Only 18 months are gone since the foundational conference of PGA in Geneva. In this time there have been projects of sheer size, differences of interpretation on the role the PGA should have, and serious problems on the way this instrument of coordination and communication works in practice. This document attempts to summarise some of the debates and problems that have been observed in these months, all of which show the need to review the organisational principles or the operationability of PGA.
This document is divided in two parts: a first one on the function of PGA as coordination and communication tool, and a second one focused on how PGA is working to fulfil its role.
This document is only one more contribution to the group discussion.
1. Function of PGA
The first organisational principle of PGA says: (new organisational principles)
- The PGA is an instrument for co-ordination, not an organisation. Its main objectives are:
- Inspiring the greatest possible number of persons and organisations to act against "free" trade through non-violent civil disobedience and people-oriented constructive actions
- Offering an instrument for co-ordination and mutual support at global level for those fighting "free" trade
- Giving more international projection to the struggles against "free" trade and the WTO
In these months it has become obvious that there are different interpretations of this principle. In previous debates, especially those held at the meeting of the convenors committee in Finland 1, the following two lines of thought were manifested 2:
- According to one of them, the mandate of PGA is restricted to the struggle against the agreements and institutions that regulate and articulate the global capitalist regime, such as the WTO, regional free trade agreements, and institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF (due to their role in processes of liberalisation through structural adjustment). In the rest of the document this line of thought will be called option 1.
- Another opinion is that PGA should work as a tool for communication and coordination for all the struggles against the effects of the global capitalist regime, not only against the institutions and agreements that regulate it. In this case, the efforts of communication and coordination should be extended to all the topics related to capitalist exploitation, as well as its relation with patriarchy, racism, violence, environmental destruction etc. and the different forms of struggle to eliminate these forms of oppression. Within this perspective, there is a great expectation on the side of some Southern movements (such as the Black Communities Process and the KRRS) that expect the PGA as a process to reach a stage in which it is able to articulate grassroots resistance at global level. In this way, the PGA would actually work as a global movement, rooted in the basis of peoples' movements all over the planet, and playing a direct political role from below (despite not being constituted as organisation).In the rest of the document this point of view is called option 2.
The first draft of the manifesto, discussed in Geneva, reflected the first line of thought. But the discussions in Geneva showed the need to take a broader and more integrative perspective, which resulted in the manifesto growing from being one and a half pages focused on the WTO to an eight-pages text on the impacts of capitalism on different social groups, the environment, etc.
This apparent demand from the participants of the conference to take a broader perspective has been reflected also in the projects that have been supported or convened by PGA. For instance, the first days of action convened by PGA were quite centred on the WTO and the G8, while the second day of action on June 18th was a carnival against capitalism. And the Inter-Continental Caravan had 5 main topics of struggle; the first one was economic globalisation and the institutions that manage it (especially the WTO) but the other four covered issues such as biotechnology and the nuclear industry.
Hence there seems to be reasons to broaden the first organisational principle of PGA, to give the specific struggles in an explicit manner the role that they have according to the manifesto and the projects of PGA. Other arguments in favour of option 2 are:
- The WTO regime is the result of processes of development and transformation of capitalism that manifest themselves in diverse forms at all levels (global, national, regional, local). Hence, a coherent and complete commitment against the WTO regime cannot be limited to the global level, but must include its diverse social, political, economic, gender, cultural, environmental, etc. manifestations and impacts at different levels.
- The denunciation of 'free' trade without an analysis on patriarchy, racism and processes of homogenisation is a basic element of the discourse of the (extreme) right. It is perfectly compatible with simplistic explanations of complex realities and with the personification of the effects of capitalism (such as conspiracy theories, antisemitism, etc) that inevitably lead to fascism, witchhunting and oppressive chauvinist traditionalism.
