backs which were deferred to day three.

In terms of developing correct and compelling analysis on global trends and
neo-liberalism, the ASF has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that it is
a powerhouse and has the resources that can be competently deployed to any
space in WSF.

The big challenge it has to confront relates to the leadership issues,
mandates and representation of its various entities. This becomes an urgent
matter when one considers the fact that it has been accepted that social
movements in their diversity should be mobilized with the view of making
them a significant player in the process of building "Another world."

The ASF must now demonstrate its willingness and capacity to mobilise mass,
people's and social organisations to articulate and work for vibrant
progressive political processes through nurturing worker, peasant, youth,
cultural, women's movements and dialogue about these ideas with people from
across the world.

This process has started and the Secretariat has something to boast of in
this respect, but it will always be confronted by representatives of social
movements who have openly voiced their disapproval of NGOs playing a leading
in the WSF process.

In the few instances that I have witnessed activists discussing this
question, one was left in no doubt that Taoufik Ben Abdallah who has offered
to house the Secretariat in Enda, Senegal will be subjected to sniper-type
attacks and plots until such a time that the ASF is decentralised to an
extent that he will no longer be the sole reference point for the
pan-African processes.

This explains why a plethora of documents and analysis on ASF will float
around and attract no response from the Secretariat because they will have
been read as consisting "personal attacks", a myth which we now seek to
debunk as we challenge each other to come out in the open and voice our
concerns without fear or favour.

Related to this, it is anticipated that the Secretariat will be mandated and
empowered to have enough personnel that can power communication,
systematically collect and organise material from various national forums,
disseminate alternative analysis, proposals and strategies of resistance to
neo-liberalism that have come out of the forums.

The above will be difficult to achieve if our emphasis is placed on fussing
and fighting with each other. We need to spend less time on agonising and
start to organise. This will be a major challenge to my compatriots in
Southern Africa who have remained outside the ASF process, but are always
present in the annual WSF.

Hosting WSF in Africa
Inspired by the presence of more than three hundred delegates in Mumbai,
brutally frank and explosive exchanges on Africa's position in the global
struggle, some members of the India organising committee and World Social
Forum International Council (IC) found it appropriate to declare their
readiness to support the continent in the event that its delegates seek to
bid for hosting the world event in the near future.

These commitments were made against the background that Mumbai, the venue
for WSF 2004, is a cradle of the Dalit (Untouchables) and left movement in
India growing out of the bustling streets of the city that have for long
provided a platform for democratic ideas, not withstanding the fact that the
same city has experienced attempts by fundamentalist parties to erode the
social fabric.

In the words of Brazilian activist, Candido Grzybowski, the world needs a
world social forum with an African face, guided by democratic processes and
free from governments and other forces that might seek to manipulate the
exercise.

Grzybowski had the opportunity to seat in a session where African delegates
were receiving reports on continental activities inspired by the spirit of
the Addis Ababa consensus document which is closely linked the Bamako
declarations, embodying the spirit of Africa's anti-globalisation activism
and foundations for launching a struggle versus neo-liberalism.

For a number of activists who have been closely associated with the world
and continental Forum processes, the issue of bidding should not be raised
within our ranks. They argue that our social movements have not developed
the requisite linkages and vibrancy that would match the energy often
associated with Porto Alegre and now Mumbai.

Some even fear that Africa's organisational weaknesses will be exposed and
cripple the growth of the process in Africa.

Entertaining these fears would have made sense before going to Mumbai, but
now it is too late because some social movements and anti-globalisation
activists see Africa as another bloc that can move and shake the imperial
forts now being spawned the world over.

Why?

The issue had been discussed in the mid-December 2003 Maputo meeting where
it was resolved that Profs.Edward Oyugi and Yash Tandon, Sara Longwe and
Taoufik Ben Abdallah initiate the discourse in Africa. While some felt that
it was too early to take firm positions on the matter, others retorted that
the continent must have some direction on how to tackle the subject in case
it is raised in Mumbai.

