a (very short) tale of two urban forums

7/28/2019 A (very short) tale of two urban forums

1/21

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [University of Michigan]

On: 11 December 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 926553365]

Publisher Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-

41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

CityPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713410570

Two world urban forums. What happened in Rio? Where does it lead? AdiscussionAdrian Atkinson; Barbara Lipietz; Marcelo Lopes de Souza; Shipra Narang Suri

Online publication date: 20 October 2010

To cite this Article Atkinson, Adrian , Lipietz, Barbara , Lopes de Souza, Marcelo and Suri, Shipra Narang(2010) 'Twoworld urban forums. What happened in Rio? Where does it lead? A discussion', City, 14: 5, 566 585

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13604813.2010.511822URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2010.511822

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713410570http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2010.511822http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2010.511822http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713410570


2/21


3/21

CITY, VOL. 14, NO. 5, OCTOBER2010

ISSN 1360-4813 print/ISSN 1470-3629 online/10/050566-20 2010 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13604813.2010.511822

Two world urban forums. Whathappened in Rio? Where does

it lead? A discussion

Adrian Atkinson, Barbara Lipietz, Marcelo Lopes de Souzaand Shipra Narang SuriTaylor and Francis1360-4813 (print)/1470-3629 (online)Original [email protected]

IntroductionIn the history of radical movements, of socialmovements, the process of cooptation is wellknown, and this is perhaps what ishappening to forums to the ideals of forums,when they become forums for allstakeholders alike as if all stakeholders wereequal. But they are not all equal. The task isto make them equal.

Thus, Peter Marcuse in his address for theopening session of the more populist SocialUrban Forum (SUF), one of the two forumsthat were meeting in Rio in March, 2010. Theother was the original, more institutionalisedWorld Urban Forum (WUF). Between andwithin the two forums, was the procession ofcooptation at work? Was there also somemove towards equality? What happened?Where does it lead?

Three members of the City network,Adrian Atkinson, Marcelo Lopes de Souzaand Shipra Narang Suri, and a new associate,Barbara Lipietz, were there. And we are intouch with a fifth participant, Peter Marcuse,to whom we return later in this introduction.What did they see? How do/did they inter-pret it? This is the approach we adopted whenwe began our virtual dialogue between Souzain Brazil, Narang Suri in India, Atkinson in

Switzerland and Lipietz in the UK. This is anapproach that emphasises the process ofknowing or perhaps not knowing, of coming

to know or not know, of individual, cultural,national, institutional and existential under-standings and misunderstandings, of diver-gent, conflicting and/or shared meanings.1

What follows is then not an agreed state-ment, not a static presentation of petrifiedknowledge but a dynamic exploration intemporal form. A narrative, in fact,

conducted in/on three stages. Four individ-uals arrive in Rio. What did they see, hear?Or rather, three people arrive in Rio Souzawas, as he rightly asserts, already there. Webegin, then, with a presentation of fourpreliminary thoughts. At this point Souza,the one insider to that/those situation/s, sawthe need to set out an analysis of what hadbeen happening, which he does in an essay,A (very short) tale of two urban forums.

This was, to say the least, something of aneye-opener to his three visiting colleagues.Atkinsons immediate response was that itput our chatter to shame. The third stage,then, is a series of interim conclusions,Second thoughts, by the three outsiders, arelatively short one by Atkinson and twosuccessive essay-type responses/accounts,from Narang Suri, A response to Marcelo Reflections on WUF, and from Lipietz, On

WUF, SUF and mobilisation for progressivechange a response to Marcelo, Shipra andAdrian.


4/21

568 CITYVOL. 14, NO. 5

What did happen?

This, then, is the story presented here, orperhaps a drama in three acts, taking place onseveral stages. It is, of course, not as simple asthat. In one sense the presentation relativisesthe developing understandings. We need tolook more deeply into some of our basiccategories. In what sense(s) are three of theparticipants outsiders, and indeed our fourthvisitor, Marcuse? Three of them were notinvolved in SUF. The fourth, Marcuse, wasinvolved in SUF but arrived a day late(because of passport/visa problems) and so to introduce more dynamics into this

account his opening address had to be readfor him and he missed the protest march, andconfrontation with the police, etc. to whichSouza refers.

In another sense wenow to include thewriter of this introduction who was not thereat all but has been listening, watching,communicating, and has contributed to theshape and nature of this dialogueare, tovarying degrees, insiders as comrades in the

social (and intellectual) movement to whichMarcuse refers and of which he and DavidHarvey (mentioned below in this context)are prominent members. And yet that move-ment, or rather the potential movement, isitself divided, to a significant extent, intoinsiders and outsiders. The SUF was, inSouzas words, organised by people (someacademics) who invited Peter to join it, andthese Brazilian academics were at the same

time involved with the WUF and with theSUF (and with the Lula government, andwith UN-Habitat and so on.2 Beyondthese, in one sense, insiders was, as Souzaputs it, the other side: a kind of social basiswhich became largely frustrated in the courseof events. This social basis not the top orga-nizers confronted the police on the first dayof SUF. This social basis became increasinglycritical towards SUFs organization andstructure (Souzas emphases).

Souza himself is an insider/outsider. As anacademic he is to some extent an insider butone who works closely with outsiders, some

of the largely excluded Brazilian socialmovements and members of a South Africanone, the Abahlali baseMjondolo (the photo-graphs of one member, David Ntseng, illus-trate, and the analysis of another, RichardPithouse, also contributes, to Souzas essay).He is, to use Gramscis formulation, to asignificant extent, an organic intellectual; asindeed, in different ways, are Marcuse andHarvey.

And where does this lead?

Where does this insider/outsider distinction

place our dialogue? Cooptation was involvedbut could to some extent be avoided. Insofaras they were aware, or became aware, of theirshifting, potentially conflictual situation, theparticipants are involved in a necessarydialectic of knowing/knowledge.

