28.11.1996

Constitutional conspiracy

SL Kenning looks at latest developments in the Socialist Labour Party

A conspiracy is being hatched. Our democracy is to be subverted. Members of the General Purposes Committee have secretly pledged themselves to a huge lie.

President Arthur Scargill coolly informs public rallies that his draft constitution is no draft, but binding law. It was “adopted” by the membership at the inaugural conference of May 4, he maintains. The Fiscites make exactly the same mendacious claim. Though ironically there were plenty of non-members present on the day, comrade Patrick Sikorski also talks of effective constitutional decisions made by the May 4 conference. The “congress” [sic], says our general secretary, “agreed” that it should be “immediately effective” (Letter, November 11 1996).

Of course, there was no discussion, no agreement, no vote, no decision concerning the constitution by the membership on May 4. Indeed it was comrade Sikorski himself who had previously insisted, at the Conway Hall policy drafting meeting, that there would be no debate on the constitution at the May 4 conference. The constitution would only be finalised in 1997, he said.

If I am wrong, then let the National Executive Committee publish the minutes of May 4. Show us in black and white where you derive your supposed authority to impose comrade Scargill’s draft constitution. They will do no such thing. They can do no such thing.

For the SLP this is a matter of the greatest significance. The draft constitution is being used to straightjacket the SLP politically and organisationally. Nevertheless the ham-fisted way in which it is being done shows how fragile the leadership considers its hold over the SLP. Bureaucratic manipulation and barefaced lying are not signs of strength, but profound weakness.

Comrade Scargill is fond of calling himself a Marxist. I know Marxism, and comrade Scargill is no Marxist. Comrade Scargill has broken with the Labour Party, but he has yet to break with Labourism. That explains why our president dismisses the theoretical heritage of Marxism in the off-hand manner typical of a social democratic philistine: “Don’t tell me what one dead Russian said to another dead Russian,” he bombastically replies to revolutionary critics.

Organisation is the mediation between theory and practice. So it comes as no surprise that comrade Scargill’s draft constitution - both the December 1995 and the May 1996 version - plagiarises the Labour Party electoralist-reformist model. Membership is organised according to parliamentary constituency and ward boundaries, trade union affiliation, gender and so-called race.

Furthermore the Scargill draft contains the very same anti-communist clauses notoriously introduced into the Labour Party under the direction of Ramsay MacDonald and other former leftwingers in the 1920s. Perhaps the main distinguishing feature between the Scargill draft and old Labour is the Bonapartist powers it enshrines for the president. Comrade Scargill as a personality is a big asset for the SLP. However, like Ferdinand Lassalle and Joseph Stalin, he seems to entertain the ambition of becoming a worker-dictator.

The Scargill constitution must be challenged lock, stock and barrel at the May 1997 congress. There must certainly be a fight to ensure that all votes at this first constitutional congress are by a simple majority.

Nevertheless if that fails then the left must be ready to concentrate its fire at a single strategic point. Remember, for Constituency Socialist Labour Parties of 1,000 members or less it is one amendment to the constitution and nothing more (see clause six, subsections six and 11). Expect gerrymandering and underhand manoeuvring. Correspondence will be lost in the post or mislaid. Branches will be closed, forgotten or not recognised. Resolutions will be ruled out of order or referred to the NEC. Two dozen different constitutional ‘amendments’ from two dozen different branches will allow the NEC to divide and rule by arranging it that what they find most detestable be talked off the agenda. In all likelihood the NEC will have in reserve their own batch of amendments and will encourage others to submit their own amendments to soak up time.

Therefore as many Constituency Socialist Labour Parties as possible must be won to submit a standard constitutional amendment to replace the MacDonaldite clause two, subsections four and five. On these two short subsections pivots the whole system of witch hunting and fear. They have been used to void and cower comrades. They are used to justify anti-communism and the imposition of a bureaucratic regime. Changing them will change everything.

Clause two, subsection four reads:

“Individuals and organisations other than bona fide trade unions which have their own programme, principles and policies, distinctive and separate propaganda, or which are engaged in the promotion of policies in opposition to those of the party shall be ineligible for affiliation to the party.”

Clause two, subsection five reads: “A member of the party who becomes a member of and/or supports a political organisation other than the party shall automatically be ineligible to become a member or remain a party member.”

In the interests of party democracy and to bring about working class unity subsection five must be deleted. Subsection four needs to be replaced with the simple formulation: “All working class and progressive organisations are eligible to affiliate to the party”.

The left needs to coordinate its plans, actions and forces at the highest level. We are a minority. But we are an influential and large minority that on certain issues is surely capable of winning a majority, perhaps even the two-thirds majority which is necessary under the Scargill constitution in order to overturn a chair’s ruling.

Of course such a victory is only possible if we overcome petty sectarianism, factional exclusiveness and localist heads-down timidity. Unity is urgently needed. Division is reactionary and serves only the right.

The maximum number of delegates must be secured. That means carefully marshalling our supporters into “constitutionally recognised” CSLPs. Leave in place ad hoc regional bodies to oversee the general election campaign and for joint discussion and mutual aid.

Take the initiative. Move quickly. Come together above; regroup below.

Indian Friends

As reported in the Weekly Worker (November 14 1996) comrade Scargill has been engaged in long discussions with the Indian Workers Association and its core, the Association of Indian Communists. The subject is SLP membership.

Though, as can be seen in the pages of its Stalinite paper Lalkar, undoubtedly it has its own “programme, principles and policies, distinctive and separate propaganda”, comrade Scargill said that there would be “no problem” with IWA members joining the party. It is, he says, an “anti-imperialist organisation” which contains Labour supporters and even Tories. The AIC was however a problem. “If I let one in, I’ll have to let in them all,” he ruefully confessed.

Readers will therefore be interested to learn that a new organisation has just been formed: Indian Friends. Apparently this name change will allow an influx of Indian communists into the SLP. I for one am delighted.

But what applies to the AIC should apply to all working class and progressive organisations. There should be no bans and proscriptions. Arthur - “let in them all!”

Racism and Goss

“The Policy of the SLP is consciously and irrevocably anti-racist” (Socialist Labour - our policies Doncaster August 1996, p31). Comrade Tony Goss, the SLP’s London election supremo, take note. Given your past record, your promotion by Fisc and the IWA’s decision to join the SLP, this is a very important question.

In 1989 Southwark ‘Independent Labour’ councillors Tony and Ann Goss “slammed” plans to establish a “permanent travellers’ site”. They were reported as saying they “don’t want any more gypsies in the area” (South London Press November 17 1989).

The Gosses accused travellers of dumping rubbish, being noisy and causing a general nuisance. More than that they led a vociferous campaign and presented a petition to Southwark council demanding that the travellers be “moved elsewhere”.

The department of environment eventually ruled against the proposed permanent site. Councillor Tony Goss announced himself “very pleased” and attacked Southwark Labour council for trying to force “their views on local people” - ie, non-travellers (South London Press March 30 1990).