23.01.1997

SSA postpones conference

The National Council (NC) of the Scottish Socialist Alliance has attempted to deny the democracy of the organisation on two key issues.

A motion was put forward by the Glasgow branch proposing that the SSA’s annual conference, which had previously been set by the last NC for March 1, should be postponed until after the general election. The reasons given were:

“to avoid a clash with the Unison and other unions’ anti-cuts demo on March 1 to give immediate priority for election and other campaigning [the founding conference had already agreed election and campaigning strategy]. The Charter, as agreed by the NC, in the meantime should be the basis for the SSA manifesto. Branches should draw up material broadly based on the Charter.”

The main defence of these proposals seemed to be that some Scottish Militant Labour comrades seemed convinced that an election would almost definitely be called in March. Consequently the proposed conference would ‘interfere’ with the general election campaign. Despite opposition from CPGB comrades, the Glasgow proposal was overwhelmingly supported by the NC.

While we recognise that the organising of a conference involves a lot of hard work, the benefits for the SSA would outweigh these drawbacks. The late appearance of this motion failed to give the membership in other branches the opportunity to discuss it and reach a decision. It gives the NC unacceptable powers in respect of the election manifesto. It prevents the bulk of the membership playing a central role in debating and determining that manifesto.

An essential role of any conference in a democratic organisation must be to allow the minority the opportunity to become the majority through the open debate of ideas, giving the membership the chance to hear and express all views.

One popular view put forward by those supporting postponement was that instead of sitting in a conference members should be out canvassing, etc. This view fosters activism, but in reality is actually anti-activist. It sees the membership as foot soldiers rather than working class politicians who, as well as being out leafleting, campaigning, etc, should be part of the decision making process in the SSA.

The conference is a way of drawing in the members and actually getting them involved in the election campaign. If they have actually participated in the democratic process of debating and voting on policy, then they are more likely to feel an integral part of the Alliance and be more confident in arguing for the manifesto demands of our organisation. Postponement due to the election also feeds the arguments of those who think that it is wrong either in principle or tactically to stand in the coming elections. This section feared the SSA would become no more than an electoral machine.

Bill Bonnar, the chair of the meeting, argued that, “We are all democrats here, but you can have too much democracy.” This statement was not expanded on. However, it seems to be rooted in the idea that the way forward for the SSA is through consensus and compromise with private and curtailed debate, rather than open discussion on issues of policy in front of the membership and the working class. This, I think, was the real reason for postponing the conference: to prevent any large forum of the membership from discussing issues such as Ireland and Labour’s referendum.

This conveniently brings me onto the other contentious item that the NC discussed - Labour’s current referendum proposals for a Scottish parliament. A sloppy attempt was made to push through a position of the SSA backing a double ‘yes’ vote if Labour’s referendum proposals go through. The agenda, received three days before the meeting, carried the item, “Motion ... on the SSA position, should a Labour-type referendum go ahead”. However, there was no wording or even a hint as to what this motion might include. On arriving at the meeting there were no copies of the resolution ready. In fact, Alan McCombes (SML), the proposer, was still writing it five minutes before the meeting started and in his introduction he admitted that he had forgotten it was on the agenda.

Mary Ward proposed that, while discussion on the referendum should start at that meeting, any decision would be premature, as it was an undemocratic attempt to railroad the SSA into adopting a position without giving adequate notice to the other members of the NC, let alone the branches and membership.

A degree of confusion then appeared to reign among leading members of SML: Frances Curran argued that it was a matter of urgency for election candidates and should be taken then, while Tommy Sheridan appeared to support the proposal that a decision should not be made at that meeting. Eventually Alan McCombes withdrew the motion. The decision was made to refer it back to the next NC meeting on March 1.

One of the main reasons for the attempt to rush a decision through the NC seems to have been to counter the CPGB’s proposals for an active boycott of Blair’s sop referendum proposals (not the parliament itself necessarily, I hasten to add). Another was the inclusion in Glasgow SSA’s current election bulletin of the following:

“The SSA supports every step - no matter how small - towards greater Scottish self-government. Despite our criticisms of Labour’s rigged referendum, if it goes ahead, we will campaign for a double ‘yes’ vote.”

Although we were informed that no comment was made about this inclusion at a Glasgow branch meeting, no discussion, let alone decision on this issue has been taken by the NC or membership as a whole. The rest of the withdrawn motion referred to the SSA’s preference for a multi-option referendum, which has already been agreed. However, what options the SSA campaigns for has not. One of the SSA’s aims is to “fight for a sovereign Scottish parliament which has the right to decide which powers to retain in Scotland and to determine its relationship with the rest of Britain and Europe”. Surely one of the options in a multi-option referendum must include the right to a parliament with full powers, up to and including the right to secede and the right to enter a federal relationship with the rest of Britain. To ignore this would be to deny one of the founding aims of the Alliance.

The SSA, if it is to have any chance of developing into a mass working class party, must not just content itself with lowest common denominator compromise. Democracy and inclusiveness are important elements of the SSA, but the desire for consensus actually ends up compromising democracy if it stifles and curtails debate.

Nick Clarke