The World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this year was preceded by the World Social Forum (WSF-January 16-21, 2004) and the Mumbai Resistance 2004 (January 17-20, 2004), both organized in parallel in Mumbai, India.

These forums protest against the capitalist world order, its imperialistic tendencies, and what they call "globalization" due to its differential impact on the world's rich and poor, whereby the rich-poor gap tends to get widened instead of getting bridged that the Davos kind of forums claim to be aiming at.

Whether these latter movements have solutions for the issues faced by the deprived, the discriminated, and the disenchanted of the world is a question worth examining. However, they do manage to throw a whole lot of issues of the world's marginalized up on the global agenda some of which found way into the World Economic Forum 2004 where seven key topics were debated under the theme of security and prosperity.

This included ensuring global security, promoting global growth, managing new risks, building corporate resilience, spurring innovation, harnessing the diversity of values, and reducing inequity.

While the real intent of the WEF vis-a-vis reduction in inequity is a matter of discussion; what deserves appreciation is the appearance of this key item on the Davos Forum's agenda as issue identification is the first step towards its eventual resolution.

While some may take heart at the surfacing of inequities' discussion on the Davos agenda, those driven primarily by the concerns of the people of the world are not too favourably impressed. They dismiss it as a "lot of hot air."

So, even though the Davos Forum this year ended on an upbeat note about matters pertaining to rich countries and the world's wealthy, those concerned about the people remained agitated and kept protesting in more ways than one. In Davos itself, about 2000 opponents of the World Economic Forum marched in protest against the meeting they viewed as "elitist" that "does nothing for ordinary people."

They alleged that the WEF meets to plot a "Third World exploitation strategy." A major difference between the protests this year and the Davos agitation in 2003 was that the protesters, this year, remained peaceful by and large. In 2003, they had turned violent.

As the detractors allege that the protesters do not offer solutions to the problems of the poor, a difference of opinion has emerged amongst the protesters themselves about whether the protests should take a violent route or whether they should remain non-violent.

While the NGOs such as the Berne Declaration have no confidence in the ability of Davos Forums to effectively address the issues of the poor, they advocate non-violence as violence is a "sign of despair and it changes nothing." Many NGOs, however, feel that their presence in Davos is important to keep the issues of corporate responsibility and the needs of the LDCs highlighted on the agenda.

There are others who wish a dialogue with the WEF. And, still others who think that a dialogue would not help at all. With such diversity of opinion on the NGOs' line of action and tactics, a united front could not be presented in Davos this year.

The Olten Alliance, charged with uniting the various opposition groups and the NGOs, could not do so this year as the so-called anti-globalization movement stands split between the pacifists and the extremists who are getting smaller in numbers and might, therefore, get marginalized by a growing number of pacifists who not only want non-violence but also transparency and democratic representation.

So, as the majority move from "chanting" to "talking," some such as "Bread for All" want a dialogue with the WEF, some others such as "The Public Eye" on Davos of the Berne Declaration want to hold parallel events, and yet others want a leftwing gathering at Davos itself by the name of "The Other Davos."

So, what appears like a split in favour of either extremism or a peaceful approach might actually be a divide on the approach to problem resolution, according to some sociologists.

The approach could range from reformist to radical. This was reflected in the two peoples' forums organized across the street and in parallel in Mumbai in January 2004 as above and which forums concluded a day before or on the day of the commencement of the Davos forum on January 21, 2004. As mentioned already, these were the World Social Forum (WSF) and the Mumbai Resistance (MR) 2004.

The first World Social Forum (WSF) was organized by a committee of Brazilian organizations from January 25 to 30, 2001. However, the WSF is neither an organization nor an united front platform as it is "an open meeting place for reflective thinking, democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free exchange of experiences and inter-linking for effective action, by groups and movements of civil society that are opposed to neo-liberalism and to domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism, and are committed to building a society centred on the human person."

The Mumbai Resistance (MR), on the other hand, has an unambiguous anti-imperialist focus and seeks to unite those genuinely opposed to imperialist globalization either in the militant traditions of the early anti-globalization movements or in any other form of struggle they may choose so as to "confront and ultimately defeat imperialism." It comprises mainly the landless and owners of small plots.

The MR 2004 distanced itself from the nebulous "another world is possible" emphasis of the WSF by clearly articulating that it stood for an alternative socio-economic structure "built on a basis of self-reliance, moving towards a genuine socialist order."

