Complexity and Social Movements: Multitudes at the Edge of Chaos ...

122 Beyond resistance to global nexus
From the very beginning the WSF has been overwhelmingly successful,
according to some of its critics too successful, attracting huge numbers of
activists to discuss and debate and to otherwise participate in a vast array
of workshops, seminars and plenary events, allowing for a cross-fertilisation
of ideas and experiences previously unimagined. The appeal of the ‘forum’
model has also grown exponentially since the original Porto Alegre meeting
leading to the establishment of regional social fora in Europe, the
Mediterranean, Asia, Africa and the Americas, as well as the proliferation
of autonomously initiated local and city fora. It is by far the fastest growing
example of the rhizomatic domain of GCS, which is constituted by and
through movement plateaux, and which makes explicit the political importance
of spaces of enunciation, interaction and iteration that are co-extensive
with the actions of movements, networks and organisations, without trying
to represent them, or in turn to be represented by them.
However, this rapid expansion has presented a number of practical
difficulties and organisational problems, which have attracted praise and
criticism in equal measure. Leading movement intellectuals have suggested
that radical activism is in danger of becoming ‘a permanent conference’
(Grubacic 2003), or being ‘hijacked’ by the ‘big men’ of Latin American
politics – Hugo Chavez and Lula de Silva (Klein 2003). Others have argued
that the WSF has become ‘a logo’ and ‘a religion’ that is rapidly alienating
its participants through ‘giganticism’ (Sen 2003). Although a self-declared
‘open meeting place’, the WSF has retained the capacity to exclude and as
commentators from Leftist parties to Indymedia networks have noted, this
capacity is most evident in point nine of the Charter, which reads: ‘Neither
party representations nor military organizations shall participate in the
Forum. Government leaders and members of legislatures who accept the
commitments of this Charter may be invited to participate in a personal
capacity.’
This clause was ironically (given their catalysing role) a reason for the
Zapatistas (a military organisation), to stay away from the forum in 2002
and it has been much debated, particularly in India where it became a
source of division during the organisation of the 2004 WSF in Mumbai (Sen
2003: 72–75). It was also used, albeit unsuccessfully, by autonomous social
movement actors such as Indymedia, Babels (activist translation service)
and the London Social Forum to argue against orthodox leftist political
parties having organisational influence within the European Social Forum
process. The Charter’s other ambiguities include its emphasis upon nonviolent
struggle without specifically defining it or ruling out violence per se.
This appears to be a way of avoiding the WSF having to criticise self-defensive
actions, or to avoid censure of actions that may lead to property damage
or other forms of protest activity that are constructed in dominant and
normative discourses as ‘violent’.
However, as De Sousa Santos (2003) points out, the minimalist character
of the Charter of Principles means that, despite principled opposition to the