As to what happened, though they werelargely unaware of what was going on at thetime, they have come to accept Souzasaccount. But where does this lead us? To take

one point from each, for Lipietz, so far asWUF is concerned, it leads to the possibilitythat it could be re-energised by a more disci-plined, careful, reflexive engagement withsome of its very own processes. ForNarang Suri, it leads from the thematic focusof WUF on the Right to the City to a ques-tion: when, where and how do the worlds ofideas and projects meet? For Atkinson, thediscipline and reflexive engagement with

organisational processes, and the focus on ameeting-point between ideas and projectsand on the Right to the City, have to bedirected to dealing with urban/social collapseas oil runs out and climatic factors increas-ingly impact on all settlements.3 These willrequirehe sees this as implied by Souza andPithousea more local and specificprogrammatic approach than that advocatedby those who base their hopes on the super-cession of capitalism or even on greaterequality between SUF and WUF.4

Bob Catterall


5/21

ATKINSON, LIPIETZ, SOUZAAND NARANG SURI: WHATHAPPENEDIN RIO? 569

Notes

11 We follow here an approach adopted in someearlier discussions in this journal see the Editorsintroduction to Cities for People, Not for Profit:

background and comments, City13(4), pp. 466-470, 2009, particularly pp. 467469 and also,for a similar approach, Catterall, B. and others Is itall coming together? Thoughts on urban studies andthe present crisis: (18) Detained at her majestyspleasure (A dialogue on the implications of avolcanic interruption to the plans of those attending

a geography conference in Washington), City14(3), pp. 339-352, 2010.

22 Email to the author, 29 July 2010.33 This interpretation draws to some extent on

ongoing discussion led by Atkinson in City.44 Marcuses overall account, inevitably missing

from his brief address at the SUF, involvesnecessarily a distinction between short, mid-and long-term objectives (see Marcuse, P. Indefense of theory in practise City, 14.(1-2),pp. 4-12, 2010, particularly the casesdiscussed pp. 8-11.

1. Preliminary thoughts

From: Barbara LipietzDate: 15 June 2010 23:44

I was thinking of writing a piece to reflect avery specific angle on the World UrbanForum (WUF); that is, the experience ofmoderating an internet debate on governance

and participation for UN-HABITAT, aheadof WUF. The main contribution would be toget across the output that came out of thedebate since (a) it was an interesting processand there were some valuable inputs on theways in which participatory governance hasto be rethought if it is to be more thanwindow-dressing and actually help to actual-ise the right to the city in the years ahead;(b) UN-HABITAT hasnt been particularlyactive in disseminating the output and itseems a shame to let the contribution die out.But I guess I would also incorporate some (!)thoughts about the disconnect I then feltbetween that intense process of deliberationand the debate that emerged in the officialDialogue on the topicwhich was (unsur-prisingly perhaps) rather bland. It would beinteresting to have Adrians perspective onthat too since he so actively and criticallyinputted into that debate.

Beyond that I think there is a basis of alooser dialogue (which could take the formatof the Detained at her Majestys Pleasure

(i.e. a more conversational approach) aroundsome issues stirred up by WUF and that arerelevant to other discussions within City:

WUFs contribution to the Right to theCity agenda? Dont know about you butthe few sessions I attended left me prettydissatisfied: is it just a new fad? How dothe very real democratic innovation expe-riences that we have seen in Brazil, in partsof the USA, etc. relate to an emerginginternational discourse on the city thatlooks set to lose its radical content?

Linked to that, an interrogation about thelinkages (or lack of) between WUF andthe Social Urban Forum (SUF). Quite afew questions can be raised about the twoparallel (and disconnected) events ofcourseand I think those who have beeninvolved with City for longer will betterbe able to make the connections with pastdebates at City (but am happy todevelop some leads on this too).

WUF/SUF and their contribution to acosmopolitan urbanismor an urban

outlook that straddles the South andNorth. Whatever the misgivings of WUF(and SUF?), the relevance of such


6/21


gatherings is the dialogue that it is able togenerate across that divide. That dialogueis, of course, far from being devoid ofpower relations etc.but there is none-theless a form of engagement which is stilllargely inexistent (or is even more heavilybiased) in urban studies. Is there anythingthat we can learn/take from this? Anyinteresting forms of knowledge creation/knowledge sharing etc.? And of coursewhat are the pitfalls involved?

To relate to the latest City output and itsfocus on climate change: did WUF/WSFaddress the issue? How far were environ-mental challenges integrated into thinking

through the Right to the City or indeed,bridging the urban divide?

From: Adrian AtkinsonDate: 16 June 2010 07:14

Concerning your point Barbara about bland-ness: my impression in all that I dropped in

on was the same. No rabble-rousing here!I think there was even an attempt in at leastone of the Dialogues I attended to organisecontentious inputs direct from practitionersin the South from the audience but somehowthese disappeared into the immenseness ofthe silent crowd (silent because there wasonly time for a few brief questions andcomments0.1% of the crowd and, indeed,a preponderance of people I know, typical ofthe way the same people always dominate thescene). Indeed, the medium becomes themessage in the sense of this being more of anouting for most of the participants than crit-ical edge stuff. Do the silent ones learnsomething? Are they inspired to do betterwhen they arrive home?

I suppose different people get differentthings out of it and there is no way tosummarise this beyond saying what we asindividualsor as a small groupgot out of

it. Again, given the size of the event, onecould do no more than scratch the surface ofwhat went on. One had ones own sessions

and in my case these went very smoothly,giving the impression almost of religious ritu-als: everyone knows now how to listen to afew lectures and then form working groupsand come up with reflections or suggestionsof the groups but what then? Good feeling,but actually learning (and now I am talkingspecifically about so-called training events)?

Apropos your point, Barbara about strad-dling North and South, this hardly holds inthat my looking through the list, now on theWUF website, of those attending (about 550pages!!!) it became very evident that theNorth sees this very much as an event aboutthe South and I expect the South also sees it

as a SouthSouth affair: the northern govern-ment representatives (with the marginalexception of the USA) were overwhelminglylocal embassy people and those representingdevelopment agencies. There were very, veryfew European local authorities present overagainst vast numbers from the Southand,I noted, particularly Africa (albeit in allsections, Brazil obviously dominated interms of numbers).

Regarding, Barbara, your raising the issueof climate change and how this was dealtwith: it certainly was therewith a wholedays Dialogue on it and many other kinds ofevents with climate change as the specificfocus. But once again the Dialogue sessionI attended barely penetrated to the drasticsteps that will be needed to stay below the450 ppm (plus 2 degree) limit set at Copen-hagen and what this will mean for the global

and local economy if genuine steps are to betaken. I very much doubt whether the vastmajority of the audience understands themeaning of this message and it certainly didnot feature in any way in the final wrappingup or any other major statements aboutwhat the event was supposed to be about.Once again blandness brought on by sheernumbers and the general atmosphere.