- The main reason why the WTO had such a prominent role in the first convocation of the PGA was that the idea of PGA emerged from a meeting aimed at developing strategies to raise awareness about the WTO regime and its effects 3. This objective was very important in a time when almost no organisation in the North even knew about the existence of the WTO regime, since it was clear that the efforts of Southern movements to "kill the WTO" would have little effects at the international level as long as most of the movements and activists from the North would continue not giving any attention to this issue. Today the situation has fortunately changed (and the PGA has played an important role in this change), and one can say that this objective is being increasingly fulfilled: a large number of organisations in the North participated in the actions against the WTO in May 1998 and it seems that there will be an even larger number of direct actions and civil disobedience against the third Ministerial Conference of the WTO in Seattle. It hence can be argued that it is not anymore necessary to concentrate on promoting confrontational resistance against the WTO since this objective is being fulfilled and has its own process.
These arguments could even be used to argue for a change in the name of PGA, changing the specific reference to 'free' trade and the WTO for more general concepts (for instance solidarity and resistance, central concepts of the inter-continental caravan). They would also justify the addition of a fifth hallmark (i.e., the points that are not open for debate, the minimum consensus needed to participate in conferences, publications and projects of PGA 4) that clarify that PGA rejects all forms of racism, sexism, xenophobia / state-based nationalism, cultural homogenisation and religious fundamentalism.
On the other hand, there are also good arguments in favour of option 1. One of them is that it provides more effectivity in the objective of creating awareness about and promote resistance against the WTO agreements. Another argument is that although there is an increasing number of organisations that take action against the WTO agreements, there is still an urgent need to make visible at the local level the WTO and other global institutions, as well as the mechanisms that support them.
But the most important argument against option 2 is the question of whether the articulation capacity at the international level of PGA as a collective process is going to enable us to respond in a responsible manner to the tremendous challenge of broadening the area of work of PGA in such a way, and fulfil the expectations that this would generate (or one should say, that it has already generated through the expansion of the manifesto in the first conference). The results of the first 18 months of work within the PGA indicate that there are great limitations in this sense, but these will be treated in the second part of this document.
***
Another aspect of the debate on the role of PGA that started in Finland has to do with the concerns expressed in relation to proposals of economic reform at global level, such as the Tobin Tax 5, the social clause 6, etc. These measures are being demanded above all by NGOs and trade unions that share at least part of the criticism of global capitalism but whose alternatives are based on changes from above, from the existing mechanisms of power. These alternatives are based on the idea that the problems created by economic globalisation can be solved with a "rehumanisation" of the market mechanisms. In the Finland meeting several convenors expressed that the PGA should not promote the introduction at global level of mechanisms of redistribution of wealth, but instead support, strengthen and even generate social dynamics from below that eliminate the mechanisms of extraction and accumulation of resources 7.
If this conference decides to take a clear stand towards option 2 in relation to the role of PGA, it would be logic to consider the questioning and opposition to these reformist measures as one of the tasks of PGA. In the same sense, the diffusion of information about the negative effects of the work of many NGOs was also discussed in Finland as one of the possible tasks of PGA, among others.
2. Actual functioning of PGA
The organisational principles explain in detail the model of functioning that PGA was supposed to have followed in the last 18 months. Actually, almost none of these principles has been working properly due to different problems.
The main problems that have been observed in these months are:
- Most of the movements and organisations that participated in the first conference (including the majority of the convenors) seem to see PGA as a very positive idea, but do not actively participate in the process at international level. Hence, the idea that the PGA is an instrument of communication and coordination for the direct and active use of movements all over the world, controlled and appropriated by these movements, is still a project rather than a reality. For instance, almost no organisation has been sending contributions for the PGA bulletin (also not the convenors), with the exception of the global days of action, although it is not so much work to do so. The reasons might have to do with the lack of time due to the urgent situations that many of these movements face at local or national level, or maybe due to lack of clarity about the mechanisms through which they can participate.
