Jane Duncan

Since the adoption of the WSF's Charter in 2001, there has been some debate about whether the WSF is a space or a movement. I would argue that the tension that has been set up between the two positions on this matter - namely that attempts to make the WSF a more unified and action orientated movement, threatens the open space characteristic of the WSF - is a tension that is based on a set of assumptions that begin to break down when they are examined more carefully.

If we examine the practice of open space in the WSF, as a space for free and open exchange of ideas, it starts to become clear that there may be a difference between the principle and the practice. In fact, there is evidence of a growing hegemony of ideas developing, hiding behind the notion of open space. Many have complained about the increasing dominance of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO's) and other organisations, that seek adaptations to rather than the destruction of, the capitalist system in its current phase (neo-liberalism).

This shift is leading to certain cultures becoming normative inside the WSF. On consequence of the shift is that left tools of analysis, such as class and dialectics, are being disparaged. Many explicitly socialist groups no longer feel at home in the WSF (at best) or (at worst) feel excluded. In some instances, groups who appear to have very little connection to anti neo-liberal struggle may use the WSF for their own ends; for instance, organisations struggling against homelessness in Kenya accused Kenyan religious organisations of using the WSF opportunistically as a platform to raise funds, and questioned their committment to the Charter of Principles. Is the WSF really an open space for revolutionaries? And if it is not, then why has this mainstream creep happened under the guise of protecting the diversity of the Forum? The open space could be likened to Animal Farm, where some animals are more equal than others.

The reasons are highly complex, but one possible reason is that the notion of open space, as currently articulated, is depoliticized. It understands the WSF as a pure, hermetically sealed open space, that is immune to questions of power, whereas in reality it is becoming an increasingly vertical rather than horizontal space. It is becoming a free exchange of ideas for some, and not for others. Because of its liberal pluralist paradigm, it remains blind to questions of who has the power to enter the space and converse in it. So is it social movements that threaten the open character of the open space, or the contradictions of the open space itself?

The open space also does not seem to acknowledge that it is an increasingly commodified space, and that - partly because of its disavowal of programmatic approaches - it is structured increasingly by the logic of capitalism. So internet access is not freely available. Prohibitive registration fees are charged, leading to one Kenyan observer to ask "Is this the World Social Forum or the World Capitalist Forum?". The telecommunications network Celtel dominated the communications at the Forum: it branded the Forum, apparently not even in exchange for money. The WSF appears to be an open space with many closures. If the WSF accepted that it may need a programme based on the decommodification of information, then it could begin to address the real preconditions for an open space. It seems like the Charter of Principles is not a sufficiently sharp tool to tackle these problems.

The open space concept also fails the engage with the increasing closing of spaces in society generally, especially since the attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001. Social movements are some of the most repressed social formations in the world today, leading to profound disparities in who has access to the open space. Freedom of expression needs a movement, not just an open space.

But, it could be argued that the problem is not the concept of open space itself, but the fact that this concept is being perverted; therefore the intention should be to restore the original intention of the concept. But this argument itself is a depoliticized approach, and in fact is impossible to achieve under conditions of capitalism. How does one achieve a genuinely open space without a programme, without a movement? However, the open space precludes this possibility because, in Chico Whittaker's words, 'Nobody in the Forum has the power or the right to say that one action or proposal is more important than another'. So in such circumnstances, how does a decommodified pro-freedom of expression agenda become ascendant? It seems like the open space is becoming trapped in the contradictions of its own pluralism.

To return to the problem raised earlier, namely that the core concepts being used are really caricatures that break down when examined more closely. The other relevant term in this regard is 'movement'. Whittaker argues that 'a movement congregates people - its activists as the activists as a party - who decide to organize themselves to collectively accomplish certain objectives'. So a movement is the same thing as a party: a highly significant slippage, as it assumes that movements themselves are not relatively open spaces. Even parties have (or should have) internal democratic processes before deciding on programmes. The language that Whittaker uses in relation to parties is rather worrying, as it seems to disparage internal democratic processes. Whittaker argues that in the open space, '[participants] know that they will not be given orders nor will they have to give proof of loyalty and discipline, nor will they be expelled if they don't do this - much of the contrary of what would occur to them had they come to participate in any meeting of an organised movement'. In making this statement, Whittaker fails to take into account the fact that discipline is often needed to protect democracy in parties, and is not intended simply to put democracy down.

In conclusion, it is not useful to draw such a sharp distinction between movements and open space, as there is in reality a dialectical relationship between the two. In fact, social movements may advance the attainment of open space through a programmatic commitment to radical democracy and freedom of expression. In fact, ironically enough, a programme may be needed to reach an open space.

Whittaker refers to the open space as a square, where each one acts within the square. This is an extremely attractive prospect were it not for the fact that the square is just that: a square. In order to protect the space to act inside the square, we need to be clear about where the square's lines of delineation are, and what lies outside the square. Can we honestly say this about the WSF?


More texts on WSF Nairobi:  http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/wsf/nairobi2007/
Images:  http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/wsf/nairobi2007/images/