The World March of Women and the World Social Forum - Evaluation of the current situation - September 2007

The World March of Women has played an active part in the World Social Forum since the beginning of the process. We participate because it is a privileged space to renew our desire to change the world and to create alliances with other social movements. We have participated in the WSF International Council since the very first meeting, we took on responsibilities in the committees for the definition of themes, and we have participated in the organizing committees. The WMW, through the National Coordinating Bodies or the International Secretariat, has organized workshops, panels and actions on topics that vary from one Forum to the next, as well as women’s assemblies, etc. The WMW took an active role in the Youth Camp and in the Social Movements’ Assemblies (declarations, organization, coordination, etc.) and even more so in the creation and maintenance of a World Network of social movements. The March has been present in all WSFs and many regional and national Forums. 

In 2005, we compiled a document in which we registered our participation in the WSF. Several women shared their experiences of participation in the Social Forums and asked pertinent questions about the future and the form we will give to our participation in this process. Since then, another two Forums have taken place and this has led us to resume, in a more systematic way, our reflection on the meaning of our participation in the struggle against globalization and the creation of another world.

What the WSF brings us as feminists and what we bring to it

The Social Forum is a new space to occupy, and it is this that we have been doing since its inception. As feminists of the WMW, we want the analysis of patriarchy to be etched at the very heart of the questioning of neoliberalism and imperialism. It is necessary to recognise that this objective is ambitious and probably difficult to assess globally. We know that our presence has allowed increasing visibility of the struggle of women and our resistance. We have created political and strategic alliances with certain social movements, undoubtedly a major triumph. However, it is also true that our participation in this process created many frustrations, ranging from the lack of recognition of the importance of feminist analysis in the construction of another world, to the absence of feminists or women in panels. Several women have underlined the double task that we have: to be present to disseminate our struggles and our alternatives, and the constant need to defend our vision against the sexism from the left or the right which is very much present in the WSF. And so we ask ourselves the following question: How could the forum better respond to our objective? What changes should be proposed? Should our expectations, our contribution and the activities we organize also change? Should we rely more on the construction of specific alliances with social movements, as we have done during the Nyéléni Forum process?

The WSF is also, for several feminist groups, a place to build alliances among us. For several years, a group of regional and international networks[1] organized two days of discussion before the WSF, called the Feminist Dialogues. These groups, probably consciously, left aside the March for the organization of these events. Only once have we participated a Feminist Dialogue as the WMW - in Bombay, 2004 - when we sent delegates of the IC.

Several feminists who participate in the WSF process judged these Feminist Dialogues as elitist[2] and unsuitable for what we want to achieve ‘on the inside’ of the Forum processes. On the other hand, several women and groups have asked us why the March is not present at these events, because our absence prevents the creation of bridges to increase the visibility of feminism inside the WSF. During the last WSF in Nairobi, the organizing group of the Feminist Dialogues gave the impression that they were the "representatives" of feminism inside the WSF. As for us, we organized a march according to the March’s particular characteristics and more than one woman did not understand why there were two separate events for feminists.

This leads us to assess the type of leadership and alliances that we want to create, or take responsibility for, compared to other feminist groups involved in the WSF or in the social movements World Network, and more generally, women who participate in the forum.

For example, should we openly criticize the Feminist Dialogues and let it be widely known of our refusal to participate, or demand that these events are organized in another way? Would we want to organize an Assembly of Women with other feminist groups, as women of the WMW in Europe have done in several Forums? Do we want to develop a strong partnership with specific networks and organize joint activities during the WSF with, for example, the CATW (who have already approached us), the Women in Black Network, REMTE (with who we already work), etc? 

Our principal criticisms over the years 

Over the years, we have expressed various criticisms around the way in which the WSF has evolved and is organized. Such criticisms were presented at the meetings of the International Council but we have to take them on board as members of the International Committee of the WMW and discuss solutions that we can propose. Here are our main criticisms and concerns:

