Karachiites were lucky to have the flavor of a ’hide park corner’ for a whole week during the recently concluded World Social Forum (WSF). Despite all weaknesses and logistical problems, the show was a great place for socialising with like minded persons from other places, both local and foreign.

Observers complain that the Karachi forum could not attract local participants. This absence of local crowd is partly attributed to lack of information dissemination as well as to the registration charges of one hundred rupees per participant.

Apparently the event did not get the patronage from many existing forums around the world: The absence of a strong Indian delegation as well as Chinese and Brazilian delegates was very noticeable.

Having said that, the Karachi forum proved to be a breath of fresh air for many who availed the opportunity to meet with like-minded friends, in some cases after ages. The technical sessions were generally not very well attended but those who chose to attend technical sessions were asking the same question again and again, “So, what is the way forward from the WSF?” Some also wanted to know whether the WSF can be an alternative to neo-liberal forums such as the World Economic Forum and the World Trade Organization (WTO). In one of the sessions, I was also asked whether a dozen of poor and resource-less persons or for that matter scores of poor and resource-less persons can get one free meal without being violent or without turning into beggars. The gentleman who asked the question wanted to know as to why the participants of the forum were so optimistic that another world was possible.

For me, the answer is very simple, the WSF was never meant to take any decisions. One has to look at its Charter of Principles (CoP) in order to understand what it is all about. According to the clause 4 of CoP, the alternatives proposed at the WSF stand in opposition to a process of globalisation commanded by large multinational corporations and by the governments and international institutions at the service of those corporations’ interests, with the complicity of national governments. These alternatives are designed to ensure that globalisation in solidarity will prevail as a new stage in world history. The forum “will respect universal human rights, and those of all citizens — men and women — of all nations and the environment and will rest on democratic international systems and institutions at the service of social justice, equality and the sovereignty of peoples”.

Clause 6 of the CoP states clearly that the WSF will not turn into a representative body of the civil society and will not take any positions on behalf of its participants. This clause reads, “The meetings of the World Social Forum do not deliberate on behalf of the World Social Forum as a body. No one, therefore, will be authorized, on behalf of any of the editions of the Forum, to express positions claiming to be those of all its participants. The participants in the Forum shall not be called on to take decisions as a body, whether by vote or acclamation, on declarations or proposals for action that would commit all, or the majority, of them and that propose to be taken as establishing positions of the Forum as a body. It thus does not constitute a locus of power to be disputed by the participants in its meetings, nor does it intend to constitute the only option for interrelation and action by the organisations and movements that participate in it”.

The CoP also binds the WSF to be a non-party, non-governmental and a non-confessional forum. Clause 9 of the CoP reiterates the pluralism and diversification of the process and bars party or military representation. This is also one of the reasons that local participants could not be attracted for the Karachi forum, as according to reports, till last moment some of the organisers were relying on the city’s major political force Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) and its supporters to make the forum a successful show. It was only at the eleventh hour that they were reminded by some donors to keep the event non-partisan.

Clause 10 of the CoP opposes all totalitarian and reductionist views of economy, development and history and the use of violence as a means of social control by the state. I am not sure whether this clause is anti-communist or is meant to please everyone on board.

Clause 14 of the CoP describes the WSF as a process that encourages its participant organisations and movements to situate their actions, from the local level to the national level, seek active participation in international contexts, and introduce onto the global agenda the change-inducing practices that they are experimenting in building a new world in solidarity.

Again the question arises how practicable is it to situate the actions for change from grassroots level to global level when the process is not based on a common contextual or theoretical framework. If all of us are free to have our own ideas about change, as the WSF ordains, some of these ideas are bound to be conflicting. For instance, in Karachi one organisation had arranged a children assembly where school kids were dressed in army uniforms, holding toy guns and performing on a famous motivational song about the army.

No one can deny the role of public pressure. People can bring very vital changes and have been doing so historically. But while living in the age of knowledge management, one has to distinguish the fine line between mutiny and revolution. Scrapping the existing system is the easiest thing in the world, something that our politicians keep on doing when the invite military to take over. But carrying out a well-informed struggle to replace the existing systems with pre-determined alternatives is something entirely different. It requires clarity of thoughts based on refined ideologies and a forum where decisions as well as future commitments can be made, something which is a must if we want the WSF to be a true alternative to the neo-liberal forums.