Social Watch Report 2010

coordinate activities in horizontal open spaces, anapproach that some analysts regard as a forerunnerof the organizational format later adopted by theWorld Social Forum. Many of the NGOs that tookpart in the Social Summit later formed the backboneof Social Watch. As a result, the structure and functioningof the network preserves much of originalflexibility and openness.In addition to national coalitions, the networkis structured around three bodies: the General Assembly,the Coordinating Committee and the InternationalSecretariat. In recent years, some regionaland sub-regional coordination structures were establishedas a space for articulation–not as a necessaryintermediate body to link the national with theglobal.The Social Watch network is not an incorporatedentity and it did not start by drafting its governingbylaws. Instead, a short Memorandum of Understandingbetween national groups and the network(see box) became the basic framework establishingmutual expectations, respecting both the autonomyof national coalitions and democratic horizontaldecision-making. A key principle that distinguishesSocial Watch from other international civil societynetworks is that no central body provides fundsfor its members. These operational principles helpavoid the tensions associated with donor/recipientrelationships within the network – since there aren’tany – and also the loss of energy that could resultfrom lengthy discussions about money, budgetingand reporting, as well as procedural matters. It hasalso resulted in members’ strong sense of tenureover the network.National coalitions organize the way they want– or can – according to the conditions in each country.The membership of Social Watch coalitions isvery diverse, including research institutes or centres,NGOs, grassroots organizations, trade unions,women’s groups, rural organizations and others.Social Watch XIIItema