Theme

1. Civil Society in Politics – Old Deficits or New Power?

Civil society constitutes a political and social sphere that has become increasingly significant within debates on globalization. Civil society has become an active force in the globalization process and has acquired an increasingly political meaning. For some, civil society is a welcome partner in development, in the delivery of social services, and in fostering positive social values. For others, civil society has evolved into an adversarial force. Last but not least, "global civil society" has – to a certain extent - also become synonymous with social movements and organizations that reject the current globalization scenario.

Civil society voices, coalescing into a worldwide movement of concerned and marginalized citizens, have long been highly critical of inequitable globalization. They have been challenging the legitimacy, representativeness, and transparency of current political institutions and transnational corporations. However, if this movement is to question the democratic deficit of global governance, should it not also be able to provide satisfactory answers when asked the same questions? Who does global civil society represent? On whose behalf does it advance particular interests?
Why and under what conditions should civil society be given increased access to the decision- making processes regarding global governance? Civil society is far from being a homogenous entity. Social movements in the Global South and large established NGOs and donors in the North are only slowly finding a common language for addressing their shared concerns, mutual relationships, and important differences. Even when concerns are shared, strategies and ideologies differ, resulting sometimes in open conflict. Is there enough courage in "global civil society" to critically reflect its own shortcomings?

What differences should be nourished as a source of plurality, and which ones could be overcome to allow common strategies to be formulated? Should attempts to unify civil society be pursued at all? Over the past two years the BGG Project has attempted to identify the gaps between civil society and various other stakeholders, including international financial institutions, the business community, and governments. This year, the BGG Conference takes a look back and will examine the concept of civil society and its relationship to globalization. Are the movements and initiatives critical of globalization identical with the concept of "global civil society?" If not, where are the boundaries between them and what do these distinctions mean for critical voices in contemporary society and the "global justice movement"?

Civil society has grown global in scope due to globalization and its numerous challenges.
Can it evolve into a force that is capable of dialogue with other global players and can it formulate a common strategy? Is global civil society divided between radical and reformist camps? Can this gap be bridged and should it be? Representatives of civil society, international organizations, governmental bodies and business will be present at the workshop.

2. Global Governance – Democracy vs. Efficiency?

Key Question: How can global leadership meet the diverse needs present in the world today while responding rapidly to urgent global challenges?

Humanity is faced today with a number of intrinsically global issues that need urgent and far-reaching action. Failure to respond quickly or adequately will lead to ever-greater environmental and social stress, with the devastation and suffering that go with it. At the same time, experience shows how important it is to ensure that as many people’s needs as possible are taken into account when new policy and collective action are developed and implemented. What are the different perspectives on this dilemma, and how can leaders overcome their differences and include other perspectives to move forward?
The authority to decide upon global issues currently rests exclusively with nation states or international organizations established by these states. The decisions made by representatives of these states in intergovernmental fora have a large impact on the lives of their citizens. There exists a tension between the scale of this impact and the extent to which people and civil society organizations feel their needs are being represented and responded to. This perceived "democratic deficit" has been the focus of much discussion at previous Forum 2000 BGG conferences.
Many cross-border civil society activities strive for reforms leading to more transparency, accountability, and inclusiveness in intergovernmental organizations such as the IMF, WTO, or the EU. The more radical ones call for their abolition and a return to more local-level decision-making.
How can transparency, accountability, and inclusiveness of needs be increased without hampering the process of transnational decision-making? What are the core elements of these two needs? What creative solutions does this dilemma offer?

At the Forum 2000 BGG conferences, representatives of international financial institutions have repeatedly recognized the need to develop the governance mechanisms of the World Bank, IMF, and the World Trade Organization.

What reforms of international economic and political governance are currently on the table, from the IFIs themselves and civil society fora?

How adequate are they for transcending the dilemma of meeting diverse needs while responding rapidly to our current global condition?

To what extent is an improvement in developing countries’ negotiation power and tighter inclusion of non-governmental organizations an adequate response to the call for more democratic global governance?

What could be the nature of effective and democratic decision-making with a group of almost two hundred sovereign countries? How could decreased efficiency, feared by many in the EU after enlargement, be avoided?

How might a new forum – as suggested by last year’s Global Public Goods workshop participants – overcome these dilemmas in the current power constellation?

