<incom> Larmer, Africa Social Forum 2004 - whose Forum, which Africa?

[sz]

[via Debate]

Africa Social Forum 2004 - whose Forum, which Africa?
Miles Larmer

[I wrote the following piece on the 2004 ASF for UK-based website
Globalise Resistance. I hope it provides some useful information on the
ASF, which complements the previous article by Alexander and Mbali.]

The African Social Forum, held in Lusaka, Zambia from 10-14 December
2004, attracted approximately 650 social movement activists from across
sub-Saharan Africa. Attendees included trade unionists, church leaders,
women activists, environmentalists and NGO representatives. The largest
delegation was from Zimbabwe; about 100 travelled north by bus, buoyed
by the recent success of their own national Social Forum, held despite
repeated intimidation by the Zimbabwean authorities. There was
significant representation from South Africa,

Malawi, Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya, and Nigeria, and smaller delegations
from Ghana, Cote D'Ivoire, Senegal and other countries. Geographical
proximity continues to affect attendance at ASF events; the cost of
travelling to Lusaka limited attendance from outside southern Africa.
Organisation of the Forum was, however, significantly better than the
Southern Africa Social Forum, held at the same venue in December 2003.

Thinking global, but not local?

The dominant themes of the main plenaries and workshops followed an
agenda primarily set by the international NGOs: the week of action on
international trade to be held in April 2005; the campaign against the
European Union's European Partnership Agreements (EPAs), which will
force Africans into uncontrolled free trade relationships with the
European Union; and the call for the 100% cancellation of Africa's
international debt, in the run-up to the G8 meeting in the UK in July
2005. Whilst these are of course important issues that have the
potential to improve or worsen the lives and livelihoods of
millions of Africans, their dominance of the ASF agenda was a reflection
of and response to the global rhythm of international summits, and the
need for a constructive civil society response to them. This agenda
having been put in place by the INGOs, there was a sense that it was for
African civil society organisations to respond to them, rather than to
define their own agenda from the bottom up.

Very few meetings at the ASF featured speakers from grassroots
campaigning organisations. Many plenaries featured the same speakers,
mostly from nationally-based non-governmental organisations. This was
particularly noticeable with regard to the host country: the Zambian
trade unions, engaged for the last two years in a battle against the
privatisation of the Zambia National Commercial Bank (ZANACO), were not
present. Zambians campaigning over the negative environmental impact of
multi-national mining corporations, and violence against women, were
present but were not on panels. The campaign for a democratic Zambian
constitution, which led to the arrest of 11 MPs and leading
civil society activists two weeks after the ASF, was not mentioned.

There was virtually no publicity in Zambia in the period before the ASF.
If such problems beset the active participation of social movements in
Zambia itself, how can the ASF hope to be truly representative of the
hundreds of local campaigns against water privatisation, land sales,
environmental degradation, and other manifestations of global capitalism
taking place across the continent?

National Social Forums

One solution undoubtedly lies in the organisation of national Social
Forums. It was noticeable that those countries that had held such events
in the run-up to the ASF (Zimbabwe, Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, and Malawi)
tended to contribute to the ASF in a more coherent and focussed way. The
capacity to hold such events is naturally reflective of the tempo of the
struggle in various countries: Kenyan activists, still on the offensive
following the ousting of the Moi regime in 2003, and pressing home their
advantage with its successor, also organised 'community social forums'
in the poorest areas of Nairobi. In Nigeria, where a series of general
strikes over petrol subsidies have coincided with an increased
radicalisation of the struggle in the Niger Delta, 3,000 delegates
attended the national Social Forum. Activists need to recognise that
the unevenness and diversity of the social movement across the continent
is rooted in the uneven development of these struggles. At the same
time, the sharing and generalising of experiences is necessary to give
voice to an Africa-wide social movement.

