The latest European Social Forum meeting in London reached new depths
of manipulation, mistrust and mayhem. Report and personal thoughts by
an anarchist based in Oxford.
of manipulation, mistrust and mayhem. Report and personal thoughts by
an anarchist based in Oxford.
The ESF UK Assembly met yesterday to plan for the ESF to come to the
UK in November 2004. There was very clear manipulation of the process:
Volunteers who wanted to be involved in planning the meeting were not
contacted; instead the same handful of people organised and chaired
the meeting, which was set up and run in the same undemocratic and
inefficient way as before.
No agenda was circulated, beforehand, or during the meeting.
A document which came out of the process working group, with suggestions
to make the meetings and structures more democratic, respectful and efficient
was totally ignored. At no point was it mentioned or even referred to.
The discussion centred around a proposal to form an organising
committee, which would replace the UK Assembly and be open only to
representatives of organisation which have paid the affiliation fee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal, it seemed to me, would exclude:
-organisations unable to pay the fee
-organisations who cannot or will not allow people to make decisions
on their behalf (from what we've seen so far, there is unlikely to
be much provision made for delegates to consult on all issues and
obtain mandates)
-unaffiliated individuals
...which conveniently covers most of the anti-authoritarian left!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsurprisingly, many people had real problems both with the proposal,
and with the way the meeting was being run. Some people suggested
amendments. Others felt they had to make more direct interventions;
most notably one person who, on arriving to find no agenda and the
same illegimate chairpeople, heckled and sat down at the front himself!
While the helpfulness of these various interventions is certainly arguable,
they were a symptom of the undemocratic nature of the meeting, and the
frustration and mistrust it caused. Certainly there comes a point when a
process is so discredited that it cannot no longer be respected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The hard truth, though, is that the majority of the people at the meeting
supported the proposal. There were many ways in which this was acheived:
-We were told, that (although none of us had had a chance to look at the
proposal beforehand) it had been discussed by the National Executives of
many of the unions, and that unless it was agreed, there would be no funding
from them.
-It was repeatedly described as 'the only serious proposal' and 'the only
alternative', despite the fact that many of the amendments and concerns were
seemingly quite innocuous and would be unlikely to cause the whole ESF to
instantaneously disintegrate.
-This meant that those who wanted to change the proposal were classified as
opposing it, blocking the ESF from happening at all. We were called 'wreckers'
and accused of trying to 'sabotage' things. There was a lot of hostility towards
us.
-I heard afterwards that people had been 'bussed in' - coerced into attending,
without much knowledge or interest of what was going on - in order to
support the proposal. This may have been a factor, but I have only anecdotal
evidence for it.
-Many people of the people from the more anti-authoritarian, alternative or
grassroots tendencies had already been put off by previous meetings and
experiences, and had decided not to waste their time and breath. Admittedly
there is no way of considering the views of people who don't come to the meeting,
but I think it should be mentioned as a factor.
-In the early part of the meeting, people were allowed to waffle on almost
endlessly, meaning that by the time we really got on to talking about the
proposal, everyone was keen for the meeting to end, and this meant that the
suggestion that amendments should be considered by the organising committee
*itself* was greeted with enthusiasm. In short, concerns were ignored and
the thing rushed through.
-The amendments were summarised by one of the chairs in a very distorted way. He
left many of the amendments out, reworded some drastically and added his own
interpretation.
-The decision was not made on a consensus basis. It was made on the basis of
most of the meeting giving a sudden round of applause, and then breaking up.
The rest us of were left thinking 'WTF?'. In general, there is a problem of
the concept of consensus decision making being hugely misused and misunderstood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A few quotes to illustrate the frustration and anger after the end of the meeting:
"That was the most Stalinist meeting I've ever seen."
"Fuckit. Fuckit, fuckit, fuckit."
"If that was meant to be a consensus... ?!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, what was the result? Another step further away from the open and inclusive
processes that we all claim to want, another chunk of power seized by the big
institional organisations with the financial clout. However, the working groups,
still have a large degree of autonomy, and it may be those working groups, email
lists, local social forums etc that the new 'Organising Committee' will turn its
eyes on next.
