18.12.2014
How not to run a party
NC member Yassamine Mather reports on the December 13 meeting
Starting a new party is a challenge at the best of times. However, in the current political climate, with the tide flowing in favour of the right, at a time when the working class is facing defeats and setbacks, when some of the recruits to the new party have a vivid memory of discrimination, abuse of centralism and cronyism in the organisations they have left, “doing politics differently” is an admirable ambition.
But this is not an easy task, as Left Unity national council members and national officers are well aware. After all, we are dealing with comrades whose experiences on the left have left them bruised, suspicious and wary of any form of structure, discipline and centralism ... However, by now it should be clear to most of those trying to deal with the day-to-day work that the party’s current constitution just does not work.
A large national council (almost 70 members if you include officers, regional and caucus representatives) might appear democratic on paper, but when only half at most of the elected members attend any given meeting, such a body cannot be expected to play the role it was designed to fulfil.
In addition the rotational executive committee has its own problems. I argued and voted against a rotational EC membership at the first meeting of the NC and I am glad to see others have come to the same conclusion. There is clearly a lack of continuity with an EC membership that changes from month to month, so it is good that the NC voted to change the format from March 2015. The next NC meeting will elect from within its own ranks permanent members of the executive committee.
So what was intended as a super-democratic solution to the problem of representation has proved to be hopelessly flawed. Some of us had assumed the officers hold regular, maybe weekly, meetings to deal with ongoing issues - in effect working as a central committee (without using the term for fear of being seen as just like the old left ...). If I understood it correctly from a comment made by Andrew Burgin, that is not the case. We are left with a situation where most decisions are left from one EC to the next and from one NC to the next. In the meantime everyone who has a grievance blames the national officers. This includes everything from disputes in branches to problems with appeals, from negotiations with other political parties to Facebook comments made by this or that NC member.
Having said that, I agree with Simon Hardy that this last meeting of the national council of 2014 had “some good points about it”. Firstly, he said, there is “a growing recognition of the problems in terms of organisation and structure” in Left Unity. The lack of a regularly meeting leadership is “clearly a major obstacle to us getting organised and taking forward decisions from the NC and EC”. He is also right to point out that it is impossible to deal with more than a couple of substantial items from the long agenda for NC meetings in five hours once every three months.
In addition the NC (not the EC) has to deal with motions left over from national conference - there will be an extra meeting of the NC in late January or early February to deal with this. Then there are motions proposed by branches and sent to the NC, which are to be found at the bottom of the agenda. Usually there is not enough time to deal with them. In fact the next regular NC meeting will start with motions submitted by branches and not previously discussed.
The items that took most time on December 13 were related to the 2015 parliamentary and council elections. A number of branches have indicated their intention to nominate candidates. In each case a number of issues have to be considered: the strength of the local branch, its ability to canvass opinion before making a final decision regarding a particular constituency or council ward, the costs involved ...
During the discussion Toby Abse spoke against coming to any agreement with the Green Party and I agree with him. The Greens have an appalling record in office - especially in Brighton, where they control the council that imposes cuts and austerity. As far as I am concerned, they have never been nor can they ever be considered a party of the left and there is no reason why we should cooperate electorally with them. Clearly many on the national council disagree with this assessment. The NC decided to advise one LU branch wishing to stand in a Green-targeted seat in the local elections to canvass opinion and look for an alternative ward. One comrade reminded the meeting that LU is not standing in elections to win, but to speak to the class; not to talk about austerity, but to discuss the causes of austerity. So how can we explain our politics if we refuse to stand against parties implementing austerity?
The meeting discussed the draft manifesto and introduction prepared by Tom Walker. We have decided that the manifesto should only contain items from resolutions passed by an LU conference, and the comrade had done a very good job of keeping to the letter and the spirit of the resolutions.
The proposed draft is reasonably short and a number of amendments were proposed: to emphasise the anti-racist character of the party, for example, and to affirm a woman’s right to control her own body. Although national conference did not have time to consider motions on the UK constitution, a number of comrades suggested we need to add sections on democracy and it was agreed that we add a sentence emphasising the fact that LU is opposed to the monarchy, supports the abolition of the House of Lords and favours reducing the voting age to 16.
Next came the much awaited report from the disputes committee. I am not sure of the time line it covered, but it did not include the case involving the suspension of Laurie McCauley, a Communist Platform supporter, in Manchester. However, the report detailed a number of disputes that had positive outcomes - branches had merged, problems had been resolved … Details of the cases reported show that hearing only half of the story is clearly not the best way of finding out what is going on. Yet this is precisely what has happened because of the disputes committee’s insistence on ‘confidentiality’. As I said at the NC, none of these case have remained ‘confidential’: instead of a proper report being issued (be it without identifying the individuals in more sensitive cases), a distorted version of the story has almost invariably appeared on social media. It is in fact the secrecy of the DC and the appeals committee that has fuelled speculation about dozens of unresolved disputes, feeding claims and counterclaims of unfair, secret trials - all of which is detrimental to the party’s reputation.
For all members of LU to have confidence in the disputes committee, it is not sufficient for it to be impartial and determined to resolve all issues fairly. It should be seen to do so, and this cannot be achieved without transparency. The right of those suspended while investigations are taking place has to be stipulated. The national council has a duty to oversee the work of the DC and the appeals committee and report back to conference, but this has not happened so far - apparently to protect members in sensitive cases. However, simple, practical measures, including the use of initials rather than full names when, for example, there are security concerns, can help us achieve this.
In a climate of mistrust, at a time when the entire left has been affected by the crisis in the SWP, “doing politics differently” requires transparency. In the days of social media and the internet, it is counterproductive to deal with disputes in secret. We ought to do such things differently from the SWP.