The African Social Forum

More on African Social Forum ideology/balance of forces 
 
Report of the Second Edition of the African Social Forum

Two hundred and ten delegates from Africa's social movements, NGOs and
academics met in Addis Ababa on the 5-9 January 2002. The meeting was
dominated by NGOs and there was less representation of social movements and
"grassroot" organizations. This partly explains the ideological differences
in the forum. The meeting was the second edition of the African Forum. It
was part of African "civil society" preparations for the World Social Forum,
which is scheduled for the end of January 2003.

Ammara Essy, the interim chairperson of the African Union Commission,
delivered the opening address of the forum. He extended an invitation for
participation in the AU civil society structures to the ASF.  This raised a
big debate in the ASF. There was a minority that was opposed to the opening
address by the AU speaker. This minority argued that the ASF has not defined
its objectives, strategies, friends and enemies. By allowing the AU to
influence the direction of the forum, which has adopted NEPAD, the
organizers of the forum were subsuming social movements to government
structures. In addition the forum was not given a chance to debate its
attitude towards the AU independently. The ASF, according to this view, is
part of an anti globalisation movement and this movement is independent and
based on mass orientation.

The other position was that the AU is an important body in Africa because
it gives Africans a chance for unity at a continental level. Therefore the
ASF should participate in civil society structures of the AU.  Within this
camp there were those who were already part of the AU civil society
processes. There was a lot of dishonesty and desperation within this camp.
For example, they argued that NEPAD was not a programme of the AU. This is
far from the truth.

The organizers of the forum had invited the AU ambassadors but this was
cancelled because of the protesting voices of those who were opposed to the
AU. The discussion on the AU was then taken into a working group. The
differences on the AU also emerged in the working group. The ASF was full of
maneuvering in the name of consensus. For example the AU working group
report that was given to the plenary did not mention the fact that there
were differences in the working group. Instead the report said that there
was consensus on participation in the AU. This also raised another debate in
the plenary between those who are for participation and those who were
against the AU. The matter was not resolved.

The first edition of the ASF in Bamako last year rejected NEPAD as a
neoliberal project. The second edition also reaffirmed that rejection and
committed itself to developing alternatives. The conundrum was the
translation of rejection into political practice and strategy. That is what
bedeviled the entire proceedings of the ASF.  There were those who saw
participation in the power structures as a way of influencing the government
policy. It has to be said that those who want to influence were NGOs that
pretended to be speaking on behalf of the masses.  On the other hand, others
saw mass mobilization and building grassroot structures of resistance to be
important.

The organizers also invited the UNDP to present the Millennium Objectives,
which is a  "developmental" programme of the UNDP. The programme is similar
to NEPAD and the SAPS because it does not talk about cancellation of debt
instead it mentions debt relief. It does not call for poverty eradication
but it calls for poverty reduction. NGOs and civil society are requested to
monitor the implementation of the programme in their countries according to
the UNDP. Again this also caused some debate. There are those that felt that
the presentation is aimed at incorporating the ASF into the power structure
and instead of dealing with real issues of the people the ASF is preoccupied
with the opinions of the power structure. On the other hand, others felt
that there was a need to engage with the Millennium Objectives of the UNDP.

The thematic groups managed to rich consensus on many issues: -

-- There was a total rejection of all forms of privatization of social
services in Africa. It was further argued that social services are part of
human rights to life and dignity.

-- There was a clear demand for debt cancellation and reparations. Debt was
seen as instrument of control and domination imposed by the imperialist
forces and their institutions. If creditors do not cancel debt, the meeting
agreed that there should be mass mobilization for debt repudiation.

-- The meeting also opposed to trade liberalization imposed by the WTO on
Africa. This trade liberalization has destroyed Africa's agriculture and
emerging industries.

-- African farmers and people in general do not benefit from AGOA/Cotonou
type of trade agreements.

-- The ASF also committed itself in working together with other social for a
in Europe, Asia, North America and Latin America in building another world.

-- Another African that is led by peasants, workers, women, young people and
all the other oppressed classes is possible.

The question of the structure of the ASF was also not resolved. African
regions came with proposals on the structure and principles of the ASF. The
chairperson of the plenary session, who is also part of the secretariat, did
not agree with a democratic process that was proposed by the regions. He
just ruled that the status quo would and this means a less democratic
steering committee composed of representation from thematic groups and
regions. The proposal, for instance from Southern Africa, was that the new
council has to be elected. Representatives from anti-neoliberal mass
movements must be in the majority of the council. Thematic groups such as
trade and debt were also going to be given representation in the council
according to the proposal of Southern Africa. This raised a lot of questions
with regard to democracy in the ASF.

Towards the end of the meeting, a document entitled, "Addis Ababa Consensus"
was presented. Although there was consensus on the document others felt that
it was too radical.

In conclusion, the ASF has two distinct forces. There are those forces that
are radical in character. These forces are from Southern Africa.  They have
attracted very few individuals and organizations in Kenya and Ethiopia. It
has to be said that these progressive forces were the minority in the ASF.
Therefore there is a need to strengthen these forces in other regions of
Africa particularly in Francophone countries. The other forces are led by
NGOs that are not articulating the interests of the toiling masses.  These
forces were in the majority in the ASF and they often used undemocratic
maneuvers to influence the political direction of the ASF.  They want to
orientate the ASF towards the AU and other government type structures.