29.11.2001

Heading for a split?

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group argues that it would be premature for the Socialist Alliance to discard federalism - it needs democratic federalism

Dark and stormy clouds are gathering over the Socialist Alliance conference. It looks as if some kind of split is in the offing. The SA gained forward momentum during the general election. But this progress has ground to a halt. The conference therefore faces a huge task. We must find the politics that will start to take us forward again.

If we fail to find the right politics we will end up splitting. This will signal that the SA project has started to go backwards. The danger is not simply that we lose the Socialist Party, which would be a major setback, but that the whole project begins to unravel.

Some say the SP was semi-detached and therefore does it really matter if they leave? That fails to understand the essential politics of the SA movement. Its strength has been its ability to bring the left together. The success of the SA movement can be seen by the possibility of the Communist Party of Britain joining and bringing the Morning Star onside. But the CPB are by no means unanimous. A split at this conference is very likely to put further unity of this kind on hold.

The differences between the CPGB and the RDG are a microcosm of the whole problem. In the first session we will vote in completely different directions. Yet traditionally we have been the closest allies. The CPGB will be voting for the CPGB?s constitution and then for the SWP as its second preference. The RDG will vote for the Scottish Socialist Party constitution and then for the Workers Power constitution.

If we begin to analyse the reasoning behind this, we uncover a dispute over the whole direction of the SA movement. The CPGB wants to unite the communists into a revolutionary party based on democratic centralism. The RDG wants to unite the left into a party containing communists and socialists (Labour lefts) on the basis of democratic federalism.

The CPGB quite logically will vote for its own position as the best of democratic centralism and then for the SWP, whose centralism is the next best thing. The RDG will vote for the SSP model as a practical example of a party of the left, and for Workers Power because its constitution represents a form of democratic federalism.

The RDG perspective is for launching a party along the lines of the Scottish Socialist Party. This is the only model that can unite all the forces in and around the SA. In Scotland, the same organisations and individuals that are the backbone of the SA are working together in building a new workers? party. If they can do it, so can we.

We are therefore calling on the CPGB to reconsider its position and support the SSP constitution on the following grounds. The SSP is the only party constitution on offer at this conference. If it was passed, we would remit it to the executive to make preparations for launching a party within a year. It is therefore the quickest road to a party, on the basis of a properly prepared and democratic founding conference. On these grounds it also represents the open road to a party.

CPGB members in Scotland already work under this constitution. It is the only constitution which places emphasis on the importance of republicanism, rather than economism. It is the only constitution which calls for a federal republic and a united Ireland, which are important demands in the programme of the CPGB. It is the constitution that offers the greatest potential for an eventual merger with the SSP into one party. Obviously having the same or a very similar constitution eases the path to one united party.

Unfortunately none of these arguments will persuade the CPGB. So we are back to democratic centralism versus democratic federalism. This is the essence of the constitutional dispute at the heart of the Socialist Alliance. Around these two poles are a series of spinning satellites. On one side is the ?revolutionary wing? of the SWP, CPGB and International Socialist Group, plus Mike Marqusee, John Nicholson, Neil Thompson and Nick Wrack, etc. On the federalist side is the SP, the RDG, Workers Power, Alliance for Workers? Liberty, Pete McLaren, Dave Church, Dave Osler, the International Socialist League, Green Socialist Network, etc. Apologies to anybody I have mistakenly placed in the wrong camp.

The slogan of the SWP bloc is ?For a democratic and effective SA?. This is why we have been reluctant to sign the CPGB statement for a ?democratic and effective Socialist Alliance?. It is not because we have a sectarian attitude to initiatives from our long-standing allies and friends. But politically it represents the politics of the whole SWP-led faction, which is for us the main barrier to a democratic and effective party.

The struggle at the conference will clarify these alignments. The two sides are not ideologically coherent. Inevitably there will be desertions and movement. At the end of the conference we will see who ends up where. The CPGB and the SWP have the most thought out politics of their faction. Both are totally committed to a revolutionary party.

The SWP sees this as ... the SWP. Their main task is to block the development of any rival party. The united front is the most the SWP will go for. For them the SA is the electoral front of the SWP. The CPGB has a different approach. It wants to convert the SA into a revolutionary party.

In my view the CPGB position means splitting the SA movement. The CPGB denies this and says that any reformists can stay and say what they like. Of course they would have to do what they are told. In any case when the CPGB looks for ?reformists? (ie, economists) and asks them to own up, not a single hand is raised.

The issue of reformism and revolutionism is more complex than asking people how they feel or what hat they want to wear. There is both an economist and revolutionary democratic wing of the SA. Is it better that revolutionary democrats separate from the economists or build a party with them? Our answer is the latter. You could call this capitulation to economism. We believe it is the best tactic at present for combating it. We are therefore strongly opposed to any splitting policy that separates us from the economists.

This is why we are opposed to centralism and ?revolutionary? phrase-mongering. It will only lead to splits and a narrowing down of the SA. To put it another way, we want to centralise all the economists into one party. If that means democratic federalism, so be it. We will try to be its strongest advocate.

John Nicholson?s and Declan O?Neil?s amendment to the SWP constitution represents the most extreme centralist position. It calls for ?all members (including members of political organisations) to be democratically bound by decisions taken by the meeting(s) of the alliance?. Is this the dictatorship of economists? Is it Leninism or Scargillism? We cannot abstract centralism from the issue of programme.