My thing, of course, was looking out forany meaningful mention of energy issues and,as with the global warming mitigation, theimpacts that the decline in energy availability(people prefer to talk of rising prices) will


7/21


have. There was no mention of this anywherein the programme (there may have been anetworking event but the complete list wasnowhere available). Furthermore, I cameacross no mention at all in my wanderings ofcoming energy price rises and declining avail-ability and so obviously if these are notmentioned then nor are the problems thatthese will raise in terms of the way cities func-tion and the impact on citizens and especiallythe poor The only mention of peak oiland its consequences I encountered came upin one of the events I was involved in (thelaunching of a book on the future of urbani-sation in the South with authors of the papers

presenting their bit). The issue slid in at theside, as it were, during the final generaldiscussion and there was a little concern andknowledge amongst one or two of the audi-ence which I helped to feed. I suppose suchknowledge is actually quite widespread butgiven that it wasnt anywhere raised, so it wasnowhere debated. I can imagine it is simplythat those people who do have some inklinglook around and see nobody discussing it so

think it is probably not important, againcowed by the general ambience and the factthat none of the stars are mentioning it !

So where do we go from here?

From: Marcelo Lopes deSouzaDate: 16 June 2010 13:11

In fact, I did not come to RioI was in Rio(since I live and work here), and it was myintention to take part in both forums (theWUF and the SUF), but things developed insuch a way that I concentrated my attentionon the alternative forum. I can report a littleabout this experience, and I think that theprotest march against the WUF (the peoplewho participated in the alternative forum

were the protagonists of this march) couldserve as a link between both experiences/descriptions.

From: Shipra Narang SuriDate: 16 June 2010 14:03

My own impressions are not very differentfrom those mentioned by Barbara andAdrian, but I would also like to add that thisWUFthe fifth oneseemed somehow tobe just more of the same. I saw or heardvery little that was different from Barcelona,

Vancouver or Nanjing. The networkingevents were too many, with too manyspeakers and too little discussion, and theDialogues hardly any better. In fact, on thewhole it seemed like a huge missed opportu-nitywith a theme as vast, thought-provok-ing and universally relevant as Right to theCity, and a rich online discussion precedingthe event, there could and should have beenmuch more engagement with ideas, rather

than projects. That to me is the main prob-lem with these for aone that I wanted toexplore in our networking event, if we hadbeen allocated a slothow do the worlds ofideas and projects meet. Do they meet at all?Or is the WUF basically a best-practiceexchange/lessons-learnt type of event whichdoesnt really engage with the thinking andwriting world (Im trying to avoid thepractitioners vs. academics terminology),whether in the North or the South? Is thiswhat it was/is meant to be? Or can it bemore?

Also, on the link between WUF andSUFDavid Harvey spoke at the Dialogueon RTTC, I understand from Marcelo that healso spoke at the SUF. That and the protestmarch aside, the link between the two eventswas non-existent. Another missed opportu-nity, perhaps?


8/21


2. A (very short) tale of two urban forums

Marcelo Lopes de Souza

It was the best of times, it was the worst oftimes, it was the age of wisdom, it was the ageof foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, itwas the epoch of incredulity, it was the seasonof Light, it was the season of Darkness, it wasthe spring of hope, it was the winter ofdespair, we had everything before us, we hadnothing before us, we were all going direct toHeaven, we were all going direct the other

wayin short, the period was so far like thepresent period, that some of its noisiestauthorities insisted on its being received, forgood or for evil, in the superlative degree ofcomparison only. (Charles Dickens,A Taleof Two Cities, 2007 [1859])

Charles Dickens wroteA Tale of Two Cities,one of his two historic novels, in 1859. It isset in London and Paris before and duringthe time of the French Revolution, and it

shows the background which contributed tothis revolution: poverty on the one side, elit-ism on the other, and oppression and brutal-ity as the main links between the two. Inthis novel, letters play an important role.And so it was as I exchanged some emailswith my South African friend RichardPithouse (urban activist and philosopher,lecturer at the Department of Politics,Rhodes University, Grahamstown), in order

to discuss what was going on during thosedays in March 2010 when two urbanforumsthe World Urban Forum (WUF)and the Frum Social Urbano (Social UrbanForum, SUF)took place in Rio de Janeiro.

Those days in March were above all a timeof ambiguity and ambivalence. A time ofcontradictions, we could say. Not necessarilythe worst of times (well, let us keep in mindthe figures regarding urban problems in citieslike Rio, from the housing deficit to thecrime rates ), but surely not the best oftimes either; anyway: interestingly, it wasthe age of wisdom, but at the same time the

age of foolishness. Was it the spring ofhopeor, considering the naked reality andthe increasing (and literally armed) impa-tience of the many (the poor, the dispos-sessed), the winter of despair ?

The following account contains just a fewpersonal remarks (on the basis of my fieldnotes) and a quote from one of Richardsemails to me. It is not a paper in a propersense, it is just an invitation to reflection.

First impressions

The third day of the WUF, 22 March 2010,was at the same time the first day of the SUF(the other one), conceived to be an alterna-tive to the former (considered by the partic-

ipants of the Social Urban Forum as theconservative one). It began interestingly, inspite of the repression: dozens of socialmovements (which were either directly orindirectly involved with the SUF) organised amarch; hundreds of people went to theWUFs venue to protestpeacefully andcreatively, more or less in the style of aGlobal Action Day (see Figures 13). It waspossible to hear English sometimes, evenGerman and French, and especially Spanish,but I think at least 90% of the protesters camefrom different parts of Brazil and especiallyfrom Rio de Janeiro itself, so that people weresinging and provoking in Portuguese.

In the meantime, Lula da Silva, the gover-nor of the state of Rio de Janeiro (SrgioCabral) and the mayor of the city of Rio deJaneiro (Eduardo Paes) were inside the build-ing where the WUF was going on. Thencame the policewith gas and big sticks;

business as usual People resisted as muchand for as long as possible, but the WUFsparticipants just looked at them, usually


9/21


without showing solidarity (probably on thecontrary). Finally the protesters decided togo to the SUFs venue, provocatively locatedonly c.300 metres away from the WUFsvenue, in Rio de Janeiros harbour area.Figure 1 22 March 2010: the attendants of the Frum Social Urbano (Social Urban Forum, SUF) take part in a march to protest against what was perceived as a somewhat exclusionary space, the World Urban Forum (WUF). Photograph :David Ntseng.Figure 2 The protest march goes on through Rio de Janeiros Central Business District. Photograph : David Ntseng.Figure 3 The march reaches Rios harbour area, where the World Urban Forums venue was located. Photograph : David Ntseng.