We haven't yet lost the battle to democratise the ESF.
But at the moment we seem to be losing.
UK in November 2004. There was very clear manipulation of the process:
Volunteers who wanted to be involved in planning the meeting were not
contacted; instead the same handful of people organised and chaired
the meeting, which was set up and run in the same undemocratic and
inefficient way as before.
No agenda was circulated, beforehand, or during the meeting.
A document which came out of the process working group, with suggestions
to make the meetings and structures more democratic, respectful and efficient
was totally ignored. At no point was it mentioned or even referred to.
The discussion centred around a proposal to form an organising
committee, which would replace the UK Assembly and be open only to
representatives of organisation which have paid the affiliation fee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal, it seemed to me, would exclude:
-organisations unable to pay the fee
-organisations who cannot or will not allow people to make decisions
on their behalf (from what we've seen so far, there is unlikely to
be much provision made for delegates to consult on all issues and
obtain mandates)
-unaffiliated individuals
...which conveniently covers most of the anti-authoritarian left!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsurprisingly, many people had real problems both with the proposal,
and with the way the meeting was being run. Some people suggested
amendments. Others felt they had to make more direct interventions;
most notably one person who, on arriving to find no agenda and the
same illegimate chairpeople, heckled and sat down at the front himself!
While the helpfulness of these various interventions is certainly arguable,
they were a symptom of the undemocratic nature of the meeting, and the
frustration and mistrust it caused. Certainly there comes a point when a
process is so discredited that it cannot no longer be respected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The hard truth, though, is that the majority of the people at the meeting
supported the proposal. There were many ways in which this was acheived:
-We were told, that (although none of us had had a chance to look at the
proposal beforehand) it had been discussed by the National Executives of
many of the unions, and that unless it was agreed, there would be no funding
from them.
-It was repeatedly described as 'the only serious proposal' and 'the only
alternative', despite the fact that many of the amendments and concerns were
seemingly quite innocuous and would be unlikely to cause the whole ESF to
instantaneously disintegrate.
-This meant that those who wanted to change the proposal were classified as
opposing it, blocking the ESF from happening at all. We were called 'wreckers'
and accused of trying to 'sabotage' things. There was a lot of hostility towards
us.
-I heard afterwards that people had been 'bussed in' - coerced into attending,
without much knowledge or interest of what was going on - in order to
support the proposal. This may have been a factor, but I have only anecdotal
evidence for it.
-Many people of the people from the more anti-authoritarian, alternative or
grassroots tendencies had already been put off by previous meetings and
experiences, and had decided not to waste their time and breath. Admittedly
there is no way of considering the views of people who don't come to the meeting,
but I think it should be mentioned as a factor.
-In the early part of the meeting, people were allowed to waffle on almost
endlessly, meaning that by the time we really got on to talking about the
proposal, everyone was keen for the meeting to end, and this meant that the
suggestion that amendments should be considered by the organising committee
*itself* was greeted with enthusiasm. In short, concerns were ignored and
the thing rushed through.
-The amendments were summarised by one of the chairs in a very distorted way. He
left many of the amendments out, reworded some drastically and added his own
interpretation.
-The decision was not made on a consensus basis. It was made on the basis of
most of the meeting giving a sudden round of applause, and then breaking up.
The rest us of were left thinking 'WTF?'. In general, there is a problem of
the concept of consensus decision making being hugely misused and misunderstood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A few quotes to illustrate the frustration and anger after the end of the meeting:
"That was the most Stalinist meeting I've ever seen."
"Fuckit. Fuckit, fuckit, fuckit."
"If that was meant to be a consensus... ?!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, what was the result? Another step further away from the open and inclusive
processes that we all claim to want, another chunk of power seized by the big
institional organisations with the financial clout. However, the working groups,
still have a large degree of autonomy, and it may be those working groups, email
lists, local social forums etc that the new 'Organising Committee' will turn its
eyes on next.
We haven't yet lost the battle to democratise the ESF.
But at the moment we seem to be losing.
Comments
Hide the following 19 comments
some other reportbacks and views
25.01.2004 19:19
Text of the proposal, and some of the suggested amendments:
another reportback:
same old me :)
There is hope!
