At the close of the first World Social Forum in January 2001, its organizers circulated a memo in which they proposed to convene World Social Forums every year, at the same date as the Davos Economic Forum. In 2002, a new WSF was held in Porto Alegre, and the holding of other Forums in various places of the world was encouraged. It had become clear that, along with the success of the first edition of the Forum (two persons expected, 20,000 participants!), the process of World Forums had to be continued as an alternative to the one-sided thinking (pensée unique) of the World Economic Forum.

But it had also become clear that, to bring about a rebirth everywhere in the feeling of hope for a different world, this type of forum of exchanges and of linking up must be introduced in other countries. This feeling was experienced by the Brazilians – more than 80% of the participants – who had attended the Forum.

Shortly afterwards, the Forum organizers clarified the choices that, according to them, explained its success:
- a forum reserved for civil society, without elected representatives, governments, or political parties (except as outside speakers) tempted to use their participation for political purposes;
- a forum governed by rules that renew the traditional practices of collective action. These are the founding rules of the "Porto Alegre generation," appropriate for an era of networks and of recognition of diversity and cross-cutting issues: openness; acceptance of diversity as a value; horizontality in relations between participants; non-directivity and therefore absence of spokesperson, leader, or final declaration. Collected in a Charter of Principles, these choices have now become the fundamental reference for organizing Social Forums.

Several Forums have been organized since then, at the global, regional, national, and even local level, in several countries of the world. But it took three years for a Forum at the global level to be organized outside of Brazil. It was held in January 2004, in India. Its having been carrying out showed that it was possible to respect the Charter of Principles in a historical, social, and economic context quite different from Brazil. The decision was then made to set off again for another continent, Africa, after having come back to Brazil in 2005. The participating African organizations had stated they were prepared to take up this challenge, along with support by the WSF International Council (1). They nevertheless considered that it was too early to organize the WSF in Africa in 2006 and that it would be better to do so in 2007.

So the question came up: what to do in 2006? The idea of several simultaneous Forums, at the same date as the Davos Economic Forum, had been proposed in the 2001 information memo. This was thus taken up again to organize a polycentric WSF.

But it's up to the organizations of the host countries to take the decision to organize a forum. Following a call for candidacies, three countries were accepted for the 2006 WSF: Venezuela (in Caracas), Mali (in Bamako), and Pakistan (in Karachi). This makes one in each continent of the Third World. The proposal from Morocco was transformed, through decision by its organizers, into a Constitutive Assembly for a North African Social Forum that will be held just before the Bamako Forum.

These three Forums will represent a new experience in the World Social Forum context. What are the issues involved in this innovation? Some consider that decentralization could weaken the impact of the Forum in the fight to overcome neo-liberalism. Others say that, on the contrary, its strength would be precisely the creation of forums of exchange and link-up held simultaneously in three continents. Some think that the three Forums should concentrate on several common themes and link up with each other, as a movement would. Others think that, as a forum and not a movement, the richness of our polycentric Forum would be the diversity of themes discussed.

In fact, the work program of each forum ensues from the activities proposed and self-managed by its participants. The registration process enables them to find out about the proposals from others, with common themes and convergences appearing quite naturally. The overall objective of overcoming neo-liberalism is shared by all. And each of these themes can be deepened based on the real interests of the participants, and not by decisions by a higher authority, this latter being non-existent and unacceptable in the Forum process.

But the great challenge is found elsewhere. This is the taking advantage of an invaluable opportunity, made available through respect of the World Social Forum's Charter of Principles, for strengthening civil society in each of the three countries as a new political actor independent of governments, parties, and political leaders. A Social Forum opens the way for building links between organizations, by overtaking the barriers that generally divide them and by the mutual recognition and the discovery of their autonomous strength, with respect for their diversity.

The main dynamic that characterizes the Forum, as an open place of exchange, is the invitation to replace quarrels by the power of listening. We can then move towards fertile dialogue that can lead to the discovery of points of convergence and to the establishment of new alliances within this society. That way, we can launch new initiatives of struggle and transformation at the local, regional, or global level.

The big challenge of the 2006 polycentric WSF is therefore the effect it will have, in each host country and around the world, on the involvement by a growing number of citizen organizations in the fight for overcoming neo-liberalism and the building of a society of fairness and solidarity. If this set of Forums achieves this result, we will have made a great step towards "another world is possible."

(1) The International Council brings together around 100 organizations supporting the World Social Forum process. It decides on its general directions.