WeeklyWorker

16.05.1996

Socialist Labour’s founding conference: A republican party is born

Dave Craig of the RDG reports on the struggle between the republicans and the Fourth Internationalists

The Revolutionary Democratic Group (faction of the SWP) has long argued that one of the central questions on the British left today is, or is becoming, the struggle between the Labourites and the republicans. It is the past versus the future. What is old and dying confronts the birth of new life. Labourism is in its death agony. Republicanism is the new kid on the block. The degeneration of the constitutional monarchy, the bankruptcy of Labour and the growing unpopularity of the monarchy is now slowly but surely bringing the issue to centre stage. This will become clear at the next general election.

Of course the abolition of the monarchy is not yet practical politics. There has been no serious republican party and no republican movement prepared to mobilise the people. In this respect the Windsors are safe. Yet there are ominous straws in the wind.

One such straw blew around Camden Town Hall when the SLP launched itself and identified itself as a republican party. The launch of a republican socialist party may prove to be a significant event in British politics. But certainly it proved our contention that a break from Labourism to the left, is more or less certain to be republican.

The visitors’ gallery was a good place to watch events unfold. I was also able to get the opportunity to talk to delegates. The SLP was ripe for republicanism. It only required somebody to shake the tree for the apples to fall to the ground. That is exactly what happened. No sooner had the conference began than one of the republicans went to the podium to challenge the order of business.

As The Observer reported, “The SLP almost got off to a bad start in Camden Town Hall with a point of order” (May 5). Not at all. It was a bad start for monarchists and Labourites, but a good one for republicans.

The challenger argued that there were three fundamental policy issues to be debated - the economy, the constitution or system of government and international, especially Europe.

This should not be taken to mean that the other issues are not important. But in terms of political logic all the other papers were sub-parts of the three fundamentals. For example Ireland, local government and law reform are sub-parts of the whole constitutional debate. It makes sense to look at the totality first.

He cited evidence of the three fundamentals, in the programmatic statements made prior to the conference mentioned in The Guardian and on News-night:

These had been made without the democratic endorsement of the membership. Fair enough, but now it should have been conference’s turn. It was obvious to anybody that, given the limitation of time, papers dealing with these questions should be at the top of the agenda.

Yet, complained the delegate, one of the papers, the ‘republican constitution working group’ paper was at the end of the agenda. Knowing that it was a controversial decision, the organisers had placed it last but one, before ‘animal rights’.

This political nonsense enabled The Guardian’s Matthew Engel to poke fun at the SLP saying that, “Trivial subjects like the British constitution will have to be considered next May, after the general election.”

Of course there are some ultra-‘revolutionaries’ like the SWP who think that the monarchy, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the Lords, a bill of rights, proportional representation, election of judges and workplace councils are indeed trivial matters. They think that preparing the advanced workers for revolution means shouting the word “Revolution!” in a very loud voice or in writing it in very big letters.

So the point of order was sound enough. Nobody disputed that these were the central planks of the party programme given out to the media. Despite comrade Scargill’s belief that we would discuss two, the conference only managed to discuss and vote on one. Neither Europe nor the Republican Constitution were debated or voted on by the membership.

Not surprisingly, the challenge was voted down. But not before Arthur Scargill had got up to clarify the position. He declared, “There is no one in this hall who would disagree that we want to see an end to the monarchy, an end to the House of Lords ...” The words which followed were drowned in applause.

In the applause the party was born republican. It was the only opportunity the conference got to confirm that on the question of the monarchy, it was quite different from the Labour Party.

Abolition of the monarchy was no longer a Scargill policy or even a ‘republican constitution’ working group policy. It was a policy backed by the conference.

But comrade Scargill was not correct to say that there was no one in the hall who would disagree with abolition. When the ‘republican constitution’ working group paper was submitted, Brian Heron of the Fourth International Supporters Caucus (Fisc) had proposed two amendments:

The paper was fine if these two controversial aspects were deleted. This the group convenor refused to do, considering that deletions should surely be moved and debated openly. But she agreed to ask the group. Comrade Heron promised it would be circulated regardless. It was not.

Comrade Heron claimed he made 12 phone calls to ask the group’s permission to circulate it. Permission was not required. There was a proper procedure agreed by the steering committee. If the steering committee wished to vary that procedure, it should have written to the working group stating its conditions, amendments or whatever, before adverse decisions were taken.

The SLP conference and the circulation of policy papers was not a trivial matter to be lightly cast aside. A paper written by comrade Scargill or Fourth International supporters would not have been treated that way. The Fourth International supporters did not draft the paper, did not like it very much and did not ensure it was circulated. Eventually, under pressure, they stuck it at the end of the agenda.

The Fourth International supporters were trying to be more Labourite even than Scargill. Behind the scenes they were trying to remove a key demand without which there can be no republican programme. Would this help the SLP’s electoral chances? This is surely the reason why the ‘republican constitution’ paper was treated differently.

Fortunately the republicans did not let it rest there. The paper was discussed and supported by South London SLP. A letter of complaint was written to the steering committee. The Weekly Worker gave publicity to the paper and what had happened. As a result the steering committee produced 500 copies of the paper for conference.

So at the conference, when Arthur Scargill declared that “nobody in this hall would disagree with the abolition of the monarchy”, the behind-the-scenes Fisc amendment bit the dust.

This was not the end of a better than expected day for republicans. Two of them stood on a revolutionary platform. They called for:

They gained about 50 votes each. Not a bad day’s work in the fight against Labour’s plans to reform the monarchy.

This article was submitted for last week's paper