25.01.2004 19:54
Basically, the decision has been made to become 'serious' and 'mature' in a corporate stylee, so that the trade unions feel comfortable about investing their money. This is a perfectly reasonable concern...but one that should have been raised with dialogue and discussion, rather than coercion and stitch-ups. Of course, this veer towards corporate organisation will alienate the very grassroots energy and enthusiasm that will be needed to build a successful and vibrant ESF that incorporates the energy of the anti-war and anti-capitalist movements.
The good news is that the process is still entirely open. A few people working hard and putting together alternative proposals will have the capacity to change this organising process into something resembling the democratic, open process we all want it to be...so I'd urge everyone to get stuck in! There's no point in moaning about the outcome if you haven't been involved in trying to change things for the better...
Matt
Matt S
agree
25.01.2004 20:31
ooops me again again...
A bit rich
25.01.2004 21:27
I also seem to remember you were a leading signitory to the petition that was circulated late last year that tried to prevent the ESF from coming to the UK at all this year. You lost the argument then too because the vast majority of activists in this country want to see the ESF succeed, not to have it blocked at every turn as you seem to want to do.
richard
stop and think
25.01.2004 21:49
When we offer constructive proposals, they are ignored.
When we try to get involved, we are excluded.
We want to see the ESF succeed as much as anyone, but for us a very important measure of its success is in the *way* it organises itself, and in that, so far, we are failing.
Have you asked yourself the any of following:
Why were the recommendations of the process group ignored?
Why were the preparations for this recent meeting made in secret?
Why did the GLA representative alter and omit other people's amendments when summarising them?
Why are we claiming to use consensus decision making when this is patently not happening?
The biggest threat to the ESF is not from those who want to see it organised differently, but from those who are steadily turning it into a meaningless and sterile space in which the decisions are made behind closed doors beforehand, then rushed through with the mantra of There Is No Alternative.
O
Winning and losing
25.01.2004 22:06
"You lost the argument then too because the vast majority of activists in this country want to see the ESF succeed, not to have it blocked at every turn as you seem to want to do."
So, is the ESF now a steamroller that ignores the concerns of activists, and decides things on the basis of "winning the argument" by stitching up decisions, and excluding those who have concerns? Is it being organised "top down" perchance?
If its a competition for power, and lead by leaders, then it seems to me that people were right to be wary of having it here in the first place.
Have you read these Richard?
Do you agree with them?
freethepeeps
The familiar mantra
25.01.2004 22:19
I don't want to 'block the ESF'. I want the ESF to happen...but I want it to be open, transparent, accountable and democratically organised. These should not be radical or shocking proposals...clearly to some people they are.
I have no agenda of my own to get across...other than the primacy of the WAY in which we organise these events. The ESF will achieve nothing if it is one long self-congratulary rally, organised and dominated by large unions and excluding the grassroots. All social forces that oppose neo-liberalism need to work TOGETHER...believe me when I say that is what I want.
Much love,
Matt
Matt S
Carry on the fight for a democratic ESF
25.01.2004 22:26
In fact, of course, everyone recognises that a proper organising structure is necessary for the London ESF to succeed. And I would add to that my opinion that the contribution of the trade unions, financially, organisationally and politically, is essential. It's great that the unions look like they will put their weight behind the ESF. But the question is how unions with huge financial clout and some authoritarian parties of the left can be prevented from excluding smaller groups from the wider civil society. Matt S claims that the process is still entirely open. Unfortunately it is not. The lowest payment for a group to be able to participate in the organising committee is £50. Individuals cannot join.
So my proposal is this: as a trade unionist and socialist, I plead for all anarchists, autonomists and all other people who feel excluded by this process to get together in small groups and stump up the £50 so that you have a voice to continue the fight for a democratic ESF. From the reports coming back from Mumbai, it's worth fighting for.....
trade unionist
Lets be clear...
25.01.2004 22:58
Maybe it will be good if these authoritarians destroy the credibility of the ESF - at least it will be an early warning of what happens when entryism goes mad. And perhaps prevent the bidding process and the running of the event being destroyed by those with connections and a bit of money; it may go towards democratising the entire WSF process if its so badly damanged.