1. The WSF’s Charter of principles is so broad that it allows the adhesion of groups that have opposing ideological view points, such as around the issue of abortion. We cannot hope to build a better world and at the same time allow space for hatred and misogyny in the WSF.
2. The size of the Forum became its worst enemy. We have watched an increase in the participation of the WSF, from a few thousand to ten of thousands and hundreds of thousands…. The success of the WSF must be evaluated in terms of its capacity for mobilization and adaptation to the realities and the struggles of the movements of the country where it takes place.
3. The WSF must be seen as a tool and not as an end in itself. It does not replace grassroots movements, but complements them.
4. The methodology must be at service of the WSF and not the other way around. The methodology should also be evaluated and revised in terms of the desired objectives. The idea that there is "a single method" WSF is contradictory to the necessity of reflecting on the particularities and the resistance of peoples local to the place where it the WSF is organized. 
5. The frequency of the WSF contributes to the diminishment of the impact of the mobilizations and requires so many human (activist) and financial resources that the Forum could actually begin to be a handicap in changing the world. The WSF only makes sense where there are local or national struggles, sites of construction of grounded alternatives. The participants of these struggles can better recognise and encourage each other if the pace of the Forum does not hinder action itself. 
6. Convergence needs to be at the heart of the WSF, and not a ‘supermarket’ of ideas and egos. We need more interaction between movements to live out our alternatives, to discuss them, to integrate them into our praxis.
7. The challenge of real inclusion of feminist analyses and the representation of women as subjects of the struggle against globalization in this context is immense. There is no recognition, inside the International Council or in the methodology, of the present power relationships. The REMTE and the WMW have already proposed an equality policy but it has never got off the ground.[3]
8. There is a blatant lack of coherence between the organization of the WSF and our social transformation objectives. The commercialization of the event and the presence of anti-choice groups, etc, are frustrating factors that must be tackled.

The International Council

The International Council (IC) was created in 2001 after the 1^st WSF. At the time, the Brazilian Committee invited approximately 100 organizations and some individuals to participate in it. The Council's mandate is to ensure the organization of World Social Forums and to develop and strengthen the processes of these Forums. The WMW has a seat in the council and had participated in all meetings (more or less twice a year). There are 6 commissions in the Council (Expansion, Communications, Methodology, Content, Finance, Strategy) and 3 working groups (Facilitation, Action 2008, Evaluation). The members of the IC are invited to participate in the committees and groups. The Working Groups are temporary and change every year in relation to our working objectives.

The Facilitation Working Group will be converted in the next few months into a Liaison Group in order to transform itself into the entity that will coordinate the work of all the Commissions and Working Groups and be responsible for the organization of meetings of the IC. This year, there is a transformation under way to change the IC’s way of working. The Liaison Group will come together between meetings, the Working Groups or Commissions will also carry out their own meetings and the IC meeting will serve as a point of reference and to give guidelines. In principle, these transformations should improve performance, but as we have not yet worked through the substantial differences between us, it is difficult to believe that they will resolve the tensions.

That said, in the last meeting of the IC, we were able to agree that during the coming year (2008) we will carry out a reflection on the strategy that represents the WSF in its struggle against neoliberal, patriarchal and imperialist globalization. This discussion will also lead us to discuss the frequency, place, etc of the WSF after 2009.

We have several questions to answer: Do we want to be part of the Liaison Group of WSF (which means asking a member of the WMW to be available for approximately 30 days per year for this function)? How do we ensure that the discussion around strategy is a process that includes the greatest possible number of women of the WMW? What mandates will we give to our representative in the IC?

The International Network of Social Movements

This World Network of social movements was created in 2003 and is another tool to amplify alliances between social movements through analysis and common actions. The network meets together primarily during the WSF where it organizes an Assembly of Social Movements. Since last year there has been an attempt to create other moments for meetings with the aim of strengthening ties and developing a common agenda. There was a seminar in Brussels in September 2006 and a meeting in Rostock in June this year to discuss our objectives and form of operation. In Rostock we formed a Facilitation Group consisting of representatives of international and regional networks (around 20):

International networks / movements: Via Campesina, World March of Women, CADTM, Jubilee South (2 people per network from different continents), Campaign Anti-Wall, Our World is not for Sale.

National networks / movements (1 per group)

America: Continental Social Alliance, COMPA, Global Justice Network, Poor People’s Economic Rights Campaign

Asia: Focus on the Global South (2 people), India Social Forum (1 people)

Africa: Indaba Movement (1 person)

Europe: 2 people.

This group's goal is to facilitate exchanges between social movements and, particularly in relation to 26^th January 2008, stimulate the involvement of the maximum possible number of groups. Despite the existence of this facilitation group, however, the Network continues to be fairly inactive and without a genuine work-plan. Assuming that we need to act together in order to overcome ‘empty’ declarations, we need to assess if the World March of Women could propose an action that could stimulate the Network and allow us a certain leadership. What could we propose to strengthen the Network (possibly in terms of 26 January)? Should we assign two women for 30 days a year, one to accompany the IC of the WSF and the other the World Network of social movements?