The apex of that Monday at the alterna-tive forum was a roundtable with DavidHarvey and two Brazilian urban planners(Erminia Maricato and Raquel Rolnik) in theevening. Peter Marcuse was scheduled toparticipate in this opening roundtable as well,but he arrived in Rio only on Tuesday due toproblems with his visa. By the way: Harvey,Marcuse, Maricato and Rolnik took part inthe WUF as well.1

At the end of that day, I wrote a more orless optimistic email to Richard Pithouse inrelation to the SUF. Richard was very inter-ested in following all facts regarding both

forums due to several reasons, especiallybecause a delegation of four activists ofAbahlali baseMjondolo (the shack dwellersmovement of which he is one of the organis-ers) was taking part in the WUF as well as

(invited by me and my research team) in theSUF. (As a matter of fact, taking part in theSUF and meeting us was the main interest ofthe Abahlalis activists; attending the WUFwas a means to the end, since they got theirtravel expenses financed this way.)

On closer inspection

However, as time went by, I began to havemixed feelingsat least or particularly inrelation to the SUF. As far as the WUF isconcerned, it was, for many people, frustrat-

Figure 1 22 March 2010: the participants of the Frum Social Urbano(Social Urban Forum, SUF) take part in a marchto protest against what was perceived as a somewhat exclusionary space, the World Urban Forum (WUF). Photograph:David Ntseng.


10/21


ing(almost) from the beginning. Too muchgovernment (and consultants and academics)+ NGOs (and almost no social movements ina proper sense) was a usual criticism on thepart of activists. Actually I was not frus-trated myself, simply because I did not haveany great expectations at all. But I mustconfess I was quite frustrated by the SocialUrban Forum. When it came to an end onFriday, 26 March, my (relative) enthusiasm

had been replaced with disappointment.Its structure was too much influencedbehind the scenes by a specific group ofpeople (a few Brazilian academics and a fewactivists connected with some big NGOs andsome political parties). There were manystudents (mostly middle class) as well asNGO staff and fully fledged academics of allsorts, but activists from favelas, sem-tetosettlements (e.g. squatted buildings) or theperiphery represented only a tiny percentageof the people who attended the so-calledalternative forum. Rio de Janeiros poorpopulation simply did not take notice of

what was going on in the framework of theSUF.

These problems were perceived by me andby some others from the very beginning, butthey became increasingly evident andannoying in the course of the days. As aresult of this, an increasing number of partic-ipants of the alternative forum were takingthe microphone to criticise some problemson Thursday and Friday. It seems that the

alternative forum was not a true alternativeat all, so that I began to think: we need analternative to the alternative

As I wrote to Richard to tell him about mydisappointments, it is necessary to under-stand the background of this situation. Letme summarise the problems (from my pointof view), from the specific to the generalones:

(1) The Social Urban Forum could have beena promising initiative, but it was colo-nised by a few influential academics andactivists, most of them strongly connected

Figure 2 The protest march goes on through Rio de Janeiros Central Business District. Photograph: David Ntseng.


11/21


with some political parties and/or withsome big NGOs as well. They form a kindof network which only at first glanceappears to be a true alternative to institu-tions such as HABITAT and governments(but in fact, many or most of them are or

were also more or less connected withinstitutions like these, despite someappearances to the contrary).

(2) This network decided about who shouldbe invited and who should be kept at adistance. Did the priorities and dynamicsdetermined by this group meet the needsof the social movements and grassrootsactivists? My answer is a clear no. Actu-ally they did not facilitate anything formany social movements, so that thiscontributed to the fact that an importantmeeting on Wednesday (organised by[Re]Unindo Retalhos, which is a kind of

front of organisations) was attendedonly by some 20 people in an improvisedspace

(3) Anyway: as I told Richard in Decemberand David Ntseng (one of the Abahlalisactivists who visited Rio) a couple of days

before the forums, our urban movementsin Brazil are experiencing a deepandhighly complexcrisis these days. Thereare many organisations (some of them areimportant, most of them are very small);but it is difficultfor lots of reasonstomobilise and organise the people. Amongthe factors, let me mention the following:(A) The role of political parties (co-

optation, manipulation, instrumen-talisation of the poor).

(B) The role of NGOs (not necessarily,but more often than not: manipula-tion, patronage).

Figure 3 The march reaches Rios harbour area, where the World Urban Forums venue was located. Photograph:David Ntseng.


12/21


(C) The role of many progressiveacademics (often ranging from thosewho behave themselves as vampiresof movementsthat is studyingthem but not contributing to praxisin any senseto those who try toguide and control social movementsorganisationssometimes more orless on behalf of the interests of apolitical party).

(D) The intimidating and demoralisingrole of criminal groups and organisa-tions inside the segregated spacesthemselves.

(E) The role of mass media (very

important in Brazil in order to keepthe poor busy with football, TVseries and all sorts of intellectualgarbage).

(F) The effects of widespread corruptionin our political system (cynicalbehaviour, increasing lack of interestregarding everything which is relatedto public life ).

(Interestingly, we see a very different real-ity when we consider what is going on interms of social movements on the country-sideMST [Movimento dos TrabalhadoresSem Terra] and others )

Anyway, there were some opportunities tomeet interesting people during the SUFandfor me and my research team and someBrazilian activists that meant above all tomeet the militants from Abahlali baseMjon-

dolo: David Ntseng, Louisa Motha, MnikeloNdabankulu and Mazwi Nzimande. I laterwrote to the South African comrades thatI could imagine how frustrating the alterna-tive forum was for them too, in manyrespects. In an email to me, David Ntsengspoke from his heart:

Ambiguity and ambivalence are thecharacteristics of SUF, and you are right: theWUF was clearly government and UN

Habitat space. But for the SUF it is mostunfortunate that it did not provide thealternative most of us were yearning for.

I said that anyway, it was at least an oppor-tunity to see our reality how it really is, andnot just how it could be If you under-stand our weaknesses and contradictionsalong with our potentialities, I said, thenyou can help us much more.

Richards feedback

At this juncture, it is interesting to reproducethe core of Richards comments regardingmy emails during these days.

Here it is my impression that, for years,there was always the official space (statecentred) and the alternative space (NGO/academic centred). But the alternative space,led and dominated by NGOs and a fewacademics, would also present itself as thevoice of the grassroots struggles when ofcourse it was not. Abahlali baseMjondolo(AbM), together with the Western CapeAnti-Eviction Campaign (AEC), walked outof one of the main alternative spaces in2006 to create a genuinely autonomousmovement spacea space organised by andfor movements. For this they were, ofcourse, viciously attacked by the NGO andacademic lefta process that still continues.And of course just as the state cannotconceptualise the agency of the poor andmust always blame a middle classconspiracy so too the middle class left couldonly understand the walkout through thelanguage of conspiracy by a rival middleclass faction.

