Due to its plural character and diverse participation, the World Social Forum continues to be the most significant space for the construction of anti-neoliberal thought, ideas and alternatives. The 1,200 activities which made up the agenda for the seventh forum, which took place in Nairobi, Kenya from the 20^th to the 25^th of January, pay tribute to its vitality, which has grown out of the innovative proposal and whose backbone are the social processes present there: the movements, networks, campaigns and intellectuals, that have provided the basic material for its substance and dynamics. On this particular occasion, they took the vantage point of Africa, a continent rich in social and political initiatives, but which also suffers the most from the incongruence of the neoliberal model.

The incredible mosaic of experiences and cultures of which Africa is composed, was reflected in the diversity of participants and wide variety of issues raised, from long-standing struggles, such as the fight for independence of the people of the Western Sahara, to more contemporary issues such as HIV-AIDS and the right to water.

Without a doubt, this recent Forum provided the possibility of considering global struggles from the political perspective of a continent in resistance, bringing with it significant experiences gained from recent triumphs: independence from colonialism achieved over the last fifty years, the abolition of apartheid in 1990 in South Africa, as well as steps towards socialism in Angola and Mozambique, and more. Interesting precedents have also been set by new social movements on the continent, such as the historic victory for free import and access to generic drugs for HIV-AIDS, achieved in 2001 by the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) in South Africa, against a group of transnational corporations which were leveraging WTO accords to gain exclusive control over drug patents.

The Forum in Nairobi also enabled a greater number of networks and organizations to establish new or stronger relationships, to define new areas of common interest, and to develop innovative solidarity initiatives, such as that of the Global Campaign for Agrarian Reform in Africa, a project of Vía Campesina and others. In addition, the forum motivated participants to broaden their scope of intercontinental relationships, as was demonstrated by the priority established by the Americas Social Forum to orient its activities toward giving visibility to Africa’s presence in the Western hemisphere, and highlighting their shared history and experiences, present and future. This was reflected in various joint activities organized in collaboration with the African Forum.

However, like every work in progress, this recent Forum also brought to the forefront several critical issues, some of which pre-existed, while others were new. In this regard, the commercialization of the Forum and the contracting out of services must be mentioned, as well as the undeniable NGO-ization, the forum’s distancing from popular participation, invasive police presence, the high profile presence of various Christian churches and other related matters, all of which were thoroughly reported by the media. The avalanche of critiques, whose most relentless proponents arose from African delegations, need to be gathered and seriously considered with regard to the Forum’s future. Unfortunately, they reaffirmed the impression of an event marked by poor organization and a distancing from the original intentions which have animated this process for the last seven years.

In this context, it is necessary to think about the future and to open up debate and encourage discussion. That is, to compile and establish a dialogue between the different evaluations and ideas, so that this initiative, considered to be the greatest social proposal of our time, can renew its meaning and vitality.

In order to accomplish this, it is essential to confront the economic and power relationships internal to the Forum, since these are fundamental to any decision concerning its character, approach, participation, format and architecture. Furthermore, these are determining factors for making a choice between its two competing tendencies: that of the “World Social Fair,” supported by some organizations, and that of the forum as a collective process to uphold and strengthen changes, defended by a wide range of movements and organizations.

The African intellectual Samir Amín points out that between these two approaches there is that of \\\"an altermondialisme (another-world-ism) whose adherents are primarily drawn from the middle-class within rich countries and who are critical of the way of life proposed by capitalism, but who have little interest in the real concerns of the popular classes within their own countries, and less still of those in the South, where this \\\'moderate\\\' altermondialisme is often misunderstood. Paradoxically however, as a result of their greater access to financial support, these groups often seem to be over-represented in the World and Regional Social Forums and are at times perceived to be holding back the strengthening of popular struggles.” However, examples of this trend could also be identified in the South.

In any case, there is a challenge to determine a way forward for the Forum, without abandoning its openness to diverse manifestations and broad participation. And this means the need to establish some guidelines which take into consideration what it hopes to achieve.