As an initial step to review Africa's capacity, the Secretariat advised that
it was working tirelessly to strengthen the continent's representation in
the IC. All present agreed with this approach and recommended that many
organisations as possible should familiarise themselves with the principles
guiding the IC and participate in its meetings so that Africa's voice is
strengthened.

It was noted that while a number of people in the ASF steering committee
were expected to serve in the IC, many had not attended the organ's planning
meetings consistently.

Recognising this weakness, the Secretariat decided to develop south-south
linkages whose labour bore fruits when Candido Grzybowski decided to jostle
Africa into the hosting bid.

The same concern was addressed in Maputo with specific reference to Africa's
social movements representation in the European Social Forum for example.

It was anticipated that further dialogue on this issue was going to be held
in Mumbai and iron out some of the problems the Secretariat had identified.

Missing links in the African Seminar

In the presentation, "Overview and objectives of the African seminar",
Taoufik Ben Abdallah rushed through his notes and missed the opportunity to
present on behalf of the Secretariat "The state of the African Social Forum"
and why it was not possible to hold a continental meeting as has been the
case during the last two preparations for WSF.

The information was there. Some of the arguments were put in the document
outlining the logic of the African seminar in Mumbai. In practical terms,
this was what formed the basis for organising the seminar on the third day
and explains to a large extent why the issues that were thrown out on the
first day found their way back.

Unfortunately for day one of the African seminar, most of the "matters
arising" were often sneaked into panel discussions as either "points of
order" or "process issues". In the end, it appeared like most session chairs
did not have the capacity to manage the divergences because they resorted to
technicalities to dismiss "dissenting voices" when in fact this was a well
orchestrated political programme as was demonstrated on day three.

This gave an initial impression that ASF was heavily divided and a certain
group of people were in Mumbai to create chaos and confusion.

Subsequently, those who felt they were being shut out, sought to organise
politically against the technical knockouts resulting in a more spirited
engagement on day three.

Logistical challenges and space for Africa

Other important things to note at this stage were the logistical challenges
encountered by the ASF Secretariat in India.

Despite the fact that there was an advance party in Mumbai to deal with
logistics, the hosts left some ends too loose to the extent that at the last
minute, Taoufik Ben Abdallah found himself running round like a headless
chicken in his efforts to sort out issues like equipment for simultaneous
translation which the organisers had promised would be put in place at the
earmarked venues.

Absence of translation facilities disrupted the set time schedules and gave
the impression that time management was poor.

On two occasions, proceedings had to stop abruptly because the ASF had
overshoot its time limit and other groups were demanding to use the same
venue.

At the media centre where the Secretariat had secured space to house the
editorial team that produced Flamme d' Afrique, the ASF daily newspaper,
everything was again loaded onto Taoufik's shoulders and all efforts to
offload some of these responsibilities proved futile as the organisers
insisted that they needed his physical presence in order for some of the
team's requests to be met.

In future, Africa should just secure its own space and make sure that all
facilities are specified and secured well in advance to suit their
requirements.

Similar challenges were encountered in Brazil in 2002 where proceedings took
longer when we failed to secure simultaneous translation for the three
working languages, English, French and Portuguese.

The Action Aid team from Africa had warned us in December during the Maputo
strategic planning meeting and insisted that Africa must have its own tent
and guaranteed spaces.

And even in Mumbai, they were still asking, " where is the Africa solidarity
tent?"

But now with the benefit of hindsight, one does not hesitate to recommend
that in future, we must secure our own space for the duration of the Forum
in addition to the display stand, which by the way served as a very
important reference point for Africa in Mumbai.

What should have been done?
Since we had many people from Africa attending WSF for the first time in
Mumbai who were not sponsored by ASF, it would have been prudent to give
them a brief history and organisational structure of the ASF on the first
day of the seminar.

And for those who were not privileged enough to have a continental picture
of ASF activities but were involved since Bamako or Addis, early
interventions in this area would have helped those present to appreciate the
context in which one section of the Forum was demanding a change in the
programme and requesting that the meeting deals with ways of enhancing
accountability on the part of the Secretariat and the Steering Committee.

