| Exploring the Emerging Social Movements in Africa |
|
|
|
|
EXPLORING THE EMERGING SOCIAL MOVEMENTS IN AFRICA Trip Objectives The Third African Social Forum took place in Lusaka, Zambia in mid-December 2004, shortly after the conclusion of Africa Action’s second annual Baraza. The purpose of my trip on behalf of Africa Action to the ASF was to build on existing relationships with African organizations and meet new potential colleagues in our common work for economic, political and social justice for Africa. It was also an opportunity to consult with African colleagues on potential campaigning and framing priorities for Africa Action (debt, treatment access etc.). Finally, it also allowed us to identify places of convergence for our work and the work happening on the African continent and the key colleagues with whom we can deepen this connection. I traveled to the ASF carrying an overarching question that had been posed to the opening panel at the Africa Action 2004 Baraza. “What are the emerging social movements in Africa?” This is the type of question that could become a master’s thesis, one that entire organizations, like the Centre for Civil Society in South Africa, attempt to answer. This question haunted me during the trip, and you will see from the notes below that I was able to gather some sense of the emerging social movements both at the Forum and in conversation with key African activists who have been engaged in movement building for decades. This document does not attempt to provide a comprehensive, or a definitive answer to this question; it simply is a starting point. As my travel route was through Kenya, I took a couple of extra days in Nairobi to meet with a variety of Kenyan colleagues. The objectives for this portion of the trip were largely the same as those for the African Social Forum. THE AFRICAN SOCIAL FORUM General Observations The number of people attending the third African Social Forum seemed to fluctuate around 500. Everyone was disappointed in this turnout. While it was higher than the second forum in Addis Ababa, it was much lower than expected. Many argued that the low attendance was partially because of a lack of resources to bring people and partially because of lack of publicity. Despite the fact that we were in Zambia, there was a relatively small Zambian delegation. This was clearly a result of insufficient publicity about the event. The largest delegation was from Zimbabwe. There were also a significant number of people from Malawi, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya and Senegal. There were several North Africans, more than had attended previous forums. There were roughly equal numbers from East and West Africa, a smaller number of Central Africans and the largest group, naturally, was from Southern Africa. There was more representation of people who are not affiliated with an organization, who are impoverished people working for change in their local community, than at the two previous forums. Unfortunately, because of difficulty with interpretation and the reality that most of these participants only spoke a specific ethnic language, they were only able to partially participate. Many participants offered the critique that the African Social Forum should be much bigger, with greater participation by the social movements, and with adequate translation to ensure their equal participation. The Language Of Social Movements The observation on social movement participation at the African Social Forum raises a larger general observation about the discourse of social movements in Africa. The first challenge in addressing the question of emerging social movements in Africa is how one defines “social movements”. There are three dominant understandings of the term “social movements”. The first use of the term “social movements” means the work for change on an issue by a broad section of society. For example, the international women’s movement would be considered a “social movement” working towards the equal rights of women in which not only women but also men have participated. This definition allows for organizations to take part in the movement, but implies that there is not usually a head organization or individual. This type of definition holds for many in the African context, but it is not the exclusive definition. A second definition for “social movements”, as used above in describing attendance, refers not to an issue around which many work for change, but a grouping of people. These are people who are not paid activists or people heavily involved in any organization. They are often rural people or the urban poor who are facing the reality of poverty and oppression in their every day lives. They might be farmers or slum-dwellers, men, women or youth. They are all, however, actively working for change. They might or might not be members of coalitions, trade unions, resource centers, or make up the “grassroots” of non-governmental organizations. This form of the term “social movements” was often used at the African Social Forum in contexts like, “We need more representation of the social movements. Most of the participants at this forum are non-governmental organizations and other civil society organizations.” All of the participants of the African Social Forum are working for change, and most of them would consider themselves a part of some type of “social movement” as it is described in the first version of the definition, but they are not the most impoverished or the most oppressed of African society. A third definition of “social movements”, used frequently at the African Social Forum was in reference to particular organizations that have a strong representation of people who are oppressed, poor, or experiencing first hand the injustice of the issue. For example, when asked about the emerging social movements in South Africa, many mentioned specific organizations including the Treatment Access Campaign or the Anti-Privatization Forum. This is different than responding that the emerging social movements are on AIDS or anti-corporate globalization, or that the emerging social movements are people living with AIDS or people who have lost access to basic social services due to forced privatization of these services. Gender There was a gender imbalance both in terms of participation and more visibly in terms of leadership on panels and in the ASF overall. Even though Women for Change was the host organization, they were mostly working on logistics and as a result were not in visible leadership on the program. There were several sessions on women, “Gender and Trade”,” Feminist Dialogue” and an African’s Women’s Court, for example, but some of these sessions were scheduled at the same time, dividing the women among the sessions. At the times