Globalization and people's power

Last week two major meetings - one in Mumbai, India, and the other in Davos, Switzerland - focused on the world economy, albeit from opposite ends. While the Mumbai gathering of the World Social Forum was an impressive demonstration of people's power, the World Economic Forum was a display of the capitalist force and organization at its best.

Between the two, it is the WSF, a relatively new phenomenon, which has emerged as a reaction to the ills of globalization, that has the greater potential of having an impact on the emerging international order. The 100,000 or so activists who converged on the Maharashtran capital from January 16 to 21 in what a local paper called the "mela of the marginalized" amidst song and dance managed to get their message across.

It was not what the representatives of governments and the corporate world were saying at Davos. The voice raised at the WSF demanded, in the words of the Indian activist Shabana Azmi, an end to the terrorism of poverty, the terrorism of hunger, the terrorism of injustice and the terrorism of inequality.

The moot question, asked by many cynics, is whether the WSF, which has been convened every year since 2001, can end the terrorisms Ms Azmi identified. Brought to Asia for the first time from Porto Allegre, Brazil, the forum underlined the fact that the popular concerns about imperialism, war, social injustice, communal violence, oppression of women and casteism are now felt universally.

These concerns are not localized or confined to any region. In fact, the presence, though only a sprinkling, of activists from the industrialized countries of the West proved that the capitalist societies are also being affected by the capitalist-driven globalization. Not surprisingly, the protest movements are also being globalized to counter the force of the multinationals, the imperialist regimes and the warmongers. If numbers were the only factor that mattered, the WSF would win hands down, as people joined hands across borders in support of a common cause.

But what prompts one to wonder is how can people's power, especially when it tends to become chaotic and disorganized, achieve another world which the WSF slogan promises is possible. The fact is that there is need to organize mobilization at the popular level which was present in abundance at Mumbai and is inarguably a spectacular achievement of the NGOs linked to the WSF. This channelling cannot come without a strategy.

Even though this does not necessarily call for uniformity or centralization, a plan of action alone can give the movement more coherence. Given its informal and unstructured approach, the WSF may not be in a position to do that. Though some hope that the WSF signifies the resurgence of the Left, most know that is not the case. And yet the WSF serves as a force of resistance.

Since it identifies the problems the people face and mobilizes them, it creates pressure against governments, financial agencies and elements which unleash violence. The thrust is towards reform so that they do not neglect the downtrodden of the world. In this situation, the intermingling of cultures has a significant role to play. It allows the networking of pressure groups which makes them stronger. Thus the resistance to unbridled capitalism will grow, forcing a change in direction.

Why this cultural tyranny?

In a country where nudity is no taboo, it is hard to understand why a certain way of dressing should be viewed as such. First it was the French Muslims who were at the centre of the state-sparked controversy regarding the Islamic veil, and now the axe seems to be falling on other religious groups too who wear a "non-French" headgear.

The proposed law that is set to come into force in September - unless, of course, better sense prevails - will ban the wearing of the Muslim veil, Jewish skull caps, Christian crosses, beards and bandanas "if worn as symbols of faith" in all state institutions.

The latest to fall victim to the state's preoccupation with the dress code is France's less conspicuous but 5,000-strong Sikh community whose turban has been added to the list of banned sartorial items. Sikh representatives have warned that if the ban is enforced, they would emigrate and seek asylum elsewhere as their headgear is an article of faith with them.

The whole controversy over the wearing of so-called conspicuous symbols of religion is needless, and smacks of the French authorities' skewed sense of cultural secularism that is not shared by any other western or non-western democracy.

The starting point was obviously the targeting of France's Arab Muslim community in the post-9/11 context: their cultural uniqueness has long been the object of social prejudice in France. However, the proposed law simply seems to take the inherent majoritarian intolerance of cultural diversity to a new height.

If the wearing of the veil - obligatory in some Muslim countries and illegal in Turkey - is seen as a symbol of a state's tyranny, then, by the same token, the banning of such outward cultural or religious symbols amounts to the same. It is indeed ironical that what the rest of the world regards as a matter of personal choice should become an issue in the French republic today, which taught the rest of Europe the democratic values of liberty, equality and fraternity. France, like its EU neighbours, would do well to leave its people alone to decide for themselves what they want to wear.

Respect for law

Last Friday's incident on Karachi's main thoroughfare, Sharae Faisal, in which naval officials roughed up traffic policemen after they were stopped for a traffic offence cannot be viewed in isolation. There have been such incidents in the past as well, most notable of which was the October 2003 one in Lahore in which a constable paid dearly for stopping the family car of an army general with tinted glass which is prohibited by law.

The point that comes through is that some members of the armed forces consider themselves above the law. The astonishing thing is that instead of letting the law take its own course, the military authorities chose to harass and punish the policemen instead.

When the matter was brought to President Musharraf's notice, instead of reprimanding the offending military officials or taking action against them, he faulted the policemen who were only doing their duty. The demoralizing effect of such a stand on honest and efficient civilian functionaries can well be imagined.

What is encouraging about Friday's incident, however, is that the naval authorities have ordered a joint inquiry into the matter with police officials also participating. What makes this incident more significant is that the naval officials were about to be attacked by an angry mob which was witness to the proceedings. This is a wake-up call for officers on how to conduct themselves in civilian matters or where law is concerned.

One hopes the findings of the inquiry would be made public and that those responsible for taking the law into their own hands would be suitably dealt with. Above all, it should be made clear in every possible way that no one is above the law and that everyone, whether military or civilian, should abide by it under all circumstances.