24.04.1997

Battle for democracy

Lee-Anne Bates spoke to Ian Driver, the Socialist Labour Party candidate for Vauxhall in South London. He is supported by the Vauxhall branch, though all its members have been expelled by Arthur Scargill. He is championing their appeal and the campaign for democracy in the SLP

What do you think is behind the expulsions in Vauxhall and elsewhere in the SLP?

There seems to be a growing regime of intolerance in the SLP. People who want to have free and open democratic debate around what the organisation should be are being threatened with expulsion to prevent that debate. Branches and individuals who stand against that are increasingly likely to become victims of a witch hunt.

We had a very successful meeting about it in London last week. It is obvious that we have caught quite a strong mood in the party for democracy.

There are a lot of people who dismiss the witch hunt by saying you have to have strong leadership and if you don’t agree with the policies you shouldn’t be in the SLP anyway.

We do need strong leadership at all levels. What we don’t want is a cult of the personality. Strong leadership should not be at the expense of open and democratic debate - the two go hand in hand. What we want is many strong leaders. After all we are a party that is challenging capitalism and you do need strength of commitment to do that.

Because the constitution and most of the policy documents have not even been voted on, it is inevitable that people will want to debate them. I would like to think that the workers’ movement is full of lively discussion and not a movement that simply takes orders from above.

There is a widely held opinion on the left that you can only be in the same organisation if you have the same view on everything from the Soviet Union to philosophy. There are wide spectrums of views in the working class. Do you think it is possible to have a party encompassing people with many different ideas?

When I first joined the SLP I was of the view that you could only be in one organisation and must subscribe to its programme. But the way the SLP has taken shape, I now think that other groups affiliating is the only way forward. We need to unite on a basic common programme that we can all agree on.

In Vauxhall we have people from many different organisations working with us, ranging from members of New Labour to the Spartacist League. If socialism is to become a vibrant force again, some form of unity is essential. We can learn lessons from Scotland and other parts of Europe where the left have formed federations.

Scargill has said to me that he does not want a federal party, and I agree that that should not be our aim. But Scargill’s draft constitution already has a federal structure where sections have votes and trade unions can affiliate, yet revolutionary and leftwing organisations are refused affiliation. My view would be that the SLP provided an opportunity for the left to come together with the aim of forging one centralised party.

That is a view I subscribe to. We are faced with the very real danger inside the SLP of becoming a sectarian organisation. I would fully support and argue for the ability of other socialist organisations to affiliate to the SLP and hope to persuade the membership to take that view at congresses and other forums of the party.

The question of openness has also been discussed amongst the left of the SLP. In the view of the CPGB our movement has to have openness in order to overcome sectarianism and draw the class into the debates. Yet most of the left keeps its debates internal, saying that those debates will just confuse the working class.

I think we must have open, free debate which is accessible to everybody. I think there is a certain amount of arrogance attached, not only to the SLP, but the left in general, that the working class is not interested in or wouldn’t understand the debates - a dictatorial view as well. Socialism has suffered considerable setbacks over the past 25 years, so my mission is to get socialism back on the agenda. You can only do that by free, frank and open debate.

I have been very impressed by the documents circulating around the SLP recently, where groups of comrades have got together to produce newsletters, etc. I want to see more of that and the debate about socialism widened.

Though Vauxhall branch has been disbanded, you are not a member of the branch and the SLP leadership is still supporting your candidature. Have you had any contact with Brent East which has still received no communication from the NEC?

I fully support branches and members that have been voided on the basis that they have not had the right of appeal. Branches and members should have the right to see the evidence against them and to state their own case. This ‘voiding’ situation must be stopped.

There has been some criticism of the democracy campaign being conducted during the general election.

What better time to discuss politics, policy and organisation than when people’s minds are concentrated on politics.

Vauxhall branch was voided in the middle of an election campaign, so of course we have to defend it. We have effectively lost six weeks’ campaigning time because of the voiding.

I have got the greatest of praise for the Vauxhall members who despite being told they are expelled, have been out every day canvassing for me. I have no one else to campaign for me except these comrades. They could have walked away and not supported the SLP. As it is, we have had eight enquiries for membership.

How long were you in the Labour Party?

For 15 years. I became more and more disenchanted with the politics of the Labour Party and its regime and was thinking of leaving anyway.

I did genuinely believe for a while that change could be brought about via the Labour Party. The clause four debate was a defining moment for me, like a lot of other socialists. But working with the left of the party as a councillor opened my eyes a little bit. The small group of left wingers on Southwark council believed they had to compromise and accept unpalatable decisions in the hope that the left would eventually regroup and take over.

Having gone through that experience on the council, I know that that strategy is absolutely useless. You become tarnished and the logic of keeping your head down means you become complicit in some quite nasty policy decisions, which is what happened to me. I came to the conclusion that I couldn’t go on accepting cuts and sackings and attacking the community I was supposed to be representing.

Looking back, do you think the Labour Party ever was or could be a party for socialism?

No, I learnt my lesson. It is not a vehicle for socialism. When the left was a bit stronger we tried to convince each other it was, but now you can’t do that.