We can try to influence from inside the decision making of the ESF, and if we can't, we can contaminate it - by organising a separate grassroots event. I for one do intend to get involved in the process, but prospects of defeating these groups are pretty dim.
ZZ
Homepage:
http://www.agp.org
don't take it lying down
26.01.2004 01:44
They can't vote so the can't 'push through' their agenda unless we sit back & allow them to.
If you don't like what's going on then stand up & say so.
See you all at the next meeting
dean
ps the details will be posted up with a provisonal agenda (cos we anarchists like to do things fucking proper) so people will know just what is to be discussed/decided upon.
dean
ESF 24th Jan
26.01.2004 09:54
It was hard to take notes in such an unstructured environment.
For example, the agenda was published but it seems that no-one had managed
to get hold of it.
No-one was voted to chair the meeting - it was highjacked to all intents
and porpoises by the chairs of the previous December assembly.
No-one was asked to facilitate the meeting.
No-one was asked to take minutes.
Agenda: Once an agenda was pushed through, it was not displayed.
The agenda included discussion of days of national action against
the colonial aspirations of Bush and Blair and the continuing foreign
wars but this item was then refused time and the microphones turned
off when a delegate tried to discuss the item. An antiwar splinter group,
unavoidably without the consensus of the whole assembly, decided that ESF
would back a London march/local marches on 20th March. I think some of
us found this sidelining of such a serious theme disappointing. A sheet
of paper was left on most seats titled Amendments. Amendments to what?
It turned out that the amendments were to a paper hardly anyone had seen
that had been composed behind the ubiquitous closed doors so favoured by
some groups but iniquitous to indypeople and put together by Alex Gordon.
The proposals were later circulated.
After a few minutes of gaff, a stalwart Undercurrents delegate called
Hamish marched up to the front of the meeting and demanded that it be
declared void until a facilitator was elected and agenda agreed on and
a meeting structure put in place. This caused a whole lot of hullabaloo!!
Brilliant.
Undercurrents remained represented at the front of the room throughout,
much to the disgust of a few delegates who seemed to be entrenched in an
outmoded vertical fashion, behind closed doors and blacked-out windows.
Grassroots: London ESF should follow the leads of Mumbai and Fiorenza
fortezza and be dominated by roots, so a horizontal organization *is* achievable but
only at the expense of certain groups intent on self-publicity. It appears that
money to run Mumbai came mainly from grassroots: registrations from individuals as
well as organisations and NGOs such as Oxfam as well as local NGOs. No public
money was acceptable nor money from capitalist organisations. This is very
interesting because so far as I can see, most of the money to run London ESF will be
from Unions and public money. Is this the case?
Process: Almost as soon as Hamish had objected to the procedure and bunch
of 23 people joined a queue to speak. There was discussion about how to proceed from now on so that a reasonable plan for funding can be endorsed by the members of the assembly but I don’t know if anything was decided and although transparency was called for a professed repeatedly, it seems that many meetings about process and structure are to be closed.
A speaker from MCB begged for a mission statement that we could all show to
interested parties (for instance, 2 people on the bus on the way back to
Oxford, picked up on our conversation and wanted more info). The statement should
include aims for universal human and religious rights.
Things got very confusing with an enormous amount of repetition - this is
what happens when there is an ineffectual chairman.
Amendments to the proposed structure: Some of the proposed amendments were
read out by Redmond Someone but why not all of them? We wanted to vote on them
but were not allowed to. They have to go to committee. Some of the amendments were
mocked. I am not sure that is the way to proceed and found it rather shocking.
Representation: A few speakers stood out, one of them, Katya who spoke to
the "tyranny of structurelesness" in a meeting where individuals appeared not to have a
voice but only those representing groups. Katya, and many like her, don’t necessarily
represent groups but can disseminate information to thousands who belong to the groups she belongs to.