I think that the walkout was a very bravemove by the AEC and AbM and that it haslaid the ground for the possibility of anindependent or autonomous politics of thepoor. Of course as a middle class intellectualthere were two challenges:

1. First whether or not to go with themovements or to stay with the money andpower and career opportunities of the middle

class left. Some people made the rightdecision and others made very disappointingdecisions.


13/21


2. How does one take the reality of thesituation where the alternative space isactually the project of a rival elite, and, also,the refusal of this by the movements, and do

justice to it in ones written work?

I think that Peter Hallward really gets thisright in his book on Haiti.2 I have tried toreflect this often ignored distinctionbetween movement and NGO/academicspaces accurately in my written worke.g.by making a distinction between thegrassroots left and the civil society left.3The question of getting the rightterminology is very important. But thisquestion is not merely a question of

developing the right terms. It is also often apolitical question. It is often hard to tell thetruth about these things in the academic/NGO spaces. The authoritarian left (whoare sometimes major power brokers in civilsociety) use all kinds of personal attacksand slander as well as institutional forms ofauthoritarianism (e.g. disciplinary processes,even attempts to censor academic work bythreatening legal action or threatening tohand people over to university bosses) to

intimidate people to not discuss this issueand to continue with the fiction that theNGO/academic spaces are the same thing asmovement spaces when they are clearlynot.

In the manner of a balance sheet

I think that Richards words brilliantlysummarise some of the most crucial chal-

lenges progressive academics (with or with-out quotation marks) face. To a large extent,it is hardly necessary to comment on hisemail. However, it is convenient to underlinea particular question.

As far as the WUF is concerned, at least weknow better what can be expected and whatcannot; there is, I think, no place for illu-sionsall specific and possible gains in termsof knowledge and synergies notwithstand-

ing. (I would not like to express myself insuch dogmatic or sectarian terms to the pointof refusing this possibility absolutely; after

all, some interesting speeches and talks can bedelivered at meetings like the WUF. Thepossibility of the existence of some interest-ing speeches and talks in such a context isnot the point, however.) But what could besaid about an alternative which is not analternative at all? Which kind of role dodifferent academics want to play? (What arethey trying to do?) Both in terms ofacademic and political debate about alterna-tives and possibilities, disagreements areunavoidable, since asymmetries are enor-mous and interests are objectively (and oftensubjectively) tremendously divergent. Maybethese disagreements do not prevent us from

learning from each other sometimes, in thecontext of a commitment to dialogue morethan to confrontation. (Of course, confronta-tion is sometimes unavoidable, perhaps evennecessary, especially in those cases when thestate apparatus responds to words and argu-ments with gas or bullets.) It is necessary tobe sincere. I would not like to moralise aneminently political debate, but sincerity andequality are fundamental premises and this

means that the organised poor must be takenseriously as partners in all conversationabout problems, scenarios and alternatives.This is why Abahlali baseMjondolo hasdemanded that the middle-class left in theuniversities and the NGOs Talk to us, notabout us.4 In the eyes of many grassrootsactivists and poor people in general, bothNGO staff and academics (with their typicalmiddle-class background) have increasingly

become objects of deep political suspicionprecisely because of the kind of hypocrisythat could be perceived by many people atthe SUF; a kind of ambiguity, doublespeaksometimes. Maybe the WUF was in compari-son at least more transparent

Acknowledgements

Special thanks go to Richard Pithouse,David Ntseng and Anna Richter for theirvaluable assistance (comments, suggestions


14/21


and, as far as David is concerned, the nicephotos too).

Notes11 Both Erminia Maricato and Raquel Rolnik are

senior urban planners, historically linked to LulasPartido dos Trabalhadores (Workers Party). Bothworked at the Ministry of Cities under Lula(Maricato as former Vice Minister [20032006],Rolnik as National Secretary for Urban Programs[20032007]). Raquel Rolnik is nowadays UnitedNations Special Rapporteur on adequatehousing.

22 See Hallward (2008).33 See, for instance, Pithouse (2007a, 2007b). See

also Souza (2006, 2010) and Esteves et al.(2009).

44 See Pithouse (2007b) and Ndabankulu et al.(2009). A more complete variant is: Talk tous, notaboutus, not forus.

References

Dickens, C. (2007 [1859]) A Tale of Two Cities. London:Penguin Popular Classics.

Esteves, A.M., Motta, S. and Cox, L. (2009) Issue twoeditorial: Civil society versus social movements,Interface: a journal for and about social movements1(2), pp. 121, http://interface-articles.googlegroups.com/web/editorial2.pdf

Hallward, P. (2008) Damming the Flood: Haiti, Aristide,and the Politics of Containment. London: Verso.

Ndabankulu, M., Nsibande, Z. and Ntseng, D. (2009)Abahlali baseMjondolo: reclaiming our dignity andvoices [interview by Sokari Ekine], http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/58979 (accessed 8 July 2010).

Pithouse, R. (2007a [2006]) Rethinking publicparticipation from below, http://abahlali.org/node/585 (accessed 8 July 2010) (originallypublished in Critical Dialogue; full PDF version:http://abahlali.org/files/Critical%20Dialogue%20ABM.pdf).

Pithouse, R. (2007b) The university of AbahlalibaseMjondolo, http://abahlali.org/node/2814

Souza, M.L. de (2006) Together with the state, despitethe state, againstthe state: social movements ascritical urban planning agents, City10(3), pp.327342.

Souza, M.L. de (2010) Which right to which city? Indefence of politicalstrategic clarity, Interface: ajournal for and about social movements 2(1), pp.315333, http://interface-articles.googlegroups.com/web/3Souza.pdf(accessed 8 July 2010).

3. Second thoughts

From: Adrian AtkinsonDate: 23 June 2010 19:47

Marcelos piece is brilliantputting ourchatter to shame.

I think the point is twofold: firstly,Marcelo was able to see the whole Rio scenefar better than any of us foreigners, becausehe is local and could listen in and react flexi-bly to all that was going on, rather thatgroping ones way through a highly stylisedvenue and organisation. Secondly, and

linked to the first point, none of us saw theabsence of the real oppressed. Well, I didattend the follow-on from a colleagues

networking event of last year which I wasinvolved in, and which was half us and halfthem on the podium: this year they decidedthat only the representatives of the grass-roots should present and I was happy withthisalbeit in Marcelos terms, the contextmade nonsense of the speakers who werepolite, rather than trying to put over anypoint such as Marcelo is doing!