Supposedly, in the “Forum as Fair,” each person freely finds or does what they want or, similar to the market system, everyone achieves their own ends based upon their own possibilities, though in this case, apparently in a more humane atmosphere. Those with greater resources are visible within the \\\"mainstream\\\" part of the forum, as happened in Nairobi. The \\\"main avenue\\\" was primarily occupied by Christian churches - though not the vast ecumenical diversity existing within Africa and globally - as well as development organizations, international institutions, and some NGOs. Many of the events which obtained reasonable participation seemed to gain their attendance from amongst the faithful who were sponsored to be there or, the equivalent, those who are beneficiaries of projects. In addition, the criteria established in Nairobi that self-organized events should pay a fee based on the size of each event, without consideration of ability to pay, nor of social representation or ability to draw participation, generated a disconcerting skew in the program, within which only a few organizations were able to organize dozens of events, whereas others were forced to limit their activities.

The “Forum as Process,” on the other hand, involves one or more critiques of the state of the world, and an inventory of existing standpoints present in the proposals of the live movements that come together in this space. Up until now, one of the most important contributions of the Forum has been its potential to expand the arena for exchange and convergence between various social struggles and to allow for the visioning of a common agenda, such as that which has come together in the Assembly of Social Movements, which is fostering collaboration between different issues, producing a declaration and calendar of joint actions, interconnecting proposals and efforts to build movements and networks in their ongoing struggles against the various impacts of the neoliberal model and its institutions. In fact, one of the greatest achievements of the Forum in this regard was the global day of action against the invasion and war against Iraq, on February 15^th, 2003.

To sacrifice this possibility to \\\"methodological experiments\\\" could put the future of the Forum at risk, since occurrences such as those in Kenya where the aforementioned Assembly had to forge its own space on the go, and where open participation became an issue of internal protest, could lead to demotivation of participants whose contributions are essential in the common struggle against neoliberalism.

The Forum’s character: participation, “architecture” and methodology

With regard to its character, the options facing the Forum relate back to its original principles. The Forum-event, envisioned as the confluence point of a broad-based proposal, as well as being open to pluralistic thought and debate, needs to give priority to new practices currently being developed by various participants in their day to day work, including the alternative solidarity economy, ecological practice, gender diversity and equality, among others. One of the strongest critiques concerning the forum in Kenya was the scarce presence of participants from the alternative solidarity economy, and the front-line presence of private and corporate actors.

In the same sense, the “architecture” of the forum must respond to the local reality and context in which it takes place. The idea of designing, in the here and now, an alternative city which allows those in attendance to experience a different model during this timeframe, must be balanced with the importance of creating a participatory framework. The forum needs to be in a location accessible to the local population – whether in an urban or rural context - and should take maximum advantage of existing public infrastructure. All the more so if creating special \\\"architecture\\\" for the purpose of the forum incurs greater costs, obliging the organizers to appeal to private companies, which are ever more present in the forums. This has been the case with Petrobras, sponsor of the 2005 Forum in Brazil and also very visible during the forum in Nairobi, as sponsor of the Brazilian delegation as well as the Brazilian Pavilion. It is also the case with the multinational cell phone company, Celtel, responsible for registration during the recent event in Kenya.

The notion of holding gigantic events, which has gained hold gradually over time, motivates organizers to want to make each forum larger, leading to the inevitable drawbacks concerning space and economic investment, which in 2005 led to a substantial deficit. The forum in Nairobi also fell victim to this rationale. Participation was calculated at more than 100,000 people, while all indications suggested that attendance would be less. The official tally of 66,000 registrants also seems greater than the actual number present. These miscalculations led to the selection of a remote location for the forum on the outskirts of Nairobi, Moi Stadium, whose cost to access was prohibitive, not only for local popular sectors, but also for the average participant from the South. Additionally, that the large tents being used were largely empty during the forum indicates that the investment was far out of proportion with actual attendance.

However, beyond these seemingly logistical elements, one of the major challenges for the forum has been the search for methodological procedures that contribute to reinforcing the underlying goals. This means ensuring that the distinct perspectives present in the process are taken into account in the definitions. The International Council (CI) has come to consensus about the importance of providing opportunities for convergence, as well as of ensuring balance with regard to various factors (geography, sectors, gender, ethnicity, etc) in the major events. Two proposals in this regard, which came out of the first Americas Social Forum, were partially implemented as part of the forum in Nairobi. However, this took place in a way that ended up diminishing their effectiveness.

