WORLD VIEW: If Davos is a key annual event in networking the leading proponents of what we can call "real existing globalisation", Porto Alegre has become an important moment in bringing together those who believe this form of globalisation is undermining human well-being and democracy around the world, writes Peadar Kirby
'Do not keep calling us an anti-globalisation movement because we believe in pro-active thinking and in change for the better," said Mr Flavio Lotti of the Italian movement, Lilliput, last week. He was referring to the opening in Florence of the European Social Forum, itself a step in the globalisation of a significant event that has been held in the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre for the past two years.
In February 2001, the first social forum gathered in Porto Alegre under the title Another World is Possible. It brought together some 12,000 people from 120 countries to coincide with the annual gathering of senior world politicians, financiers and multinational entrepreneurs at the Swiss resort of Davos to discuss the state of the world economy.
If Davos is a key annual event in networking the leading proponents of what we can call "real existing globalisation", Porto Alegre has become an important moment in bringing together those who believe this form of globalisation is undermining human well-being and democracy around the world. Among the speakers whom 70,000 people came to hear at Porto Alegre last February were US intellectual Noam Chomsky, Portuguese Nobel literature prize- winner José Saramago and Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon, the scourge of former military dictators such as the Chilean, Augusto Pinochet.
Far from being against globalisation, as the media often imply, gatherings like Porto Alegre and now Florence mark the coming of age of what Princeton university professor Richard Falk calls "globalisation-from-below". He sees in the emergence of a global and politically active civil society the possibility for a more humane form of globalisation.
In his view, this would counter the form of globalisation we have at the moment, namely "globalisation-from-above", which he describes as "the way in which transnational market forces dominate the policy scene, including the significant co-optation of state power".
The very gathering of tens of thousands of activists is itself a challenge to the form of thinking that has paralysed social protest over the past decade. This can be called Tina, conceived and made known to many by former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher.
In Mrs Thatcher's lexicon, Tina stood for 'There is no alternative'. As countries around the world face the pressures of competitiveness in a more globalised world economy, Tina has become an international celebrity, influencing the attitudes of many governments and opinion-formers.
The influence of Tina has been evident in those arguments that tell us there is no alternative to globalisation. However, their proponents have not had the pleasure of being introduced to her new-found partner, Tony. He is rather more frank about this new globalised world order, as he stands for "Take orders from New York", namely the power of global capital in fashioning the present form of globalisation.
If Tina is the dominant ideology of this early phase of contemporary globalisation, Tony exposes the real power interests so cleverly obscured. For we live in a world where, in the name of economic growth, corporate power has dangerously eroded public authority over the market.
The consequences were predictable and are ever more evident: an anarchic volatility governs our national and even our personal livelihoods, while growing sectors of humanity are ever more vulnerable and powerless. Writing a book on the impact of globalisation on Latin America as a visiting professor in Chile over the past academic year, I saw at first hand the growing chaos and ungovernability of most of that region's countries.
This is the other side of globalisation, which the proponents of an uncritical incorporation into global markets dominated by corporate interests fail to disclose. As is often said, markets are good servants but bad masters. The lessons of history clearly teach us that, if not firmly made to serve social ends, markets cause societies to disintegrate.
This divide, between those who believe that global market liberalisation will resolve our economic and social problems and those who see this process as inherently destructive of society, is fast becoming the new political battle line of the 21st century. If this is the case, gatherings like those at Florence last weekend and at Porto Alegre mark the birth of a new oppositional movement, perhaps as important as the birth of the left over a hundred years ago.
Neither can these emerging global battle lines be easily equated with the old left-right divide. Much of the left, not only in Europe but also for example in Latin America, have become zealots for the free market. Opposition to corporate power is often led by environmentalists, religious or, as is very much the case now in Latin America, indigenous movements.
However, the growth of the social forum has also owed a lot to the emergence of a new, more broad-based left-wing movement. For example, Porto Alegre was chosen as the site for its first two meetings since the city government has been run by the Workers' Party for over a decade. Under its rule, the city has become famous throughout Latin America for its innovative and highly successful experiment in participative democracy, including an elaborate process of citizen involvement in drawing up the annual budget.
With the election of Workers' Party leader, Mr Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva, as Brazil's President last month, the party now has a chance to apply similar policies at national level in one of the world's largest countries. Lula was present at the first social forum, as were many of the principal figures in the Workers' Party.
These emerging battle lines between proponents of a more humane form of globalisation and defenders of corporate-led free-market globalisation also found distant echo during the Nice referendum campaign here. At times, in warning of the dire economic consequences of voting against, the Yes side echoed the Tina argument that we have no alternative. Parts of the No campaign reflected fears of deeper integration into a corporate-led globalisation.
We are likely to hear many more such arguments in the years and decades ahead. Honed by a deeper awareness of the nature of the world order emerging under the present dominant form of globalisation, and inspired by an oppositional movement that seems by now firmly established, the argument that "there is no alternative" looks less and less convincing.
With the inauguration of Lula next January, a political party that has been central to the emergence of this broad-based oppositional movement takes power. Already, its victory is being seen by commentators as marking a sea change in Latin American politics. History may well judge these years as marking a turning point in the nature and fortunes of globalisation.
Peadar Kirby is senior lecturer in the school of law and government, Dublin City University