ABSTRACT
The ESF has been an arena for debate and networking, but also a space where various conceptions of democracy have emerged and been developed. In addition to calls for a fluid, open, and inclusive organizational structure,2 the internal debate between supporters of ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ conceptions of democracy was already emerging at the first ESF in Florence. The representatives of local social forums called for a ‘rootedness in the territory’, the creation of open assemblies, and a fluid structure, stressing the importance of the non-organized. By the second ESF, a main criticism addressed the role of the more ‘institutional’ organizations, accused of imposing a hierarchical and non-transparent structure on what is supposed to be an open and consensual process (Sommier 2005: 29ff.). The local social forums were particularly critical of a ‘top down’ approach. These critiques were instrumental in the creation of autonomous spaces. During the Parisian ESF, but not within it, a self-managed village –organized by No vox and the Réseau Intergalactique and visited by about 6,000 activists (ibid.: 38) – as well as the formation of a libertarian and anarchist social forum testify to the search for alternative, horizontal forms of action. Some activists feared a sort of ‘institutionalization’ of the ESF that, in Paris, was accompanied by the forum of the European trade unions and the forum of the local authorities (with more than 200 participants), with high visibility of institutional actors (including the unions, even their European federation), especially in the press. Although many articles stressed the plurality of the movement, disproportionate voice was given to the mayors who hosted the forum, as well as to the representatives of political parties, unions, and local governments that were present. From within the movement, the organization of the second forum was criticized not only for the fragmentation of the events in five distant places, but also for the municipality’s decisions to rent buildings from private firms for the forum and to hire private policemen who prohibited entrance once the seats were all taken. There was also criticism of the organizers’ tendency to ally along national lines.3