The MR 2004 also remains critical of the WSF for not only the sources of funding of those who speak from its platform but for also inviting establishment politicians known for their support to imperialist globalization and for channelizing views in a manner that may be palatable to the established world order.

And, even if they see a need for change in politico-economic structures, those with the WSF would much rather go for an incremental rather than a radical approach that the MR 2004 would much rather choose.

Consequently, some within the MR 2004 view the WSF as "the real enemy" since the latter not only tries to build bridges with the capitalist order but tends to shut out the extreme left-wingers from its forums. Also, according to the diehards in the MR 2004, the WSF also ignores the local ruling classes that tend to provide anchor for the exploitative global capitalist system.

To this extent, the Mumbai Resistance moves beyond the general treatment of issues by the WSF to the specifics for which the local elite are responsible. However, while the MR 2004 views the local elite primarily as comprador groups of cores situated in the developed part of the world, they tend to ignore the local class interest of the country elites who tend to be exploitative not just because they serve as anchor points of the developed worlds' interests but also because they have to secure their own economic and political interests first and foremost. In the process, they enter into a zero-sum game with their own people while remaining in a win-win situation with the cores of the world.

The oppressors closer to home are being missed out completely by the World Social Forum (WSF) and partially by the Mumbai Resistance (MR) 2004. These forums as well as the anti-globalization movement tend to generalize specific national issues of underdevelopment by pushing them several notches higher on to world agenda thus absolving the national governments and local elites completely of their responsibility towards their own people.

That assets and land distribution remain as skewed as it is in less developed countries is not a conditionality of any international financier who, at times, raise this issue although in a muted manner. That Pakistan's Prime Minister announces "no land reforms" in his maiden address to the nation is a requirement neither of President Bush of the US nor of Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, nor of those at the helm in the European Union or in Japan.

The above announcement that remains at the heart of this country's malaise is entirely indigenous. Can such specific issues of underdevelopment be dealt with at world forums-social or economic? Obviously not and the MR 2004 comes close when it says that the local ruling classes are a target audience, ignored by the WSF, even if one may tend to disagree with some of the MR's radically militant outlook.

So, while it may be good for world forums to bring the general to surface as it would help to move from the general to the specific; there is an even more pressing need to identify the specific issues to be dealt with at specific levels on a priority basis.

Otherwise, the local ruling elite tend to embellish their rhetoric with the issues thrown up on the world agenda without dealing with them specifically on the ground since the specific root causes at the national level are not identified at the level of global forums.

Instead, the world forums tend to identify causes they think can be generalized to all. For example, the grossly misinterpreted terms of globalization or even tamed capitalism when even the protesters against them are deeply embedded in the above two forms the world has evolved into.

The "another world" in the WSF remains absolutely unclear as they themselves are integrated into a global order that is less likely to de-integrate due to a momentum built already towards greater integration since times immemorial. The upshot is that the transportation, communication, and higher connectivity the world enjoys a great deal is an aspect of global integration that all movements, forums, and resistances are benefiting immensely from.

They couldn't be anti-globalization if they themselves patronize global developments in communications systems and networks. Further, due to the above, they are also beneficiaries of rapid movements of people, goods, and also capital.

However anti-MNC the WSF may be, they must be using the MNC products, services, airlines, and audio/video systems to not only travel to their meeting places but also to air their views against those very transnationals whose products they perhaps also use to remain fit.

How many of the WSF or even the MR or the anti-globalization participants would claim that they have relied solely on indigenous cures for their ailments or have used only home-spun fabric for their attire or have used no watches to keep time.

Global population is too deeply embedded in a system the protesters want to change to "another world" without knowing what that might be. The brighter side of such forums, however, is their ability to voice the negative fallout of the global system that fails to treat all equitably.

However, while they are long on symptoms, they fall short of the causes some of which are rooted nationally that require national treatment. The one cause they do mention is embodied in the term of globalization which they fail to unbox and which revolves more around rapid "economic integration and liberalization" than globalization per se which is an age old phenomenon that has brought the world closer irreversibly.

It is rapid "economic integration" that has yet to work equally well for the benefit of all and which the world movements must isolate from the globalization for focused treatment at the international and regional levels.

The world forums will probably realize over time the specifics in their generalities and the need to move from the general to the specific that the MR 2004 is beginning to see already.

Over time then, they are likely to adopt separate postures for different situations as is beginning to happen already that we saw in Davos this year when a united front could not be presented by opponent groups and also when the majority opted for non-violence rather than the violence they had started with. As they soul-search and explore further, the world movements should begin to impact the lives of ordinary people more effectively sooner rather than later.