Introduction As stated in the WSF's Charter of Principles' (document 5 - full document list at end of this chapter - henceforth: Charter), social forums are meant to be open spaces of discussion. However, this space is not given, but actively created. It is a challenge to coordinate the loose network of individuals, groups, and organizations that assemble under the banner global justice movement (GJM) in such a way that the desired open space of discussion emerges. Within the framework of a volume addressing the issue of democracy in the ESF process, thi.s chapter focuses on the political challenges of this process, considering in particular the political controver- sies and conflicts as moments in which principles and common values are revealed, tested, and transformed. In this perspective, our analysis is relevant for anybody who wants to reflect on contemporary forms of transnational democracy. Organizing such a huge and complex process raises three types of challenges. The first is about coordination: although it is a transnational process, the ESF is based on nationally and locally rooted actors. Coordinating them involves a complex interaction between the transnational level and the various national ones. The second challenge concerns the ESF's relative autonomy from other spheres, including the political one: it aims at being a space for civil society organizations, set apart from state and party politics (Charter, articles 5 and 8). However, organiz- ing the event implies negotiating with local and national authorities, as well as relying (at least partially) on political parties and their mobilizing capacities. The third challenge is deeply rooted in the ESF's project itself: as an open space, it con- stantly aims at inclusion and mobilization for common action. While the first two challenges are mainly related to practical and ideological issues as well as diverg- ing interests within the movement, this third challenge is part of what Polletta has called 'democratic dilemmas' (2002: 12): 'the problem ... ·that maximizing one set of participatory democracy's benefits may come at the expense of maximizing another' (ibid.: 13). Each section of this chapter addresses one of these challenges. Adopting a diachronic perspective, our main aim is to single out changes or even trends in the six_year development ofthe ESF organizing process.' OUf account of this process is based on personal interviews with various organizers, participant observation in the European Preparatory Assemblies 2 The ESF organizing process in a diachronic perspective I Christoph Haug, Nicolas Haeringer, and Lorenzo Mosca The ESF organizing process 27 (EPAs), analysis of documents (reports, meeting minutes, articles, websites and mailing lists), and a review of the relevant literature. Levels of co-ordination: rooted transnationalism The ESF has - at least formally - adopted a horizontal form of organization, based on anti-hierarchical principles of inclusion rather than a classic system of representation. The European Preparatory Assembly (EPA), which is at the core of this organizational process, constitutes an ad hoc transnational space for coor- dination. Considering, however, that social movement organizations are still mainly structured at the national or even the local level (della Porta et af. 2006, 2007b; Agrikoliansky et af. 2005), it comes as no surprise that the role of national environments is neither fully abolished nor ignored at the EPA meet- ings. In this section, we will describe and analyse this form of rooted transna- tionalism of the ESF organizing process. Our focus is on the transnational level; we will not discuss the dynamics within national coordinating bodies, as this would imply a case study approach rather than a diachronic perspective. The European Preparatory Assembly: an open body at the core of the process The EPA is driven by the same principles that guide the ESF itself, except - of course - that the EPA does take decisions, although only those directly related to the organizational process of the forum. It is an open space where delegation of political power is prohibited and decisions made by consensus (Aguiton and Cardon 2005: 7). EPAs are held roughly every two to three months in varying countries in order to involve diverse geographical areas in the preparatory proc- ess' Despite the transnational character of these meetings, the absence of a European budget forces local EPA organizers to cover the costs of the meeting, except for travel expenses, which are covered by the participants themselves or by a solidarity fund. This makes it difficult for movements in the 'poorer' coun- tries of the former Soviet bloc to organize an EPA because they also lack support from more established institutions. As one Eastern interviewee told us: 'The Westerners cannot imagine that the whole Social Fora in the East are branded as terrorists and as anti-democratic!' (interview 1). An EPA consists of several plenary sessions held on Saturdays and Sundays, as well as several working group sessions. Three working groups (WGs) estab- lished at the first EPA have continued ever since: the WG on organization (dealing with issues of communication, finance, logistics, interpretation, and travel), the enlargement WG, and the programme WG (setting the framework of the forum programme). The latter is by far the most attended and most active, as it deals with issues shaping the character of the forum - for example, defining the thematic axes and merging seminar proposals. Because of this workload and political importance, it holds an additional meeting outside the EPAs at least once before every Forum (see Table 2.1).