- The convenors committee has not been working as a team due to communication problems. There has only been good team communication at the two meetings that took place in May and September 98. Out of these meetings, the agreement is that communication takes place by electronic mail. But most of the convenors participate in this communication in an extraordinarily sporadic way, and do not reply to most of the messages sent by other convenors or the support group 8. The reason for this could be, at least in the case of several organisations from the South, that electronic mail does not work well as a communication tool, or that one conference and two meetings is simply not enough interaction to create the dynamics needed to maintain a more constant communication.
This low level of communication has meant that a large number of decisions taken by electronic mail have been proposed by the support group. Hence, the support group has taken much more space in the process that what corresponds to it, due to the lack of initiative of most of the convenors. This is obviously a great problem, since the support group has no mandate from the conference.
The problems of communication become worse due to the constant need for translation 9 in the email discussions within the committee, which continues to be a big problem since even the convenors that with a little effort could ensure translations into Spanish (in Western Europe and North America) do not give the necessary priority to this, apparently expecting the support group to take care of it.
- Only two issues of the bulletin have come out since the first conference. This has happened on the one hand due to the fact that almost no movement has taken the initiative to send contributions for it, and to problems within the support group to finalise the third issue. This has eliminated in practice the most important communication tool of PGA. Other communication projects such as a book and a database that have been discussed since the originating meeting in August 97 get endorsed once more in each and every single meeting but have never been realised.
- There have been specific problems in relation with the fulfilment of specific tasks for this conference. Partially due to communication problems, most of the members of the convenors committee have not done an active convening work and most of them have not even participated in the decisions about application forms received directly by the electronic secretariat of PGA. The local hosts (KRRS) did a great job to provide the logistical needs of this conference, but it was not their function to take care of all the convening work, preparation materials, etc. And there were not enough people involved in the support group (in which there is an extremely reduced number of people who accept responsibilities) to do all these tasks. The whole process of the conference was delayed for all these reasons.
Besides these concrete problems related to the practical implementation of what is said in the organisational principles, there are other underlying problems that are creating difficulties to realise the PGA project. Some of them are:
- There is a great contrast between the different kinds of participation in the PGA process in different regions. In Asia and Latin America it is mainly large movements, grassroots organisations and other collective processes which are taking part. Most of them represent social sectors which are directly affected by the process of liberalisation (farmers, indigenous peoples, fisherfolk, black communities, workers, etc.) 10. In the Pacific there is a similar situation but the only ones actively participating in the process is the movement for Maori liberation. In Western Europe and North America most of those who are taking active part in the process are small autonomous groups and individual activists that do not represent any organisation nor any collective expression of social sectors, with the exceptions of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and certain sectors of the French Peasant Confederation. The situation is similar in Central and Eastern Europe, although most of the people taking active part in this region are organised, even if it is in relatively small organisations. The active participation in Africa is so far practically inexistent, with the exception of the Chikoko movement in Nigeria.
These differences create tensions due to the fact that there seems to be a serious lack of mutual knowledge in relation with the ways of working that people take in other regions. A specific problem that is becoming painfully obvious in several occasions is the readiness with which some European activists obsessed with hyperdemocracy and the dissection of dialectical problems are willing to ignore the completely different needs and expectations of movements that find themselves in much harder situations than themselves. Tensions are also created by the fact that in many occasions these same activists occupy much more space in conferences (especially in plenaries) than what the delegates of large grassroots movements consider appropriate, since their contributions are purely individual, in contrast with those of the delegates of movements that have previously discussed their contribution to the conference and hence have a mandate, in some occasions, of hundreds of thousands of people. Finally, it also creates a great concern that these activists also do not represent the social sectors that are meant to set the agenda and be the main actor of the PGA process, i.e. the most affected social sectors. They usually represent "enlightened" middle class, which has a tendency (both in the North and in the South) to maybe unknowingly disrespect the far more complex, elaborate and (inspite of that) modest grassroots processes that are being constructed by affected social sectors, with their loud need to squat discussions where they should rather be in the position of observers.