One of the central dilemmas of globalization is the relationship between the need for global solutions on the one hand and the need for appropriate levels of local political responsibility on the other (subsidiarity).

How can we best rearrange the relationships between different levels of political decision-making given the global context?

How can the various actors in global civil society better coordinate their efforts with governmental decision-makers in contributing to concrete political change?

How can global changes be made democratically and non-violently outside the framework of currently dominant national and party politics? Are there, for instance, any viable alternatives to the WTO? Are there any examples of globally coordinated, locally empowering, just and sustainable trade?

Is it likely that current intergovernmental organizations can obtain a mandate from national governments to really solve global problems quickly enough?
Given the fact that the best in democracy currently exists at the national level, shouldn’t the main mission of global civil society be to effectively mobilize and increase public participation in national political life and to pursue coordinated alternative strategies at the national level?

3. Civil Society and the Global Economy – Critique or Cooperation?

The global justice movement – a collective term for the networks and alliances of NGOs and organizations that work against the inequalities of economic globalization - has been remarkably successful in recent years in drawing concerted public attention to the problems associated with the development of the global economy. The politics of debt, trade, and transnational capital have been firmly placed in the global public sphere; the protests and advocacy of civil society actors have ensured that what they perceive as the unfeasibility of the global economy has become increasingly harder for governments and international institutions to ignore. While many critics of the ‘anti-globalization’ movement argued that the politics of protest were not grounded in coherent strategies for change, over the last few years there has been a proliferation of strategies for change, rooted in the idea of alter-globalization.

Previous conferences of the Forum 2000: Bridging Global Gaps Project reflected the consensus that another world is both necessary and possible. This view was shared not only by civil society actors but also by representatives of other stakeholders such as governments and international institutions. This conference, however, aims to provide an opportunity for reflection on the challenges, visions, and strategies that might guide civil society action in the future.

What are the key divergences in ideology and strategy for working towards change?

What are the major proposals that are currently attracting attention and what are the key debates surrounding them?

A key focus of global justice campaigners, and one in which there are many competing and conflicting proposals for reform and change, is the current system of international trade. Numerous workshops at previous Forum 2000: Bridging Global Gaps conferences stressed the need for reforming the trade system and concluded that "Double standards in international trade must be eradicated and a fair playing field for all must be ensured." However, civil society seems to be divided between those who argue for increased localization as a means of reducing the significance of trade and global economy, and others who argue that increased flows of fairer trade are the only means by which people can gain control over their economies. On one hand, it is argued that trade is the only realistic vehicle for redistribution of wealth. On the other hand, advocates of localization propose that through import substitution, tariffs, and other forms of protectionism, damaging competition for investment and cheap labor can be marginalized, the Global South can become less dependent on the export of raw materials, and the reduction in transport can contribute to combating global warming.

How should the double standards in international trade be eradicated, and what means of eradication are civil society activists advocating?

How does the global justice movement negotiate between these highly opposed visions of enhanced economic justice?

Can or should the global justice movement formulate a common strategy regarding international trade?

An additional focus of previous conferences has been the relationship between civil society actors and transnational corporations on issues of regulation and partnership. Many civil society actors argue that voluntary regulation codes and initiatives are insufficient and ineffective and call for proper regulation and effective governance. At the same time, increasing attention is being paid to the possibilities of global partnerships for development, involving non-governmental organizations, governments, and businesses.

Is there a consensus in the movement regarding the desired change among corporate actors?

Is it possible to pursue partnerships while pressing for proper regulation?

What strategies are emerging in the global justice movement for countering the effects of irresponsible transnational corporatism while harnessing some of the developmental benefits that may come from supporting the "triple bottom line" of profit, social responsibility, and sustainable development?

It is important to recognize that civil society, including the global justice movement to certain extents, is largely dependent on the global economy and local conditions for both its funding and its effective operation. The transparency and quality of national business climates, for example, often determines the ease with which civil society actors are able to reach their own goals in a given country. Corrupt governments and irresponsible public policies can be equally detrimental to both small entrepreneurs and non-profit projects.

To what extent should the wealth of criticism of global players offered by the global justice movement be complemented by corresponding activism on national and local levels? In general, how can a movement work with the need for an ongoing dialogue of global vision, while recognizing that the complexity of global issues necessitates strategies that can be adapted and implemented in ways fitting specific conditions?

Representatives of civil society, the corporate sector, and international organizations will be present at the workshop.