These are not new issues in the history of the Forum.

If we look back to the July 2002 Report of the Steering Committee of the
African Social Forum meeting held in Port Shepstone, South Africa, some of
these issues were raised and an action-oriented programming guideline was
spelt out.

The meeting spelt out criteria and governance issues the ASF is supposed to
deal with and how the thematic representatives are expected to feed back to
their respective constituencies.

In the hosting of the pan African meeting before going to any World Social
Forum, several criteria were outlined for the selection of the organising
country and these were stated as:
- "The existence of an organised and dynamic local civil society
- Possibilities for the African Social Forum to interact with the
local social movement and strengthen it.
- The existence of good quality logistic conditions
- Access facility by air and affordable transport costs
- And favourable political context that will facilitate, in
particular, the organisation of peaceful public events."

On financing the Forum and participating in World Social Forum: the
Secretariat will continue to deploy efforts to mobilise the resources
necessary for the organisation of the African Social Forum and support
participation to the World Social Forum. However, sub-regional and thematic
representatives should take the responsibility of mobilising most of the
funds required for that purpose.

Those serving in the organising committee should report on the state of
mobilisation and use of funds before rank and file members, their
organisation and their financial partners. They should also provide the same
information to the Committee.

On organisation of the Forum, it was reiterated that this should be highly
decentralised at the level of sub-regions and networks. The sub-regional and
thematic heads within the Committee should take their responsibility in the
organisation of the next Forum. At the same time, the local social movement
should be largely associated with the various preparatory phases.

On mobilising participants to the Forum, this should be done on the basis of
an enhanced balance between actors of social movements, sub-regions, and the
various thematic networks.

The parameters spelt out here set the foundation for the positions that
sealed the 2003 Addis Ababa consensus document where it is acknowledged,
"the Charter of Principles and Values ...will be the philosophical and moral
basis of our movement. It (The Addis Forum) has also proposed a number of
organisational mechanisms with the view to building a more democratic
African social movement."

It is on the basis of these vague "organisational mechanisms" that the
Southern African Social Forum almost failed to resolve how to deal with the
"delinquent" Addis Ababa six who were nominated to serve on the continental
steering committee as the engine of mobilising the region.

The Addis meeting deliberated on a document entitled "African Social Forum -
draft operational framework" which was meant to stimulate broad discussions
on the frequency of the Forum, governance through a regional committee,
which in turn would be serviced by an organising committee backed by a
Secretariat.

Among other things, it was proposed that the African Social Forum would
consist of:
-Conferences: to be organised by ASF structures
-Thematic workshops and seminars: to be organised by stakeholders
-Cultural events
-Events for specific groups: e.g. youth, women etc.

It would be greatly appreciated if the Secretariat could circulate a full
report from Addis or at least portions of it relating to this discussion
because this will help us root our post-Mumbai Africa-focussed discussions
to articulate what we deem constitutes "organisational mechanisms" referred
to in the Addis Ababa declaration.

Unfinished Debates
It should be recalled that in 2003, Mondli Hlatshwayo circulated his
reflections on ASF in a piece entitled "The African Social Forum-A tale of
two forces" wherein he concluded that:
"...The ASF has two distinct forces. There are those forces that are radical
in character. These forces are largely from Southern Africa. They have
attracted very few individuals and organizations in Kenya and Ethiopia. It
has to be said that these progressive forces were the minority in the ASF.

"Therefore there is a need to strengthen these forces in other regions of
Africa particularly in Francophone countries. The other forces are led by
NGOs that are not articulating the interests of the toiling masses. These
forces were in the majority in the ASF and they often used undemocratic
maneuvers to influence the political direction of the ASF. They want to
orientate the ASF towards the AU and other government type structures."

Guess who dared to challenge this?

It was Oupa Lehulere.