First, “co-organized events\\\" were envisioned as a mid-way alternative to the central conferences and panels of the first forums and to the idea of having only “self-organized events” which do not guarantee diversity within the major arenas. Co-organized events are set up by the coordinating bodies of the forum, taking into consideration those organizations and networks that come together to register joint activities within the principle themes that have been established. Thirteen events of this kind were programmed for the forum in Nairobi and were assigned large venues. However, last-minute preparation and scarce promotion for these events resulted in very poor turnout, absent speakers and, in some cases, cancellation.

The second proposal adopted in Nairobi was that of \\\"the fourth day\\\" which is dedicated to convergence, evaluation and planning of coordinated actions. One of the key achievements of the forums has been precisely the bringing together of diverse actors, issues, sectors and agendas, a role that in practice has befallen the Assembly of Social Movements, on behalf of participating sectors. On the morning of January 24^th, thematic self-coordinated assemblies dealt in turn with such issues as war, migration, AIDS, sexual diversity, the union movement and globalization, among others, and effectively allowed for the identification of common goals and actions. However, the agenda did not provide broader spaces for convergence among different themes, setting out instead 21 issue based fora, for that afternoon, \\\"of struggles, alternatives and actions\\\", indicated by key words which lacked any political meaning, Many of these also repeated topics from the morning sessions. The proposal was limited to presenting proposals for action, which would be later displayed on the forum\\\'s webpage. Once again, under these circumstances, it was the Assembly of Social Movements which, with a full tent, took on this role of making space for the aforementioned convergences.

From the outset, the Forum has been a space for convergence in the broadest sense imaginable as part of the struggle against neoliberalism. Its pluralism, diversity and gender perspective are fundamental elements; its character as an agora for the exchange of ideas and proposals is essential to its make up; its participatory character is its driving force for the construction of alternatives. But if it is to retain this essence, it cannot become reduced to the coordination of disconnected events, redesigned each time like a new experiment. It is time now to invest in the idea of the forum as a process, such that the accumulated experiences may serve as a broad platform for new initiatives, and continue contributing to the construction of a plural social and political force that will bring about in-depth changes as alternatives to the neoliberal model.

The 2008 World Social Forum

The 2008 Forum will explore a new organizational model: instead of one central event, an invitation will be made to organize high-profile gatherings and actions around the world on the same date in January. In principle, this concept, whose precise details will be outlined during the next meeting of the International Council in June, will allow for the participation of more people while having a global impact. In any case, on the one hand, since this is not something that can be orchestrated in a centralized way, its success will depend on the situation within each country and the decision of local participants to invest their selves in its organization. On the other hand, the cohesion of the forum and its international visibility will depend to a great extent on a global communication initiative, as much during the lead up as at the time of the forum.

Debate has already begun about whether or not the forum should have one or several central themes, or freely determined themes; and whether or not there will be a common slogan beyond \\\"Another World is Possible.” During the meeting of the International Council in Nairobi, a significant group of international networks and regional forums brought forward the idea of a global day of action against the crimes of the transnational companies and governments who participate in World Economic Forum, to take place concurrently with this annual event in Davos. Such an initiative would ensure that a clear and forceful message is sent about the commitment of the World Social Forum in the struggle against neoliberalism.

For 2009, the World Social Forum is scheduled to take place in a central location. Spacing out the world forums has been an ongoing demand by several sectors, particularly social movements. Since the time that the WSF International Council was established in 2001, they have insisted on the necessity to have more space and time to invest in their own social struggles, and to develop local and continental processes for the forum.

In any case, if the aforementioned problems that arose in Nairobi are warning signs of fatigue with the mega-forum approach, which have already been voiced on previous occasions, 2008 presents a challenge and opportunities for participants around the world to look for and develop new ways for the Forum process to take root in the different corners of the world.

Several outstanding themes during the Forum in Nairobi

Given the scope of the agenda, it is not feasible to take a look at the full set of issues that were raised in Nairobi. Instead, we will indicate a few which stood out for their novelty or breadth.

The principal thematic innovation of the Forum in Nairobi, is without a doubt its thorough exploration of the issue of HIV-AIDS highlighting various socio-economic problems related to tackling this affliction, from which about 39.5 million people in the world are suffering, of which two thirds are in Sub-Saharan Africa. For this reason, the most important initiatives, proposals and actions related to this pandemic are emerging from this continent, which has made abundant contributions to making correlations between the expansion of this disease and poverty, and to analyzing the impact of neoliberal policies in this regard.

