Undoubtedly, the world of today comprises tendencies that lead to more exclusion, more concentration of wealth and the aggravation of inequalities between rich and poor regions. There also exists more exploitation of the
work - more vulnerable within the context of neoliberal globalization - specially women’s work, increasingly socially unprotected. Survival of life on Earth is more and more jeopardized, due to the lack of socio-environmental justice.
On the other hand, it is also undisputable the loss of unipolar hegemony by the United States, giving way to a multipolar capitalism which is still neoliberal and does not necessarily predict any change.
In this context, the AFM also identifies more radically conservative tendencies in the sphere of the political culture, whether as a consequence of the neoliberal doctrine – which "colonizes” hearts and minds- or for the political power of fundamentalisms of different creeds.
However, from the social-democratic movements, we have progressively encountered the idea of “the end of history”, and this is also a consequence of the WSF existence and the stance that advocates for the idea and the utopia that other worlds are possible. This entails a quite significant and mobilizing dimension of symbolic cultural change.
The axes of the WSF need to take these changes – as well as the new
threats – into account, and undertake a consistent struggle against single ways of thinking.
ABOUT THE WSF
In this regard, the AFM proposes de WSF to include the fight against fundamentalisms as one of its articulating axes, because –with different masks and faces- (religious, political, economical, cultural) fundamentalisms uphold the single and immutable way of thinking as the rule for society.
Fundamentalisms take advantage of violence and wars, and are associated with racism, poverty and patriarchy. They especially oppose the fights for freedom of women’s movements. In all cases, democracy loses.
We find that the current patriarchy is a global capitalist patriarchy symbolized by George Bush. Its immutable principles are the supremacy of the West, the neo-liberalism and the militarism, imposed together with a model of traditional patriarchal family and of a social organization supported by the control on women’s bodies, the control of women’s (lack of) participation in public spaces, and by preserving the historic sexual division of labor, keeping the burden of double shift on women.
We therefore find that the struggle for freedom, sexual diversity and abortion is one of the most widespread forms of opposition to fundamentalisms in the frame of the WSF. This struggle is in keeping with the Charter of Principles, regarding its stance against single ways of thinking.
We also want to have a bearing on the urgency to democratize and politize some dimensions and practices within the WSF, if we really want another world to be possible.
At the “organizational” level, the risks of commercialization and outsourcing have been extensively mentioned, and there is also an important debate on the origin and amount of resources. However, along with these primary dimensions, we believe that there others connected to relationship and internal dynamics within the WSF which ought to be revised immediately.
We need to expand the inclusive and agglutinating practices of the different political players who develop the WSF, and we should look for solutions consistent with the environmentalist principles with regard to the organization and infrastructure of the WSF events. We still need to make significant advances in terms of respectful attitudes towards each of the emancipatory struggles, as they all are equally important.
The AFM believes that it is essential to build the WSF as a space-process wherein to think and articulate as well to live alternatives.
So far, the WSF has not yet been made equitable, as the remarkable activities carried out by the outstanding male names evidence the need for a more democratic Forum. The AFM wants the WSF to be an experience of radical democracy, with equality among diverse people and movements.
Consequently, the AFM regards the WSF as a field to deploy articulations and alliances, but also as a space for disputes around the imbalances of power imbalances, the urgency to democratize gender relationships, and to recognize sexual diversity. This dimension of debate is one of the main characteristics of the Forum dynamics, and it nurtures the democratizing processes to the extent that democracy is precisely the conflict negotiation and not its denial. In that respect, the politization of differences is the greatest act of freedom within the WSF, in dialogue and dispute with other global movements and networks; the conflictive issues that comprise the democratic agenda should not be silenced, although they systematically are, even when they violate rights.
One of the controversial issues strongly evidenced in the VI Forum in Nairobi was the one concerning sexual and reproductive rights -particularly around the right to abortion and the right to sexual options- due to the attendance of the antidemocratic and anti-emancipatory sectors of the churches.
We want to clearly state that one thing is the presence of people connected to the church who contribute to social transformation respecting the Chart of Principles, and another is the attendance of people with religious and ecclesiastical postures who have a limited perspective of human rights, a morality that stands against humanist and libertarian thoughts, whose daily action confronts the Charter of Principles and intends to deprive people -especially women, homosexual, gays, lesbians and trans- from the recognition of their rights, freedom and autonomy. The presence of ecclesiastical antidemocratic groups, whose daily proposal affects both women and homosexuals and the own spirit of democratic pluralism contained in the Forum, opposes the actual methodology of the Forum.
Considering that the struggles for the construction of another world may only be successful if they recognize the diversity of political players and identities, we do state that the World Social Forum is a process open to those who recognize this diversity. Organizations and individuals who promote the marginalization, exclusion or discrimination of others are alien to this process.
Finally, we believe it is important that the WSF be held every two years, by strengthening and alternating such event with the Forum process introduced in initiatives such as The Global Action Day. We further think that the WSF has long since distanced itself from DAVOS, thus achieving its own visibility and positioning. Such timing “articulation” between both events currently provides no advantage to the Forum.
Precisely because our utopia and our struggle are not for one single better world is that we believe that one of the richnesses that the WSF must preserve is such plurality of emancipatory contributions, looks and visions. The WSF is not a vanguard, nor it represents single ways of thinking. Hence, to expect it to make statements in the name of the group is to damage its nature as a space for the confluence of diversities.
In respecting these principles we are confronted with significant challenges from the methodological point of view. The weeks of mobilization for constructing the World Social Forum seem to have been an appropriate initiative, to the extent that they provide visibility to struggles and facilitate a collective positioning as well as the definition of shared strategies.
One of the main challenges of the WSF process is to demarcate a political space of confluence of the planetary civil society which allows us to accumulate and modify the correlation of forces in the global sphere, while asserting and fortifying the diverse and plural character of this same political space.