African reactions to Nairobi World Social Forum

The first World Social Forum to be entirely held in Africa was a big event in the Kenyan capital Nairobi, with an estimated 60,000 people from all over the world flying in to attend. Many donor organizations and NGOs who had a presence at the WSF are involved in supporting various aspects of African smallholder farming.

The event was eagerly anticipated in Nairobi for the economic benefits, while social activists of various stripes looked forward to the opportunity to network and debate various issues in the cause of creating a more just world.

"There is no alternative to being there...networking and strategizing with comrades and colleagues from across five continents...and over one hundred and forty countries," read a statement by the WSF secretariat.

Writing in the Daily Nation newspaper of January 19, Francis Kahihu of Nairobi welcomed the event as an opportunity to market the host country. In the Standard of January 20, Barrack Muluka was also aware of the opportunities presented by the event but took a more cautious tone. "Forgive me for not having too much faith in talkshops. When the participants have said their word, they are satisfied with a job well done. They collect their allowances and go looking for assorted memorabilia," he wrote.

There was deeper, more considered unease from some heavyweigts of the African NGO sector. Firozi Manji, Kenyan director of Pambazuka, an online news source, thought the event resembled a trade fair. "Those with greater wealth had more events in the calendar, larger (and more comfortable) spaces, more propaganda - and therefore a larger voice. Thus the usual gaggle of quasi-donor and international NGOs claimed a greater presence than national organisations - not because what they had to say was more important or more relevant to the theme of the WSF, but because, essentially, they had greater budgets at their command," said Manji.

Nairobi-based commentator Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem was even harsher in his critique of the event. "The WSFs show up Africa's weaknesses whether they are held outside or inside Africa. One of the critical areas is our level of participation and preparedness. A majority of the African participants - even many from Kenya itself - were brought by foreign paymasters or organisations funded by outsiders. Often they become prisoners of their sponsors. They must attend events organized or supported by their sponsors who need to put their "partners" on display, and the "partners" in turn need to show their loyalty to their masters."

New Internationalist editor Adam Ma'anit had this to say : "The sight of Oxfam-branded 4x4s cruising around flauntingly, the many well-resourced charity and church groups decking out their stalls (and even their own office spaces) with glossies and branded goodies, all reinforce the suspicion that perhaps the WSF has become too institutionalized. Perhaps more worryingly has been the corporate sponsorship of the WSF. The Forum organizers proudly announced their partnership with Kenya Airways. The same company that has for years allegedly denied the right to assembly of its workers organized under the Aviation and Allied Workers Union.'

He goes on, " Quite a few people cite the perceived dominance of well-funded largely Northern NGOs at the Forum and the tensions between NGOs and social movements as being one of the major issues of this year’s WSF. The dramatic contrast between well-resourced Northern aid agencies flying in dozens of delegates (wearing said aid agency’s t-shirts and bling) to attend their own workshops, and the Kenyan poor who couldn’t even afford to get in (let alone eat, or buy said agency’s t-shirts) was a stark reminder of the disparity within the ‘global justice movement’ itself."

Interesting as all these expressions of resentment at the present set-up are, it is striking that none of the esteemed commentators making them propose any ideas on ways forward out of the situation of African weakness and dependency that they rail against.
.