And it is instructive to note that he is the one who was perceived to be
"pelting" Taoufik Ben Abdallah in Mumbai and very few people knew that he
had issues with the ASF Secretariat arising from the way the Addis discourse
was handled.

He had sounded the warning shots long back, but unfortunately, his
sentiments were wished away and it never occurred to many that he would live
to resume the dialogue.

Oupa had this to say early last year,

"Let us not label each other and call each other names. Our mission is
clear. It is for the development of African peoples. There are many ways of
doing that and so there will always be people from different perspectives.

"To believe that the African Social Forum will be full of grassroots people,
only anti-globalization people, only anti-capitalists is to misunderstand
the complexity of Africa. So, Let us focus on ideas and how we can move the
ideas forward. Yes, of course it is a tale of two forces. Who will win and
why? Let us sharpen the discussions from each side and move towards a
consensus as in the Calabash African style and not in the roman winner take
all!
Let us plan well for the next regional ASF focusing on ideas, issues and
consensus on discussions between the different forces (or whatever you want
to call them)."

It is clear that he and other like-minded activists would be aggrieved
parties if Africans fail to hold the ASF as this is the Forum where they had
mobilized their forces to use as a battle ground for winning hearts and
minds around political choices and action they are articulating.

As Southern Africans prepared for the Zambia-hosted regional Social Forum
which was subsequently held in November 2003, they found themselves
confronting the politics of organizing the ASF and indirectly reviving the
unfinished business from ASF 2003.

Davie Malungisa from the Zimbabwe Coalition on Debt and Development
cautioned stakeholders to plan within the context of WSF principles and
noted what he thought was wrong with ASF.

"We need to give due attention to the issue of defining the agenda. It is my
belief that the Zambian team only constitute the hosting country and there
is need for their decisions to be take in the context of policy definition
through the team that was chosen in Addis and ensure that we are not
starting an entirely new process divorced from the World and Africa Social
Forums. ...I also hope that the Southern Africa Social Forum is not a
proposal about hosting a Conference, like what the Africa Social Forum has
been doing in the past two years. Let's have a real PEOPLE-BASED regional
Social Forum that might one day form the basis of a World Social Forum
hosting."

He argued further that "The Forum, of necessity, must be openly planned for
and avoid the cheap and narrow politicking that we are seeing at the Africa
Social Forum; we need a sound process that will address our agenda for the
NEPAD/AU debate and how we inform and engage our solidarity partners on the
way forward. The counting that we need to do is; how many thousands will
attend the Forum; mass mobilization, creativity and ideological clarity must
define the nature of our forum and its uniqueness will be defined by how we
make it a truly Southern Africa Social Forum with some clear messages to the
SADC leaders and tell them that never again are we going to sleep whilst
they peer review each other and legitimizing human butchery in the region. I
will throw in some issues and contradictions in the movement. Solidarity,
mobilization and principles is our only way forward. Thanks to Thomas and
EPP for introducing this debate, it is better to debate and fail to resolve
an issue than resolving an issue without debate; we leave the latter to
Mafia and Bushmasters.

"Comrades, let us be brutally honest to offer clear class issues so that we
polish contentious points, avoid experimenting while the people we purport
to represent are dying from preventable diseases!" concluded Malungisa.

These are very tough and mean words, but ironically coming from people and
forces that were to drive serious processes that saw Southern Africa
becoming the only region which hosted a regional forum in Africa. It is also
interesting to note that their forum broadly identified the Addis Ababa
recommended governance structures as inadequate when it comes to responding
to the need to build another Africa within another world order. Hence the
deviation from "Another Africa is possible" to "This is our time. Another
Africa is in the making!!! in their Forum communiqué.

Back to the African Seminar

Reports on the final day of the African seminar in Mumbai were meant to
reflect on social forum experiences of Southern Africa, Niger, Morocco,
Cameroon, Zimbabwe, Guinea Conakry, Kenya, Mozambique, Mauritius, Senegal,
Sudan and Egypt.