What policy issues are key in your area for the election campaign?

Immigration, the role of the police in Vauxhall, the drugs question and the more general issues of poverty and inequality, because it is a very deprived area.

Personally I am opposed to all immigration controls, which I have made clear. Socialism is all about international solidarity, so we cannot talk about any immigration controls. The debate at the SLP congress was very heated, but the formulation that was passed in favour of ‘non-racist’ immigration controls is on a par with Labour Party talk of socialist cuts. It’s all tautology. The line that was given at the congress was that we have to keep fascists out, which is of course ridiculous. You don’t need an immigration policy to keep them out - as if they would want to come into a socialist country.

The policy document has the feel of ‘socialism in one country’ - that we make socialism in Britain and must look after ourselves.

Which is not the philosophy I subscribe to. Socialism by definition stretches across imposed frontiers and ultimately kicks them down on a global scale. I have always taken the view that you can’t have isolated pockets of socialism. It has to be an ongoing process: the ‘little England’ policy just doesn’t work. If Britain did have socialism, we would have to be promoting it elsewhere and using it as a springboard to spread socialism across the world.

Linked to that is the question of Europe, which again is a big debate looming in the SLP.

I sympathise with the view that Europe as presently constituted is a bourgeois club which we should not have anything to do with. As we cannot reform Britain from within, we cannot reform Europe from within, which is why the appeal of getting out is very attractive.

Having said that, if we pull out that should not be the end of our links with Europe. We need to be making links with workers with the aim of establishing some sort of socialist federation of Europe, that we would bring about, not the bosses. Again we don’t want to take a ‘little England’ approach.

We take the view that we need a programme for international revolution which takes the economic integration already developed under capitalism and puts it under the control of workers, rather than trying to roll back the tide of that integration.

The internationalisation of the economy and indeed the bourgeois class is something that the socialist movement must keep pace with. That raises the question of a new International of socialists that can combat capitalism internationally.

European workers’ organisation will be essential to fight the austerity budgets that are planned throughout Europe. Then we have to decide whether we stay in Europe and try and fight from within those organisations or whether we should pull out and develop new organisations with the European left to fight the bourgeois institutions of Europe.

The policy documents are phrased as if an SLP government would introduce socialism. Do you think that socialism can come about in that way?

We will have to overthrow the bourgeois state, although I don’t discount the use of parliament and elected office. If history shows anything, it is that the ruling class will not voluntarily give up its power.

There is no specific policy in the SLP on the police. What are you saying in Vauxhall?

We have to look at the immediate and the long term. Under socialism the policing would be completely different, but will still be necessary. In Vauxhall the police have literally got away with murder on three occasions, with young black men killed in custody, with no one found guilty and not one suspended or sacked. So we are calling for an independent inquiry.

The Socialist Party calls for reforming the police, whereas we have always said that the police are an arm of the state, so that workers need their own defence organisations separate and opposed to the existing police force.

Ultimately under socialism that is of course the sort of organisation we will need. I don’t discount self-activity now if people can’t trust the police. In Vauxhall the situation has got close to breaking point. If policing does break down I would support the community doing their own policing and I support 100% the right of the Vauxhall community to drive the police off the streets, as they have done on two occasions when the police have been harassing and murdering members of the community.

The drugs issue is also contentious in the SLP.

I’ve always been for the total decriminalisation of all drugs. I believe if drugs were distributed under state control, at a stroke you would eliminate drug-related crime. The SLP should be more adventurous on the issue. The profits that at the moment go to gangsters and petty-criminals could be invested in drugs education and the health service.

People say that if you decriminalise drugs you would have a nation of junkies, but this is so obviously untrue. Drugs are already freely available.

Given the movement in Scotland for self-determination and the threat that poses to the whole of the constitution, we have put an emphasis on this in our election propaganda with the federal republic slogan, aimed at uniting the working class throughout Britain in the fight for democracy.

People do want to talk about constitutional issues and self-determination in general in terms of democracy. Vauxhall and Brixton were great supporters of Nelson Mandela. People here do link what happened in South Africa to the struggle in Ireland and indeed Scotland and Wales. There is a great sympathy for sweeping constitutional reform, which I agree with anyway.

I think a federation is a way to keep the working class united rather than being taken down a nationalist road. We have to be arguing for socialist autonomy.

Where does the SLP go from here?

After the election the battle for democracy in the SLP must be foremost. I would call on all SLP members to join that struggle. If we do not win the battle for democracy, my fear is that the idea of the SLP will just turn into a sectarian caricature and we will have missed a great opportunity for reviving socialism in this country.

Arthur Scargill is undoubtedly one of the greatest working class militants and I respect that record, and the record of others on the leadership. But there does seem to be the idea from the leadership - not spoken or written down, but implied in their actions - of wanting to create a left reformist Labour Party mark II. I don’t want to be part of an organisation that takes us back to Labour of the 60s or 70s and where everything is handed down from above. The fact that it is the revolutionary left that is being expelled indicates what sort of party the leadership wants. I want a party which can incorporate both reformists and revolutionaries, where open, vibrant and democratic debate is the norm, so that all views can contend.