The Global Citizens movement is meant to be “an ecology of movements,” a broad umbrella of inclusive solidarity and common purpose, a hypothesized systemic change agent for a great transition.

These starting points take me back to the 1980s, when many debates were taking place already on the possible cooperation between parties and movements of the left. There was a lot more optimism then than now. Unfortunately, almost half a century later, we have to admit our failure and understand that the optimism is fading away as well.

I would like to mention six points of explanation in order to learn the lessons from this experience and better prepare for the future.

First, this is a highly political topic, clearly positioned on the left side of the political spectrum. Avoiding the choice between left and right will not bring us any closer to sustainable solutions, since our common objective, at least I hope, is an emancipatory policy of justice, equality, and solidarity. That is a counterhegemonic exercise. Such an agenda can never be promoted by right-wing forces that do not want people to take their future into their own hands. Not being explicit about this political dimension implies the risk of multiple misunderstandings.

Secondly, today, we are no longer talking about political parties, but of movements, which makes the exercise easier but also trickier. In the World Social Forum, political parties were banned, and only individual members talking in their personal capacity were welcome. This, of course, ignored the fact that most parties have their own movements, and these were very present in the Forum and its International Council. The consequence was discussions and conflicts at an ideological level very akin to electoral debates. We must avoid such competitive debates at all costs.

Thirdly, trying to work with others and searching for common concerns is only possible if you know each other well, if you know on what points compromises on common action are possible or not. It demands serious self-reflection and patience to listen and try to understand others.

Fourthly, for most parties and movements, the more formidable obstacle to collaboration exists when “the goal is the movement.” In other words, the strengthening of the organization itself takes precedence over the pursuit of the social objectives of the party or movement, with cooperation only acceptable if this helps to give one’s own movement a boost. Such movements then work together with the silent aim of dominating the cooperation itself. If this happens from different parts, it is clear the cooperation will never succeed.

Fifthly, linked to the previous points, one has to be aware that for many progressive and left-wing people and movements, political identity coincides with personal identity, making compromise or change more difficult. This policy of honesty and loyalty to your cause is too often an impediment to making coalitions and forging cooperation tactics. Giving in on one single point of your movement’s identity is then like betraying yourself.

Sixthly, too many movements also have thematic blinders. If they are working on, say pensions or disabled people, they will have no mandate to discuss anything else. Even just asking an agreement to sign a text on, say, debt cancellation, will be impossible.

Finally, making this all more difficult is the decline of certain values that were once widely shared. Take universalism, which is now said to be “abstract” as if it were not a condition to preserve diversity, or “development” as if not all people aspire to have decent and sustainable livelihoods. Or take democracy, in whatever form, as if right-wing policies or military dictatorships were able to take care of people’s needs. Other examples are the role of the State, “Western” human rights, the rejection of “modernity,” etc. The question of definitions is crucial, since people regularly use the same words to indicate different realities. In many cases, the distance from words to things, from discourse to practice, is too large to bridge. In other cases, there are real and serious differences of opinion.

These points may look like very serious impediments to efforts towards more unity. In fact, the first thing to define very carefully is the objective itself: what kind of “unity” do we want? Is it real ideological unity or just variable and temporary platforms for making strong and common demands and proposals? Moreover, do we just want a dialogue between our movements in order to get to know each other and confirm our own identities, or do we also want to learn from and reciprocally influence each other? In other words, do we believe in universal values or not?

Before embarking upon such work, it can be useful for all movements to undertake a self-reflection on all these questions in order to assess the possibility of joining a common platform.

With the World Social Assembly of Struggles and Resistances that we created in the global WSF process, we aim to take positions on important political events, to organize meetings with global intellectuals and movements, to reflect on strategies, to organize actions, and to bring together movements working on different but interconnected topics.

This implies an open attitude to start and search for common concerns, a long-term exercise for which the rules have to be clearly spelled out. It cannot be about doing away with differences or identities, on the contrary. Nor can it be about limiting the action radius of movements. It should be about finding out which concerns a number of movements share, in spite of their diversity.

This may look very ambitious and utopian, but giving up on building “another world” should not be an option.