when there were specific sessions on women or gender, the other sessions at that time were almost exclusively attended by men. Media/Publicity Unlike in other forums, there was very little visibility of the ASF in Lusaka at large. The ASF was held in the Mulungushi International Conference Center, where there was a banner on the front gate, but there were no banners, posters or any other type of sign in other parts of Lusaka to draw attention to the ASF. There was little if any media coverage of the ASF in the papers on opening day, and there was very little coverage of the forum in the bigger papers or the TV news for the duration of the event. U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Commission on Africa had a consultation in Lusaka during one of the last days of the ASF, which got more local press than the forum got at any point. Of course, the Commission on Africa did not bother to consult with those at the ASF. There was a very good internal newspaper produced by people at the ASF, but it is not clear that it was circulated beyond the participants. African Critiques Much of the critique centered on the disappointment in the small numbers of attendance and the frustration about insufficient resources. Greater resources would have enabled greater participation and greater publicity of the ASF. Women and some of the men in attendance also raised the need for greater gender representation on the panels. Many African participants, including some in the leadership structure, were highly critical of the leadership of the ASF. The argument was that the leadership structure has been too small in number and has not been transparent or participatory enough. This, some argued, was what resulted in the situation whereby many of the same people spoke several times over on the different panels. Participants would have preferred hearing from more voices. The leadership concerns also were connected to complaints about the forum’s logistics; the disappointments about decisions made that influenced the agenda of the forum; and about the lack of transparency about money and budget. It is important to note that the concerns on fiscal transparency were not accusations of corruption, but simply a lack of clarity in the larger group about how much money had been raised and how it had been spent. For example, some speculated that more money could have been spent to bus in more people from rural areas, as opposed to being spent on other parts of the ASF. The concerns about the leadership and the decision making around the forum are best summed up in a paper produced and distributed by South African participants called, “Social Movements Indaba Statement”. The South Africans feel especially excluded from the leadership. While the statement resonates with the critiques made throughout the ASF, the fact that the statement came from the South Africans who tend to be the most militant and vocal in their critique meant that the statement was less well received. Participants were also disappointed that there were not more conference perks (due to little funding) like coffee breaks, bags or other souvenirs, packets with papers etc. as there had been at the two previous Forums. There also were some logistical problems, and little or very late translation. There was a church service scheduled on two of the days (which lasted all day) that was very loud and better attended, perhaps, than the ASF, sparking discussion about the need for more faith-based outreach and questions about who the ASF attracts. A True Forum Despite the fact that there were many concerns and criticisms about the ASF, it remained a very helpful space for our purposes of meeting with people from around the continent, hearing the analysis and having discussions on our campaign priorities. If you see the African Social Forum as a “forum” where deep discussion and dialogue on key justice issues can been had, the ASF was a great success. The quality of presentations, discussions and dialogue in the conference rooms, the corridors and the cafés was all exceptional. The critiques become more powerful for those who would like to see the ASF unite social movements or come out with united statements or declarations, and to some extent for those who desire the forum to be a tool of popular education and mobilization. OPENING SESSION: "ANOTHER AFRICA IS POSSIBLE" The opening session was very interesting. The framework for “Another Africa” was identified as, “Creating a poverty free and just world.” According to the presenters, this can be done by:
The challenges identified by the presenters were:
After this framework was identified, speakers from each country or region that had hosted a national or regional social forum got up to speak. They each identified priority issues that had come out of their social forum and many offered their analysis or gave speeches about their deepest concerns. Kenya: Focus on debt cancellation, celebrated a history of resisting colonialism, had a special focus on youth. Egypt: Focus on corruption and dictatorships – the need for democratic and civil states that respect human rights. Egypt’s forum challenged NGOs to be democratic themselves and to strengthen civil society. Senegal: Focus on NEPAD/globalization/debt. Senegalese forum emphasized the need to develop African solutions Africa’s main challenges. Tunisia: Focus on globalization and violence; and the building of social movements that develop alternatives and new political patterns. Zimbabwe: Focus on the need to resist ALL forms of oppression, and build social movements from the ground up. Cote D’Ivoire:Focus on conflicts, not only in Cote D’Ivoire but also in Sierra Leone, Senegal, Liberia and the fear that there will be others soon. Within this focus, they addressed child soldiers, violence against women. and the impact on access to social services and economic growth. “When there is no peace we cannot talk about economics.” Malawi: Forum was launched with the government’s participation (very unique). Focus was on HIV/AIDS and issues like debt that fuel HIV/AIDS and the lack of access to education and health care. Nigeria: 2,000 participants. Focus on debt cancellation as a first priority to eradicated poverty, HIV/AIDS and corruption. Morocco: Focus on colonialism, trade, and the myth that Sub-Saharan Africans are Africans and North Africans are Arabs. “North Africans are ready to collaborate.” Gambia: Focus on the need for new strategies and action plans that can create change at the national and international level and to build stronger mobilizations of people at the grassroots. West African Social Forum: Africans must move from statements to action. Focus on Globalization, especially debt, trade and women’s rights. Regional and Continent-Wide Groups/Movements |