Putting into perspective the magnitude of the problem and considering its macroeconomic and human aspects, socially conservative campaigns promoting sexual abstinence are clearly invalidated. For the first time, though, such manifestations were visible during the Forum, including belligerent demonstrations, which reduce a complex and multifactoral issue down to a question of morality, far removed from a vision of rights and liberties such as is upheld by various social movements as they consider alternatives to the neoliberal model.

Concerning another area of discussion, the issue of External Debt drew broad attention and participation, including an innovative proposal to associate the debt with a demand for reparations for damages inflicted upon countries of the South, given that, as expressed by Camille Chalmers from Jubilee South: \\\"The basic idea is to recognize that the present debt is the result of a historical process of looting, of ecological destruction, both physical and social, such that the North owes an enormous debt towards the South.\\\" For this reason, future campaigns are being developed around three key words: repudiation, restitution and reparations.

More than forty global and continental organizations and networks from Africa, Latin America and Asia participated in an assembly to develop their positions and strengthen coordination between movements, renewing their rejection of the new formulas proposed by the International Financial Institutions, which continue to advocate strucutural adjustment policies. There was agreement to encourage governments of the South to enter into processes of repudiation and to back them in this effort. In this regard, they welcomed the decision by the government of Norway to cancel part of the illegitimate debt of certain Latin American countries, recognizing that the joint campaign by social movements in Norway with those of affected countries has been an effective model. They also set out to reinforce initiatives to raise awareness about the illegitimacy of the debt and to further pursue studies on the reparations process. Finally, they emphasized the importance of collaboration with other organizations and movements on related issues such as free trade, and militarization and military bases, as a way to develop more effective strategies to confront all projects for domination.

The priority set by Vía Campesina and other organizations concerning the issue of Agrarian Reform and Food Sovereignty also had significant outcomes during the Forum. The Global Campaign for Agrarian Reform in Africa was launched, as a significant contribution of the farmers\\\' movement towards the resolution of one of the greatest problems on the continent and for humanity, that of hunger. Indeed, with continued concentration of land ownership and over natural resources, such as water, poverty also continues to grow, particularly in the countryside where unprecedented levels are being registered: 75% of poor people worldwide live in rural areas.

Policies relating to land and rural development, such as those of the World Bank, which push for land liberalization, expansion of commercial agriculture, advance of genetically-modified crops, amongst others, were outlined as the greatest threats facing peasant livelihoods and their principle of sustainability. This was reflected in the words of Adamantine Nhampossa from Mozambique, Coordinator of Vía Campesina in Africa: \\\"Five hundred years ago, colonialism took our land. Since the 80s, our land is being taken by the World Bank. Currently, the only thing that we have left is to become mobilized and to organize campaigns such as this, encouraging people to struggle for their rights.\\\"

The proposal for food sovereignty, which concerns the right of peoples to decide on their own agricultural and nutritional policies, was seen as highly relevant, not only due to the high levels of hunger and malnutrition across the African continent, but also due to their agricultural customs and self-sustenance, which are now being undermined by the imposition of policies and market practices and which are further threatened by the advance of free trade agreements such as the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs).

For reasons such as this, the issue of Free Trade was another important subject of debate; an area in which various agreements were advanced, particularly with regard to strengthening ties between Africa and other continents. In this area, the consolidation of the international movement against the EPAs stood out (agreements of economic cooperation and partnership which are being negotiated between the European Union and various countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific). The most immediate actions include an international mobilization on April 19^th of this year, whose epicentre will be in Europe and Africa, but which will also take place in Caribbean countries. Meanwhile, the Hemispheric Social Alliance will encourage actions of solidarity throughout the rest of Latin America.

In Africa, EPAs are equivalent to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) for Latin America. Ever since the process of negotiations began about two years ago, significant growth has taken place in mobilizations against these agreements across the continent, primarily led by the African Trade Network bringing together unions, farmer organizations and NGOs from about forty African countries.

The theme of Diversity was expressed in a variety of ways. Sexual diversity, in particular, and the demands for the rights of people discriminated against as a result of their sexual orientation, received wide attention, despite a supposedly adverse context, where repeated arguments concerning cultural incompatibility with this form of diversity even included attempts to exclude it from the agenda of the Forum. On this subject, the Assembly of Social Movements echoed proposals from the 4^th Social Forum on Sexual Diversity in its final resolutions, reaffirming its commitment to struggles to eradicate such discrimination wherever it might arise, and endorsing the campaign \\\"In a diverse world, equality is first,” put forward by the LGBT South-South Dialogue together with other networks, as a mechanism to foster a culture of respect for diversity, a central element toward the construction of alternatives.