Perhaps, in the light of Marcelos pieceand particularly Richard Pithouses analysispresented by Marcelothe annui felt by


15/21


Barbara, Shipra and myself at WUF, quaevent, should have been anticipated. After all,surely nobody believes that we are less thanlight years away from anything approachinga World Revolution of a socialist or anyother kind. Grubbing around in the ashes ofthe concerned end of Modernity in somekind of Hope of finding a spark to igniteradical change is, well, close to pathetic, andmaybe we should be ashamed to have gonethere with any such ambitions.

What Richards piece indicatesand ingeneral Marcelo is implyingis that radical-ism in our world isnt a matter of globaldiscontent or oppression but rather a very

local matter, the lack of resolutions, however,being overwhelmingly held in place by largerforcescultural, political and dare I say itenergeticthat shape current social relation.

My ultimate point is that as these large forcesbegin to fall apart and away, all hell willbreak loose and a very wide spectrum ofpossibilities will emerge in process of resolv-ing local and, what were global and nationalproblems, locally.

These possibilities range from escalation ofconflict into violent and destructive settlingof scores through (as in the fall of Rome) thesimple evaporation of elites and middleclasses for lack of resources to maintain theirstatus and power (which doesnt automati-cally resolve the existential problems oftodays poor and oppressed!) to a reassertionand hardening of class lines into some kind of

caste or feudal arrangements. I believe radi-cal thinkers and activists should start toanticipate this and be in a position to influ-ence or, dare I say it, steer the outcome.

A response to Marcelo Reflections on WUF

Shipra Narang Suri

As I read through Marcelos piece, it isimpossible to disagree with anything hewrites. I did not attend the SUF, only theWUF, but I can relate to his feelings ofdissatisfaction. But it is interesting to notethat while Marcelo expresses disappoint-

ment, frustration and annoyance at the waySUF turned out, captured by the NGO-academic left rather than being a truly openplatform for grassroots movements, WUFonly receives a passing reference in hisreflections a footnote, almost. Clearly, hehad no expectations from it, and thereforedid not feel let down by what went onthere.

But some of us did have expectations, and

we did feel let down. As someone who hasbeen involved with WUF since the secondforum was held in Barcelona in 2004

(followed by Vancouver in 2006, Nanjing in2008 and now Rio in 2010), I had many of thesame feelings for WUF as Marcelo had forSUF. Disappointment that despite such avast, rich and challenging theme as Right tothe City, WUF events largely ended up talk-

ing about more of the samewater projects,sanitation projects, housing and urban devel-opment plans. Frustration that very few newvoices or new ideas were heard, that the focuswas on showcasing best practices, and therewas very little debate and even less introspec-tion. Annoyance that there were so manyparallel events that the really interestingones managed to get only 2530 participants,while the usual suspects collected 100-plus

people in self-congratulatory mode. Irritationthat there was no time or space for meaning-ful discussion.


16/21


The World Urban Forum was launched, infact, as a type of alternative space. Before2002, when the first WUF was held inNairobi, UN-HABITATs GoverningCouncil was the only space for discussing theagencys mandate, agenda and activities,mainly with governments, but with someparticipation of accredited NGOs. WUFwas launched with the aim of opening up thediscussion, of making it a truly participatoryplatform where NGOs, academia, localgovernments, women and youth groups,among others, could express themselves andexchange ideas on urban issues. The UNGeneral Assembly noted that is was a non-

legislative technical forum in which expertscan exchange views in the years when theGoverning Council of the United NationsHuman Settlements Programme does notmeet.1 Further, the General Assemblyencouraged local authorities and otherHabitat Agenda partners to participate, in theWorld Urban Forum in its role as an advisorybody to the Executive Director of UN-HABITAT.2 In other words, the World

Urban Forum was an opportunity for UN-HABITAT to hear voices from the trenches,so to speak, and to reflect on its own work inthe light of what it heard.

The popularity of the Forum has indeedsoared over the past decade. From 1195participants at the first WUF in Nairobi in2002 (as per UN-HABITATs records), wehave come a long waynearly 12,000 peopleattended the Rio Forum. For networking

event slots, were told that only 1 in 30 appli-cations makes it (so please apply early, andmake sure you have some big names on yourpanel!). There are training events and sideevents and special sessions, youth and genderassemblies, caucuses and concerts, in addi-tion to Dialogues and Networking Events(that there is very little time for discussion inall these, is another matter). Anyone who isinterested in the urban sector is, or certainlywants to be, at the Forum, if not presenting

then critiquing; if not raising resources, thensimply networking. Governments are fight-ing over the privilege of holding futuresessions of WUF, in spite of the number ofzeroes on the bill (the next one will be inBahrain in 2012). Presidents and PrimeMinisters line up to speak at opening andclosing ceremonies. Even the Americans areon board now, as was evident from the size-able US government contingent at the RioForum. Surely these are measures of successof the World Urban Forum phenomenon.

Or, are they? Would it not be better to askone simple question insteadhas the Forumremained true to its original aim, that of

providing an opportunity to urban dwellers,urban researchers, urban thinkers andurban practitioners, to reflect upon and sharetheir experiences, to exchange views and toprovide UN-HABITAT with some criticalfeedback on its work, as well as some direc-tion for implementation of the HabitatAgenda?

On the whole, the fifth WUF in Rioseemed like a huge missed opportunity

with a theme as thought-provoking anduniversally relevant as Right to the City,and a rich online discussion preceding theevent (about which Im sure Barbara will tellus more), there could and should have beenmuch more engagement with ideas, ratherthan projects. But then, where and how dothe worlds of ideas and projects meet? Dothey meet at all? Or is the WUF basically abest-practice exchange/lessons-learnt type of

event which doesnt really engage with thethinking and writing world, whether in theNorth or the South? Is this what it was/ismeant to be? Or can it be more?

Notes

11 UNGA Resolution 56/206.22 UN-HABITAT (2002) Report of the first session of

the World Urban Forum, Nairobi, 29 April3 May2002. UN-HABITAT, Nairobi. Emphasis added.


17/21


On WUF, SUF and mobilisation for progressivechangea response to Marcelo, Shipra andAdrian

Barbara Lipietz

Shipras and Marcelos texts on the WUF andSUF demand reflexive responses. Poignant intheir candid take on events, they also raisedifficult questionson the role and nature ofpolitical mobilisation, ways in which various

actors can best work towards progressivechange (or, more generally, fail to do so), thefunction of grand gatherings and the rela-tionship between ideas and practice/praxis.Huge questions, hugely challengingandI sense from both, not entirely resolved. So,let me try and jump into the cauldron hereand rummage through a few thoughts, unset-tled and un-worked through as they are.

