ABSTRACT
As stated in the WSF’s Charter of Principles2 (document 5 – full document list at end of this chapter – henceforth: Charter), social forums are meant to be open spaces of discussion. However, this space is not given, but actively created. It is a challenge to coordinate the loose network of individuals, groups, and organizations that assemble under the banner global justice movement (GJM) in such a way that the desired open space of discussion emerges. Within the framework of a volume addressing the issue of democracy in the ESF process, this chapter focuses on the political challenges of this process, considering in particular the political controversies and conflicts as moments in which principles and common values are revealed, tested, and transformed. In this perspective, our analysis is relevant for anybody who wants to reflect on contemporary forms of transnational democracy. Organizing such a huge and complex process raises three types of challenges. The first is about coordination: although it is a transnational process, the ESF is based on nationally and locally rooted actors. Coordinating them involves a complex interaction between the transnational level and the various national ones. The second challenge concerns the ESF’s relative autonomy from other spheres, including the political one: it aims at being a space for civil society organizations, set apart from state and party politics (Charter, articles 5 and 8). However, organizing the event implies negotiating with local and national authorities, as well as relying (at least partially) on political parties and their mobilizing capacities. The third challenge is deeply rooted in the ESF’s project itself: as an open space, it constantly aims at inclusion and mobilization for common action. While the first two challenges are mainly related to practical and ideological issues as well as diverging interests within the movement, this third challenge is part of what Polletta has called ‘democratic dilemmas’ (2002: 12): ‘the problem . . . that maximizing one set of participatory democracy’s benefits may come at the expense of maximizing another’ (ibid.: 13). Each section of this chapter addresses one of these challenges. Adopting a diachronic perspective, our main aim is to single out changes or even trends in the six-year development of the ESF organizing process.3