These are the people ESF is meant to be about and anyone who can inform them
should not be disenfranchised. In fact, at the end of the meeting a form was handed
out for members to sign who wanted to be kept informed of the process or structure as it was being created but you could only sign if you represented a group! Unbelievable. On the same point as Katya, a delegate from N London spoke about racism in major unions. He felt unrepresented by his union. It seems that while racism is condemned publicly by all unions, in practice it is alive and well in most work places. He complained that the people ESF should represent were the sort of people who could not pay fees and were not represented by delegates in the way unions consider fair. He said that that you shouldn’t have to have a checkbook to be free. The speech was shocking and fascinating and got applauded by black delegates and others but, oddly, not by the union
representative in the seat in front of us, who sat and shook her head!
Splinter groups: In the pub later, someone thought the meeting
"gobsmackingly peculiar" and someone else that it will be hard to communicate with "guys who are used to living in cupboards". The meeting was called to "give the process legitimacy" and not to ask about or take on board alternative opinions, and the organisers were shocked to find so much disapproval when what they had wanted and expected was a whole load of willing "foot soldiers" willing to allow "jobs for the boys" - quite substantial amounts of money are already flying around. Indymedia people were pissed off by the end and some of us thought of splintering but it was decided that on the whole the London ESF was a good thing and should be worked with albeit independently.
Niki
What About The Workers?
26.01.2004 13:13
just wondering
Why do you want the ESF to fail?
26.01.2004 22:10
On the other hand there are other groups like globalise resistance who are bending over backwards to make the thing succeed. One person asked about trade unions - Im glad that there are groups that are bringing the trade unions on board. The trade unions represent millions of workers - it is these people who can ultimately change things, the working class.
But instead of recognising this, there are those who are stuck in a cosy activist ghetto, who talk about "contaminating" the whole process and seem reluctant to give up there yah boo politics.
richard
response to richard
27.01.2004 02:25
Surely the esf will have 'failed' if the cornerstones of the very process - transparency, openness, accountability, democracy (oh how we are going to learn to hate those words by november) are ignored & violated. The only people so far who have contravened those principles are the very people you are seeking to defend.
To respond to 'just wondering'. I don't imagine anyone has a problem with union participation at whatever level. I certainly don't, although i'd much prefer local grass roots union participation & ordinary rank & file members involvement.
dean
thanks
27.01.2004 11:21
just wondering
my answer
27.01.2004 17:50
O
Involving others
27.01.2004 20:46
The people who are doing the on-the-ground organising etc seem to me to be people like globalise resistance. Im glad they have brought the trade unions on board, its a big step forward.
Other people are coming up with all sorts of spurious reasons to 'contaminate' the process and put obstacles in its way. but they dont seem to have any alternative, beyond a lot of squeals because they are out-numbered by people who want to see the ESF make some progress.
This observation isnt me following some sort of "party line" as Matt S insultingly suggests. I dont need someone else to tell me when there are people who want to disrupt the process. Its obvious. I dont trust people like Matt S's motives when he was a leading signatory to the petition to stop the ESF coming to the UK this year.
richard
Sigh
27.01.2004 21:36
I DO NOT OPPOSE THE ESF BEING IN LONDON. I DO oppose the ESF being undemocratic,
stitched-up and dominated by the usual suspects rather than a broad array of social
movements and grassroots activists. This should not be a controversial position, and
I really do not understand why some people have such difficulty with it. The meeting
on the 24th was a sham, and anyone who has a shred of decency will admit as much. Any
meeting which discusses one proposal which cannot be amended or rejected, and which has
not been adequately circulated beforehand or even seen by a large number of people,
cannot be considered to be transparent, open or fair. When these meetings begin to
be organised democratically (or at least in good faith, striving to be open and
transparent) then I'll start praising them. Until that time I'm afraid I won't fall
into line, richard, so you'll keep having to tell lies about my motivations.
Matt
P.S. In case I didn't make it clear, I support the ESF coming to London. I just want it
to be good, rather than shit. Controversial, I know.
Matt S
Contaminate!
27.01.2004 21:40
This is why the ESF process has to be contaminated: so that it represents the needs of the grassroots, and allows us to build a truly global network that offers revolutionary possibilities.
To allow the ESF to degenerate into a talking shop for (aspiring) politicians, NGO representatives and the reformist Trade Unions would be to see a huge failure for a movement that has lots of potential.
See: www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/wsf/ for more discussion.
ZZ