WUF

What, then, did we, could we expect fromWUF?

Like Shipra, I didnt attend SUF (to myshame, only found out about its existence acouple of days into the WUF and then, wasswallowed up by my commitments at WUF).I had come to WUF to present at the officialDialogue event on Governance and Partici-pation, a brief summary of the preparatory e-debate sessions on the same theme I hadmoderated for UN-HABITAT, on behalf ofthe African Centre for Cities. But like Shipraand Adrian (and Marcelo re: SUF), I didcome back disappointed.

We talked, early on, of blandness. Perhapsthe soaring heat, the humidity, the dizzyingnumber of people contributed to a generalsense of lethargy. But there was more to it.

Adrian mentioned the good conduct ofparticipants in the ongoing litany of officialand side eventsall playing out a well-

rehearsed part in a grandly orchestratedbest-practice celebratory fest. Hardly anyvoice of dispair or discontent, all agreementon the way forward: the need to involve andrecognise and uphold the genie cratif (or

creative genius) of cities poorer or excludedinhabitants (yes but how? and through whatprocesses? And how should this articulatewith the strategies of other urban actorsetc.?); and perhaps, more problematically, asShipra summarises so well, little sense ofintrospection, of humility in front of ourgeneral and combined failure, as urbancommunity, to transform substantially thelives of those millions still living in abject

conditions.Part of me, following Marcelo or Adrian,thinks I was simply naive to expect anythingelse from big jamborees such as WUF. Inspite of their original crucial role in offeringan alternative to the suffocating dominanceof the Washington consensus, they can nolonger be the place where real, alternativethought/processes will emergetoo big, tooclunky, too institutionalised, too ritualised.Another part of me, more pragmatic, moregenerous perhaps, recognises the ongoingrole of such gatherings as international itera-tions of the importance of the urban andurban development concernsa fact that isstill not universally recognised (cf. in themajority of African countries), with harrow-ing consequences for the lives of the majorityof urbanites carving out extremely precari-ous existences in cities. For the AfricanCentre for Cities, the WUF represented a

key policy arena in which to put forward acase for African urbanisation to be takenseriously by political, business and social


18/21


leaders and, accordingly, for them to mobil-ise convincingly in the domain of sustainableurban development.1 When seen in that light,then, the sheer number of people and offi-cial/side activities at WUF was a goodthinglobbying for the assertion of theRight to the City as a fundamental politicalpriority.

But the problem, as Shipra also rightlybrings up, was that there was a high riskthat this hugely thought-provoking anduniversally relevant theme would be tamed,stripped of its radical content through beingso whimsically appropriated. Certainly theterm was repeatedly brandied in Rio, but

I am not sure that I understood whatexactly it came to entail in the variouspermutations of WUF5. And I am quitesure that the expectations that somehow itwould reinvigorate and re-politicise thedebate and the ways forward towards just,progressive and sustainable urbanisation didnot materialise. This has to be seen as somekind of failureboth by Shipras usefulreminder of WUFs original objectives; and

by the expectations vested into the Forumby those who participated in the e-debateexchange I had the good fortune of co-moderating.

In those three weeks of intense Internetexchange (in our case, amongst participantsfrom 28 countries, more than 200 postingsand many more viewers), there was the hope(tinted by a fair degree of realism) that theRight to the City could, just could, become

reality through a reinvigorated/radicalisednotion of participatory governance. Thiswould involve on the one hand, reinjectingparticipatory governance with a politicisedconception of participation as empower-ment, whereby participants develop the toolsand the vision to challenge unequal distribu-tion of resources in a progressive andsustainable fashion. And on the other, itwould require stretching the concept ofparticipation to include the economic or live-lihoods terrain; that is, in order to remainrelevant to the vast majority of marginalisedin our cities, participatory processes would

have to engage seriously with (aim to under-stand and support) the livelihood strategiesalready employed by marginalised groups intheir daily struggles to live in the city. In turnthese would require context-specific, maturereworkings of some principles of participa-tory governance along the following axes: arenewed emphasis on vision (of the just ofgood city) as the core driver to participa-tory processes; a greater effort (and demo-cratic innovation) in carefully translatingsuch visions of the just citygarneredthrough participatory processes and there-fore built in part on the often fluid livelihoodstrategies of the excludedinto workable

programmes that tally with governmentalprocedures and budgetary processes; and acontext-specific exploration of the mostproductive interaction between social move-ments of the marginalised and the formalpolitical process.2

This was the outcome of sincere soul-searching, of painful/sobering accounts offailure as well. The debate was reflexive andcame, at times, close to Shipras expectations

of what WUF should be about. A shamethen that this (and other e-debates, andother critical engagements on UN-HABITATs work and approach) were notthe starting-point for discussions at WUF5.Could WUF, then, be re-energised by amore disciplined, careful, reflexive engage-ment with some of its very own processes?It is noteworthy that the rationale for the e-debate was precisely that of guiding and

enriching the Dialogues.

Social movements and political parties/progressive academics

Part of the soul-searching exercise in the e-debate related directly to the points raised byMarcelo. Actually, let me rephrase this: the e-dialogue was steered to engage specifically onthe relationship between social movementsand political parties, and, to a lesser extent,on the link between participatory and proce-dural democracy. We did not engage the


19/21


fascinating terrain broached by Marcelo andRichard Pithouse on the relationshipbetween grassroots social movements andNGOs/the academic left/progressive intel-lectualsalthough there were earnest (and attimes pleading) questions regarding ways tofoster independent organisations of the poorin hostile environments, a space where thatparticular dynamic could have been explored.Could it be because most respondents (andmoderators) were either NGO practitionersand/or academics (some of which, involvedwith social movements such as WIEGO,SPARC and waste pickers in Brazil andIndia)? Perhaps we did not have the courage

to be as blunt and self-critical as Marcelo andRichard in their email exchange and in thesepages (and as a moderator I could havesteered the debate that way)? More gener-ously, perhaps, this illuminating insight gotdiluted in the limited space and time awardedfor each topic.