Themes and activities

This sharing of experiences seemed to be the most positive aspect of the
ASF for most participants. Women's concerns achieved a significant
profile in the form of the African Court of Women, a day-long session
that placed violence and injustice perpetrated against women, and its
underlying causes, at the heart of the ASF. The continent-wide nature of
the event enabled the sharing of similar experiences in campaigning
against multi-national corporations and international trade injustices.
There was also debate over the sub-imperial role that some argue is
being played by South Africa in Africa's economy. There is little doubt
that across Africa, the continent that has been subject to the most
harsh and radical experiments in neo-liberal capitalism over the last 25
years, there is not only a popular consensus against the continuation of
such policies, but also a myriad of campaigns and initiatives to
actively resist their implementation at a national and local level. To
date, however, the Social Forum process has failed to adequately reflect
the extent of this movement at a continental level.

The role of INGOs

The ASF was affected by the same ambiguities and contradictions that run
through the global social justice movement as a whole, but which are
particularly marked in sub-Saharan Africa. One such issue is the
dominant role of international NGOs, in terms of the agenda of the ASF,
and its organisation and funding. Many participants, for example from
Malawi, were only able to attend the Forum because of INGO funding. The
financial dependency of southern civil society organisations on northern
NGOs, whose raison d'etre remains critical engagement with the policy
and practice of the international financial organisations, continues to
influence the positions they adopt. Whilst the ASF unambiguously
rejected any role for the IMF or World Bank in addressing
Africa's problems, there is no doubt that many of the organisations
present will remain tied into consultative and 'participatory' civil
society processes that effectively legitimise dialogue with the IFIs.
The ASF's most serious omission, a plan of action to practically address
the injustices identified, allowed the Forum's organisers to evade the
increasingly stark tactical choice facing the global social justice
movement, between critical engagement with the IFIs and the Western
Governments on the one hand, and mass action and civil disobedience on
the other.

The African state - friend or foe?

The other significant ambiguity at the Forum was the attitude to be
adopted towards the African state, as well as continent-wide
organisations and initiatives such as the African Union and the New
Partnership for African Development (NEPAD). At the session on EPAs, the
head of the Organisation for African Trade Union Unity (OATUU) stressed
that African governments opposed EPAs, and argued that it was necessary
'to support them in rejecting EPAs'. Such a position reflects the
apparent success achieved at the Cancun WTO summit in 2003, when the
governments of many Southern countries, supported by civil society
organisations, succeeded in de-railing the plans of Western countries
for further trade liberalisation. This has led to (perhaps unwarranted)
optimism amongst many civil society activists that significant progress
can be made by working with 'progressive' African and Southern
governments. Whilst many African states oppose EPAs in their present
form, it is highly likely that, without significant pressure (as opposed
to 'support') from civil society, most will agree to a slightly amended
EPA. This will of course be the result of pressure from richer, more
powerful Western Governments and international institutions.
Nevertheless, it is these relatively weak and dependent African
governments that force through privatisations, pass laws that
legalise the removal of trade tariffs, and suppress strike actions and
demonstrations that express Africans' discontent with the effects of
economic liberalisation. As Dembela Moussa from Senegal argued at a
debate on NEPAD, the social movement should reject the assumption that
African leaders cared about their citizens. Clarity about this issue,
about the specific operation of class forces in African societies, and
about the appropriate tactics that flow from such an analysis, is
required if Africa's social movements are to successfully challenge the
implementation of neo-liberal capitalism on the continent.

On the last day of the Forum, South African activists initiated a debate
about the role of the ASF: what were we trying to achieve, what were its
practical results. This was an important attempt to bring some clarity
to an event at which many activists, excited by sharing their
experiences and initiatives with like-minded radicals, were
simultaneously frustrated about the event's failure to fully realise the
potential this created. South African activists have gained valuable
insights based on their experience of critically relating to a
state which, whilst widely regarded as progressive, is in practice
implementing neo-liberal policies, and suppressing protests against
them. It will be important for South African activists to remain fully
engaged in the ASF process in the future.

Links: http://www.forumsocialafricain.org/english/index.htm


Dr Miles Larmer
Dept of History
University of Pretoria

miles.larmer at up.ac.za