Let us consider a Marxist case for federalism. Marxism does not have a dogmatic view about centralised and federal democracy. It recognises in general that centralism is more democratic and serves the interests of the democratic class more than federalism. We are not ?federalists?. We recognise the shortcomings and weaknesses of federalism. Federalism is a lower form of democracy.

Ultra-leftism, however, takes a dogmatic attitude to centralism. It is considered an article of faith, correct for each and every situation. Revolutionary Marxism, on the contrary, advocates federalism where it is appropriate. In certain concrete circumstances and conditions, federalism is a step forward. It is a case of horses for courses.

Marxism must start from an appraisal of where we are and what the next step is. In our view the SA is still in the early stages of development. The level of democracy is uneven. There are still significant political differences on programme and perspective. Whilst democratic federalism is a lower form of democracy, it is appropriate for the level of unity we have so far achieved. It provides a structure within which the process of growing into a party can take root.

A federal structure, which brings together autonomous organisations, can take many forms. Consensus federalism is the lowest form, based on consensus decision-making. Such a structure may be necessary at the very first stage of confidence building. It means that any organisation can veto majority decisions. It gives power to the minority over the majority. The earliest stage in the development of the European Union was based on consensus policies, before moving to what was called ?qualified majority voting?.

Democratic federalism is a higher form of federalism in which decisions and policies are decided by majority vote. Within the SA some organisations work on the basis of consensus: for example, Merseyside SA. Others operate on the basis of majority decisions, which in some cases may still be consensual. The Socialist Party is arguing for ?consensus federalism?. Workers Power and the RDG are supporting ?democratic federalism?. This is why democratic federalism is the centre, between SWP centralism on one side and SP consensus federalism on the other.

Democratic federalism aims to unite autonomous organisations, each of which is sovereign within its own sphere. No part can be bound by the decisions of other autonomous organisations. In Merseyside, for example, the SWP, SP and Merseyside SA itself are all autonomous, sovereign organisations with rights to make their own decisions and act together or act separately. Each is free to move in the same direction or in different directions.

The aim of the SA, including the national organisation, is to assist these sovereign component parts to coordinate, cooperate and merge their actions. This means that all autonomous organisations must commit themselves to strive for voluntary unity. A situation where autonomous organisations act independently is not desirable. What is needed is unity in action. But federalism means that unity in action is voluntary and not imposed.

Majority decision-making is a basic feature of all democratic organisations. This is not to say unanimous or consensus decisions may not be desirable. In practice the national organisation already operates by majority decision - as, for example, at the Birmingham conference, which decided the programmatic basis for the 2001 manifesto. It is also the case that the socialist affiliates (eg, SWP, AWL, etc) have long functioned by majority decisions. It is not the case that all local alliances work on that basis.

Adopting a democratic federal constitution means completing the transition to majority decision-making. Local alliances, where majority decision-making is not used, should be encouraged to adopt the practice, when local circumstances allow. Majority decision-making should eventually become the norm in all constituent parts of the alliance.

Majority decisions will always carry strong moral authority in the socialist movement, whose members are often active in trade unions. However, in a federal system, majority decisions are not binding. Individual members, affiliated local alliances and socialist affiliates have the right not to carry out majority decisions. On many occasions this right will not be exercised. Indeed its very existence makes its use less likely. Non-binding majority decisions provide a safeguard against the oppressive use of the majority and constitute a confidence building measure.

A federal structure enables a full range of political views and wide variety of organisations to be represented in the national organisation and in local alliances. Federalism means that every socialist organisation, members? platform and local alliance can send a delegate to national bodies. Of course in a centralised structure a system of proportional representation can be adopted to achieve the same end. But with federalism, representation can be guaranteed on a simple basis, without complex voting systems.

Federalism is compatible with openness, democratic methods and transparency. This can best facilitate the political and ideological development of the SA as a working class organisation. This means using formal democratic methods such as minutes, motions, recording votes. The socialist affiliates have had and will continue to have a major influence on the alliance. A federal structure means that the official positions of all the socialist affiliates can be made open and transparent by their official delegates.

Federalism is compatible with unrestricted freedom of expression and the rights of members, both individually and in platforms and tendencies, to publish their views.

There ought to be clearly established rights for individual members and minority groups of members, including platforms and tendencies, and for comrades who identify themselves as part of oppressed sections of society: eg, women, gays and lesbians, ethnic minorities, disabled, youth, pensioners, etc. A charter of members? rights should be included in a federal constitution.

The SA was not founded as a merger or fusion into a single organisation. It was and is a coalition. The affiliated political organisations in the SA have a long history of separate and independent politics and organisation. Federalism, as a lower form of democratic unity, is ideally suited for bringing separate organisations into voluntary unity.

We cannot, nor should we, seek to force a merger on these organisations by means of bureaucratic centralism. Any attempt to impose a merger from the top will fail. The SA is not yet ready to become a single fused organisation. It must be a voluntary process. Organisations have to see and believe in the collective benefits of unity for themselves, as part of the socialist movement.

It is understood, even by the critics of federalism, that without a federal structure we could not have achieved even the current degree of unity. Some comrades will remember the disaster that followed Scargill?s attempt to impose centralism on the Socialist Labour Party. Even at the start, negotiations to set up the SLP failed to incorporate Militant Labour (SP) because of Scargill?s centralist demands.

Federalism has enabled the SA to achieve significant voluntary unity. As a result of the 2001 general election, the SA has outgrown the early stage of federalism, represented in the original constitution. But we are making a serious error if we think we have outgrown federalism as such. Federalism is sufficiently flexible to enable us to build a greater degree of unity than we have already achieved. Federalism has got us so far. It should not be prematurely abandoned.