The session was intended to get a sense of how Africa was organising its
social forces, relating with the African Social Forum Secretariat processes,
mobilisation strategies, and framework of ideas versus those in the World
Social Forum charter.

These issues were all going to dovetail into matters related to
organisational space and lessons learnt.

Not everybody managed to present.

Realising that time was not on his side, the chair Prof. Edward Oyugi from
Kenya, sought guidance from the floor on how best the programme could be
changed in order to accommodate guest speakers from India and Brazil who
could not stay for long as they had commitments elsewhere.

The good intention backfired.

Others wanted all reports to be made first while others felt that a pattern
had emerged from earlier interventions and any other reporting was not going
to change the issues, a situation that created chaos.

Finally, the chair managed to create space for the guests to speak.

It was at this point that Grzybowski dropped the bombshell for Africa "Are
you ready to host the WSF in 2006?"

After his departure, the subsequent debate on process issues pitted the
"South African voice" and their allies against a visibly defined West
Africa, but predominantly Francophone bloc.

They accused the Secretariat of being undemocratic and alleged that its
programme for Mumbai had veered from the positions and recommendations
developed during a consultative process that was held during December in
Maputo, Mozambique.

An intervention on the Maputo issues by Thomas Deve helped chart a way
forward as he noted that the Maputo process had deliberated on strengthening
the African Social Forum and recommended that a post-Mumbai meeting be held
specifically for the steering committee, strategic partners and any other
stakeholder in the forum process. This is where issues of ASF frequency,
Secretariat and other processes were to be scrutinized.

Dubbed the Africa-wide consultation meeting, the proceedings in Maputo
covered "The African Social Forum in the context of Mumbai", Country and
Regional Social Forum Reports (Mozambique, Southern Africa, East Africa,
West Africa, North Africa, Central Africa),
"Challenges of organising social movements, CSOs and social mobilisation
within the African Social Forum", review of the Bamako Declaration by
Charles Mutasa, Addis Ababa Consensus Document by Trevor Ngwane and "Life
after Cancun" with special reference to issues arising from the Africa Trade
Network 6th Annual Review and Strategy meeting held in Accra, Ghana; Views
from India by Pik Murthy,
"Collaborative Framework for African CSOs, Social Movements and cooperating
partners in Mumbai" and finally, Logistics for the World Social Forum.

Some semblance of order emerged when it was announced that the ASF
Secretariat will organise a special meeting in Africa to address these
issues some time in April. On a related note, a Mozambique-based association
of farmers, UNAC offered to host a southern-Africa review meeting to deal
with the same issues in early March.

Whither Africa?
The African Social Forum has grown in stature and can now meet IC criteria
required for an entity to be seriously considered to play a leading role in
the convening of the annual global meeting that parallels the Davos World
Economic Forum.

In my opinion, the main one was the ASF role in strengthening and mobilising
social movements in Africa to participate in WSF as part of the process
leading to consolidation of the world social movement.

Its processes saw the building of an African space for the formulation of
concerted alternatives to neo-liberal globalisation, based on a diagnosis of
the latter's social, economic and political effects.

The Forum helped define social, economic and political reconstruction
strategies, including a redefinition of the role of the State, the market
and citizens' organisations.

Armed with two basic documents crafted in Bamako (Mali) in 2002, and Addis
Ababa (Ethiopia) in 2003, those pursuing anti-capitalist struggles within
the framework of WSF will acknowledge that ASF has opened new avenues to
define citizen control procedures to ensure that political change promotes
the expression and implementation of alternative, credible and viable
responses to corporate-led globalisation.

The Mumbai Africa meeting failed to consolidate this foundation and found
itself bogged down in process issues that should have been addressed before
all proceedings. In my reading of the programme, some of the concerns should
have been captured in the first session. We would have been briefed of
developments in the IC and what issues Africa was chasing in the context of
Mumbai.

