The Hindu Business Line : Two forums, many contrasts

"ANOTHER world is possible'. This is the theme of World Social Forum (WSF) created to oppose World Economic Forum (WEF), which is ``committed to improving the state of the world''. The reason for opposition — the latter's focus has been on economic growth where commercial considerations override everything else. The success of such an economic pursuit is measured through income. In this one-dimensional view, income becomes an end.

In reality, income is an important means to achieving certain ends associated with better life. The ends and what constitutes better life are multi-dimensional and differ with the situation. The purpose of the social forum has been to give space to this multiplicity of views. The WSF begins with a premise that accepts these differences and gives an opportunity to respect them.

The WSF is in its nascent stage with its fourth edition having just concluded in Mumbai India (January 16-21) where over a lakh people took part in about 1,200 events. Contrast this to WEF's 33rd annual meeting at Davos, Switzerland (January 21-25) with 2,200 participants in 250 events. Any one could enter the WSF by paying Rs 5, but security concerns barred local people from attending events at Davos.

True to Mumbai's spirit, the mass of people, protest marches, cultural events and umpteen seminars appeared chaotic, but underneath this amalgamation of variety lay the search for an order that is adaptive and accommodative. Undoubtedly, Davos, funded by 1,000 prominent business personalities of the world who are participant members of the forum, was structured to discuss ``partnering for security and prosperity".

A major concern raised at the economic forum was ``ensuring global security'' by countering terrorism, organised crime, civil war and inter-state conflicts. This would foster greater economic prosperity. Discussion at the social forum also veered around ``militarisation, war and peace''. It brought into focus the production of military arsenal by business houses with commercial interest and there were strong protests against the US-led war on Iraq. More important, peace was considered an end in itself with immense intrinsic value. It is another matter that it can also be instrumental in furthering economic prosperity, an important means to attain further ends.

Another key deliberation at Davos was on ``promoting global growth'' and how to guarantee sustained growth. In contrast, the focus of ``globalisation, economic and social security'' in Mumbai was to point how certain economies or sub-groups of population would be vulnerable and left out from the process. Economic consideration led to discussion on `building corporate resilience' to help recover from unexpected setbacks and difficult challenges.

As against this, in the social forum, resilience mattered more in ``sustainable development: Land, water and food sovereignty''. It brought into picture some issues such as freedom from hunger, right to health/healthcare, and availability of drinking water. In fact, organisers at the social forum made arrangements to ensure free availability of drinking water as per World Health Organisation norms.

Participants at the economic forum agreed that `spurring innovation' would be a key to solving complex social and ecological challenges. The rider is that adequate compensation (read monetary incentive) needs to be provided and achieved through intellectual property rights. This prevents open access which acts as a dampener, rather than spurring, as discussions under the sub-theme of `media, culture and knowledge' at social forum suggest. In line with this thought, the media centre in Mumbai was operated through free access software.

With recent changes, the economic forum also realised the need for ``harnessing the diversity of values''. Talks emphasised on understanding and strengthening the moderate face of Islam. If interaction is the basis for economic prosperity then each sub-group needs to be given due space. Discussions at the social forum under the sub-theme `religious, ethnic, linguistic exclusion and oppression' will agree with this. However, they would go a step further to suggest that giving space and respecting others should be an end in itself.

The gathering at the economic forum was also concerned about `creating opportunities for all.' Many initiatives at earlier annual meetings have made some business tycoons join hands in the global initiative identified as millennium development goals to fight poverty, illiteracy and ill health. These efforts are laudable, but there is so much to be done. An open forum at Davos also deliberated on `globalisation or de-globalisation: what is best for the world's poor', but this puts the question in such a way that one has to either take it or leave. This leaves us with no option because globalisation has become a reality. The question of what is happening to `labour and the world of work', one of the sub-themes from the social forum, is perhaps more open and pertinent.

It is commercial consideration that has brought security issues into discussion at WEF. A beginning has been made to understand and work with the Muslim world. The danger, however, is in considering economic prosperity as an end when it is an important means to attaining certain ends. Deliberations at WSF show that it is a hotchpotch of ideas.

Such a criticism misses the bus entirely. The purpose of WSF is not to suggest that a particular view is to be replaced by another, but rather to open our doors to other views. It also gives scope for evaluating these multiple views. Each view has its pros and cons and each should be credited for what it deserves, but also criticised/questioned for what it does not. This will help us progress further for a better life.

(The author is a visiting Assistant Professor at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai.)