For, as far as the perennial intellectual andorganisational knot that is the relationshipbetween social movements and political

parties (let alone governments) is concerned,there were some very hard and difficult ques-tions posed within the e-dialogue. Forinstance, participants debated whether civilsociety pressure was most effective whenworking within legal frameworks or outsideof thema key tactical question for socialmovements keen to retain their politicalleverage from formal political formations andthe state. The jury was out (of course!) but

some put forward a number of mechanismsto increase social movements bargainingpower, including capacity building, politicaleducation, literacy campaigns (includingliteracy in planning and budgeting). Access toinformationespecially when it is collectedand owned by grassroots organisationswasalso singled out. And the e-debate engagedwith the difficulty faced by many maturingorganisations of the excluded, wanting toscale up to mobilise around city-wide issues:that is, how to develop sophisticated, broad-based transformative visions, while retainingtheir mobilising capacity as organisations

able to deliver on idiosyncratic demands forchange.3 These are crucial questions and go tothe heart of the dilemmas of radical interven-tion and the limits to change.

Marcelos input reads like a particularlylucid (and dispirited) contribution to thatdebate. Dispirited in that it offers in effect arather sombre account of Brazils urbansocial movementsand the latter, in all theircomplexity and inevitable organisationaldilemmas, were seen as beacons of light formany participants to the e-debate, dogged byother, extremely difficult national or localorganisational and political contexts. FromMarcelo, I would like to hear more about

Brazilian urban movements (I did not realisethe situation was quite as critical) and why hethinks the situation differs in rural areasbut I guess this will have to be for anotheroccasion.

Marcelos and Richards call for autono-mous organisation of the poor reflects theiranalysis of political contexts whereby themargins for progressive interaction withpolitical parties are diminished (or outright

limited). The extension of this call to interac-tions with progressive intellectuals oracademics, in the South African context atleast, denotes a situation whereby it is diffi-cult for organic intellectuals (intellectualsemerging from the grassroots or from socialmovements) to remain aloof from the mainpolitical party (unfortunately, not reallypolitical parties) or trade movements becauseof what Steven Friedman calls an unfinished

political transition, the ongoing legacy of theparty-as-liberation-movement phenomenon,and the ANCs Leninist or top-down,centralist organisational tendencies.4 TheBrazilian context is of course different butnonetheless, and like elsewhere, prone toelite capture of this particular kind.

And yet, of course, there are more positiveaccounts of the interaction between socialmovements of the marginalised and intellectu-als/academics. While we might still turn tosome Brazilian examples for inspiration,the city of Cordoba, Argentina (and otherArgentinian cities) during the countrys recent


20/21


and deep economic crisis provides just onesuch example. There, a specific structure of theNational University of Cordoba was set upand geared to work withat the service ofcivil society, providing technical input andsupporting various social cooperatives in theface of the State and economys quasi collapse.In such cities, the crisis acted as the catalyst foran ebullition of social economy experiments,marked by the effective and generous solidar-ity of intellectuals/academics with socialmovements. Of course, in this particularinstance, one does not need to dig far to exca-vate a rich history of social and political activ-ism; inevitably, local opportunity structures

matterand are so un-tradable!The complex and complicated role of

academics/progressive intellectuals is a fasci-nating debatewith a long history!butone where, in truth, I feel ill-equipped toengage in appropriately or fully here. Butwhat great food for thought Marcelo andRichard have given usand what soul-searching this can only initiate or indeed,accentuate!

On ideas/practice/praxis

In trying to tie together these disparatereflexions, Marcelos and Richards criticaltake on the contribution of the academicleft/progressive intellectuals, and Shiprasthoughts on the world of practice vs. theworld of ideas, I am left with internal rumi-

nations on the meaning of praxis.The strategies and tactics of urban socialmovements are alwaysor rather, are atbestbound to be shifting, adapting tochanging local and global contexts. Allianceswith some at certain times, will prove debili-tating on other occasionsbe it with parties,intellectuals/academics or other social andpolitical partners; countering that putativemobility is arguably one of the main head-aches of political parties and governments.The key driver inevitably remains what, inthe end, is more likely to help bring aboutalternative, more just, sustainable, indeed

joyful urban futures? There are bound to bevastly different responses here. But I amquite sure that the most attractive or power-ful will be those that result from the transfor-matory, creative confrontation of practiceand ideas. We need to take more seriously themeaning of praxis, we need engaged theoryand we need theoretically grounded, reflexiveand transformatory policy, which in turn canonly hope to be relevant (and effective) whendrenched and informed by real-life practices,conflicts and dreams in the cityincludingand especially, those of the majority of theurban excluded.

Despite the lethargy and the missed oppor-

tunity(ies) in Rio, the urgency remainsandas Adrian would put it, the looming energyand climate crisis have rendered the urgencyall the more palpable. But we do need alterna-tive modalities of facilitating this encounterand this may still, perhaps, be the role of amodified WUF and a modified SUF. We havetwo years to think about and bring aboutthese changes: the next WUF, WUF6, will beheld in Bahrain in 2012and another SUF is

to take place in parallel. Certainly, Marcelospoint about sincerity and equality beingprerequisites in all such engagements isfundamental. Perhaps we need to add perse-verance, patience and openness.

Notes

11 For that purpose, the ACC organised a side eventat WUF on the theme of African Urban Futures:Promoting Urbanization Strategies.

2

2 See the e-debate presentation at WUF on thefollowing weblink: http://africancentreforcities.net/programmes/public-discourse/world-urban-forum-dialogues/

33 See Section 4 of the e-debate full report, followingthe above URL.

44 See on that: Friedman, S. (2004) The UnfinishedAgenda: Incomplete Democratic Transitions withSpecial Reference to South Africa. Researchpaper, Centre for Policy Studies, Johannesburg.See also: Gumede, W.M. (2005) Thabo Mbekiand the Battle for the Soul of the ANC. Cape Town:

Zebra Press; and Lipietz, B. (2008) Building aVision for the Post-apartheid City: What Role forParticipation in Johannesburgs City DevelopmentStrategy?, IJURR32(1), pp. 135163.


21/21


Adrian Atkinson is a freelance consultant andwriter. Email: [email protected]

Barbara Lipietz is a researcher/consultant

working on international urban policy andurban governance. She is an Associate withthe African Centre for Cities (University ofCape Town, South Africa) and is based inLondon. Email: [email protected]

Shipra Narang Suri is Editor (SpecialFeatures), as well as the Forum Editor forCity. She is an international urban consult-

ant and an Associate of the Post-WarReconstruction and Development Unit(PRDU), University of York, UK. Email:[email protected],[email protected]

Marcelo Lopes de Souza is a professor at theDepartment of Geography of the FederalUniversity of Rio de Janeiro, where he coor-dinates a research group whose main focus isthe relationships between social relationsand space and particularly the spatiality ofsocial change. Email: [email protected]

a (very short) tale of two urban forums

Documents