This would have been the moment to emphasise that after Addis, the ASF
recommendations, placed emphasis on the following working themes and
strategies: promoting national, sub-regional and thematic forums and making
sure that these spaces, initiated in a decentralised and autonomous way, are
organised by national and sub-regional social and grassroots movements.

Secondly, it would have been prudent to reiterate that emphasis was now
being placed on promoting the participation of organisations of the African
social movement in the World Social Forum through activities, alliances and
a marked presence, and finally, encouraging alliances between components of
the African social movement and international social movements, especially
those in the south.

Thirdly, we should also have been told that the African social forum
activities being held in the context of Mumbai 2004 have resulted from a
number of processes on the continent and scenarios had emerged after
organising two Forums in Africa, that our context (distance, local
priorities of the movements, multiplicity of agendas both at continental and
international levels, poverty) compels us to define a more appropriate pace
to link up with the global movement without competing with continental and
regional priorities.

Fourthly, the organising committee of the African Social Forum should have
outlined how it had come to the conclusion that it was preferable for the
global forum to serve as a space for the convergence of decentralised and
autonomous initiatives rather than a repetition of continental events.

Good arguments existed to back their decision for not holding the annual
meeting, but were not communicated to the rank and file, raising serious
questions about how members of the Steering Committee relate with their
various constituencies in terms of sharing information and finalising
strategies.

While it makes sense to argue that meeting at the global forum in Mumbai
minus the continental meeting would meet the goal of strengthening national
forums and reflect better the wealth of the social movements of the
continent, the Secretariat should have anticipated that others might
interpret that to mean that governance structures of ASF must be reviewed to
establish whether they were still relevant for the above task.

For those who did not read or see the Secretariat position with regard to
mobilising for India, it was outlined that: "Like the 2002 and 2003
editions, African Social Forum activities in Mumbai are intended to
consolidate the African expression in the World Forum and give greater
visibility to African organisations and movements."

Further, it was hoped that Mumbai will see African visions and perceptions
of another world being integrated in discussions on alternatives to
neo-liberalism and this also entailed strengthening alliances built with
Brazilians, Latin-American movements and most importantly, give Africa an
opportunity to express solidarity with the Asian people and movements in
their struggle against neo-liberalism.

As the Mumbai WSF demonstrated, these alliances are now essential since the
international context is characterised by the revival of south-south
alliances within the framework of international trade talks for example, and
by a situation in which multi-lateralism is being questioned.

An interesting development worth noting about Mumbai, was the relatively
large presence and role of Africans who were not mobilised under the ASF.
Most of them found politics of how the African Social Forum is being
organised more exciting than what issues Africa sought to mainstream in WSF.

The WSF organised panels recognised the role ASF has played in the fight to
rebuild another world and actively stalling neo-liberal ascendancy.
Literally, every African participating in the WSF panels is closely
associated with the ASF. The big challenge for such comrades, who are now
seen as Africa's ambassadors, is to translate that individual recognition
into organic links with mass movements that are active on the ground.

This will help us shape the discourse on the role of intellectuals, NGOS and
social movements and perhaps reduce the tension arising from fears that some
cooperating partners are now hijacking WSF through sponsoring our
ambassadors and placing less emphasis on social movements who in most cases
are not well structured to secure adequate funding from cooperating partners
or NGOs for that matter.

Finally, in our search for consolidating and entrenching democracy in the
African Social Forum, we must make sure that the latter's operations conform
with the realistic set of procedures that guide for example, the IC whose
work is now organised around six commissions that deal with strategies,
content, methodology, expansion, communication and finances respectively. It
has been recognised that as the WSF process expands, this opens new
opportunities and creates new challenges, which require changes in the
linkages and planning of activities. The ASF should embrace new ways of
organising and adopt a framework that is necessary to guarantee that it
operates and fulfils its responsibility as an open space.
End
(2.2.2004)

*Thomas Deve ([email protected]) coordinates the Economic Policy Project
at MWENGO(www.mwengo.org), an organisation whose mission is to nurture a
community of values by strengthening and mobilising African human resources
in support of organisations fighting for social justice.