- The organisations and persons that are not actively involved in the PGA process seem to have very little clarity about how the PGA operates (how and by whom decisions are taken, tasks are done, etc). This is due, among other reasons, to the fact that it does not function the way it should, and we have had to improvise along the way (especially through the support group) so that the process continues. There is not even a permanent address of PGA in any country, the only possibility to take contact is through electronic mail. There have been in several occasions proposals to establish contact points in different countries (organisations that would volunteer to distribute information about PGA) but this was never implemented. Hence, the internal workings of PGA are a complete mystery for most of the people, even for those who attended the first conference.
3. Conclusion
These 18 months of existence of PGA have made a couple of things clear:
- The potential of the PGA project has really surprising dimensions, as was demonstrated by projects such as the global days of action and the inter-continental caravan for solidarity and resistance. These calls for action had an amazing response from very disparate social sectors. It seems that PGA has filled a vacuum that was screaming for attention. In this sense, the option 2 in the first part of the document seems to be the kind of process demanded by hundreds of movements all over the world.
- On the other hand, the operational capacity of PGA at international level is very reduced, due to problems of all kinds. On one hand there are problems which can easily be solved, such as the reduced number of persons that accept collective responsibilities in a serious manner. On the other hand there are more difficult problems, such as the disparity of participation in the process and the tensions that this generates.
It is hence imperative to discuss how we can construct a process that can realise the potential encapsulated especially in option 2. The events realised in the last 18 months, despite their spectacularity, seem not to be enough. They are rather fireworks that do not necessarily lead to a deepening of the action strategies and to the appropriation of the PGA process by the movements that take part in them 11.
We must hence find other ideas, strategies and actions to facilitate the process by which the project of PGA takes root in the local realities of grassroots movements all over the world, so that PGA can be realised as the dynamic process from the bottom which was envisaged 18 months ago in the foundational conference.
Libia Grueso, Process of Black Communities, Colombia
Sergio Oceransky, Play Fair Europe!, Europe
1 In September 1998 the convenors committee met in Finland to prepare this conference and debate about the development of PGA
2 This division in two points of view is obviously a simplification since there is a great diversity of versions of similar ideas. However, the two lines of thought can easily be identified.
3 The meeting that took place in El Indiano in August 1997, after the second Intercontinental Gathering for Humanity and Against Neoliberalism. See the point 2, "Brief history of PGA", in the preparatory document for this conference.
4 The other four hallmarks can be found in the section 1 of the preparatory document for this conference.
5 Proposal to introduce a tax on the transactions of capital in the international currency markets with the objective of reducing especulation and generating funds for development projects.
6 Proposal to introduce a clause in the WTO system that enables member countries to restrict the imports of products coming from countries that do not fulfil a number of conventions on labour rights of the International Labour Organisation
7 Although this idea is expressed in an indirect way in the first and second hallmark of PGA (which declare the rejection to the WTO system and similar mechanisms of trade liberalisation, and the confrontational attitude towards these institutions and agreements), the formulation that came out of the debates in Finland is more clear and offers less space for confusions.
8 The support group is a small group of people who are ready to devote time and energy to help out with tasks such as the compilation and translation of contributions to the bulletin, updating the web page, the organisation of meetings, fundraising for these meetings and the conference, and secretariat tasks. Most of them are european activists but there are also a very few people from the South.
9 The two convenor committees that have existed so far have communicated in English and Spanish
10 In Asia there is also an increasing participation of NGOs and other groups "working with" or "concerned about" people who are directly affected but which do not at all represent the voice of those social sectors (although some of them seem to believe that they do). This is a development that some grassroots movements in the same region see with a great deal of worry since they already have very bad experiences with such kind of groups, which have a tendency to take the space that corresponds to real grassroots movements.
11 However, some important changes are taking place within some of the movements that have participated in PGA projects, although the final results are still to be seen. The most clear examples are the deep transformations that are being discussed within KRRS due to the large participation of KRRS members in the Inter-Continental Caravan, and the emergence of what could be a real network in Europe thanks to the intensive collaboration that took place to prepare this project. But these cases are rather exceptional.