Women’s concerns and their proposals for humanity were expressed in new ways on the African continent. Amongst the new issues raised by this movement, food sovereignty was put forward by the Women’s Network of the Vía Campesina and the World March of Women (WMW), who presented the particular challenges for the affirmation of rights concerning agriculture and food production. The WMW also contributed debates around the commercialization of the bodies and the lives of women, as expressed in different realms associated with the reproduction of life, and various discussions concerning globalization, such as migration. In collaboration with the LGTB South-South Dialogue and other networks, they also considered questions of diversity as a substantial part of struggles against patriarchy and for universal equality.

Communication, constantly invoked as an indispensable resource for reinforcement of the Forum’s goals, was also the object of several resolutions. In a meeting to pool conclusions, called by the international Campaign for Communication Rights (CRIS), with the participation of international and regional networks, as well as African organizations, proposals for action were exchanged, reaching consensus on the necessity to mobilize a wide range of support around the democratization of communication. Toward this end, these were proposals to raise awareness concerning the fact that communication rights are fundamental: as part of democratic process, for the organization and struggles of social movements and for the exercise all human rights. It was also emphasized that information, communication and knowledge, and in particular the radio spectrum and the internet, must be recognized as public goods and services, rather than as commodities, and that they must therefore remain outside of free trade agreements; also, that public policies need to be further extended in the areas of information and communication.

There was a varied and plural presence from the Americas. The Americas Social Forum Tent, organized by the Hemispheric Council, became an important meeting space for participants from the continent, while providing a venue for meetings and exchanges with other realities, such as that of Palestine and the Sahara, as well as others who arranged their gatherings there. Amongst the range of activities which took place, two in particular stand out, both organized by the women’s movement: the Preparatory Meeting for the World Forum on Food Sovereignty (Nyeleni 2007), organized by Vía Campesina and the World March of Women, which gathered important contributions concerning the role of women as creators of knowledge with regard to the substance and provision of human nutrition. The book \\\"Fidel y las Mujeres\\\" (Fidel and women) was also launched during an event organized by the Cuban Women’s Federation. As well as emphasizing the important role of women in the revolution, the event became a global space of expression for the warm appreciation of Cuba’s contributions to people’s struggles, within which participants from five continents spontaneously took part emphasizing the importance of Cuban solidarity in education, health, science, culture, etc., with special emphasis from Africa, a continent to which that country has offered its solidarity for various causes.

Amongst the wide range of other issues which were presented during the Forum in Nairobi, we might briefly mention the Anti War Assembly, which called for global days of action, from the 17^th to the 20^th of March; the launching of the new African Water Network, with the participation of more than forty countries, which will struggle against the privatization of water in cooperation with allied networks such as the Red Vida (Network for Life) in the Americas. Also, the Assembly on Work and Globalization made a proposal for the creation of a permanent international network amongst unions, social movements and research centres, focusing on work, culture and labour rights, so as to confront the attacks by neoliberal globalization.

The Alternative Forum

An Alternative Social Forum was organized from the 21^st to the 23^rd of January, taking place in one of the city’s central parks, Jeevanjee Gardens, as a response to the obstacles for Nairobi’s poor to participate in the main forum. The Alternative Forum was organized by the People’s Parliament, which gathered in the park each afternoon throughout the year, in order to debate diverse subjects from local, national and international levels.

In this Forum, issues were raised such as housing, unemployment, social security, land, water, health and provision of public services. Also ideological debates took place, such as with regard to capitalism and socialism. Some four thousand people took part, including some participants of the World Social Forum who visited the park. The Alternative Forum presented its resolutions to the Assembly of Social Movements. Amongst them: the public provision of housing by the state as a basic human right; fair distribution of natural resources, giving priority to local communities; the elimination of disparities in wages, guaranteeing everyone with a fair minimum wage; the reversal of historical injustices, such as the expropriation of peasant farmers’ land, or the treaties limiting the use within Kenya of its own water from Lake Victoria.

-----

* We thank Magdalena León for her contributions to this article.

Translation: ALAI