05.06.1997

Campaign for democracy in the SLP

Simon Harvey calls on all democrats in the SLP to join the struggle for democracy and open debate in the workers’ movement

Tapping the words ‘Labour Party’ into the internet brings up a Labour links page. There you can find a website for Labour Left Briefing, Labour Reform, Socialist Organiser, Tribune, Red Pepper - on it goes. Discussion papers from the Labour Party are available to me, a non-member.

According to many of my own comrades in the Socialist Labour Party, this is a sin. Why should I, a non-member of New Labour, be privy to the debates, discussions, and views of different MPs, MEPs and Labour Party groupings? Many of my SLP comrades are arguing that the only political ideas that should be allowed to come out of the mouths of SLP members in discussion with non-members is the latest decisions of the leadership.

Even in the most democratic of organisations, this is not only not preferable, but impossible. In an organisation where democracy is severely curtailed, where internal debate is practically non-existent, it is unprincipled not to voice your own position.

Of course, how and where this is voiced is a tactical concern. But to argue that members have no right to voice their positions to non-members at all is preposterous. The history of the British labour movement is full of public voicings of different positions. We see it today in undemocratic New Labour; we see it in the various campaign groups in the trade unions - the campaign for a fighting and democratic Unison is one example. Just the other day, I picked up, and read, a copy of Rank and File, the publication of the CPSA Socialist Caucus (I am not a member of the CPSA).

Clearly it is quite natural, normal, and healthy for a campaign in the labour movement to express its ideas, both within the organisation it is campaigning in and to the labour movement in general. This is why the forthcoming conference to launch a campaign for SLP democracy will consider a motion for an open journal for democracy in the SLP and for socialism in the workers movement - a campaign of SLP members with a public face. There has never been any suggestion by any of the SLP members proposing such a campaign or such a journal that it be anything other than a campaign focused on the SLP, its development and its politics. Of and within the SLP, yes, but also as a forum for discussion on the way forward for the working class.

Comrades even seem to have forgotten that the only major debates of our party have been in public. The founding congress of the SLP, which debated Ireland, immigration controls, and economic policy, was actually a public event. Of course, only members could vote and debate in the conference, but the issues raised, who raised them, and how the vote went were open to comment and ongoing discussion not only to other workers’ organisations but also to the bourgeois media.

There are some who are also arguing that the campaign and any journal associated with it can only discuss, debate, and publish on issues concerning winning the SLP over to a democratic culture and constitution. They oppose any move to discuss ‘socialism in the workers’ movement’ since this would open up divisions. This was another of the debates at the Manchester meeting for a democratic SLP which has continued in other forums.

An artificial division between socialism and democracy is being thrown up. If we campaign for democracy in the SLP without including discussion around what sort of socialism we are fighting for we are in danger of producing a sterile campaign which is bureaucratic in its own right. Without discussing why it is essential that a workers’ party be democratic, any publication is in danger of being simply a gossip and scandal sheet - or a technical bulletin at best.

Comrades are asking, ‘but what sort of socialism are you talking about?’ This is precisely the point. There is no suggestion that the proposed journal only express one view on what socialism is. It should debate things out openly and be an example of the sort of democratic culture and publication we are trying to win the whole party over to. I want to know what comrades think about nationalisation, Ireland, or Europe, as well as whether they think democracy is a good idea.

A campaign for democracy in the SLP must have flesh on its bones if it is to fire the imagination of not only SLP members, but of those in the workers’ movement yet to join our new party. Let us win people to our party and to socialism with their eyes open.

Unfortunately, there are those who are dogmatically refusing to even engage in this debate. Alan Gibson, former president of Vauxhall SLP in London is one such case. It is to be regretted that the comrade has resigned from the branch after losing a motion opposing the conference for democracy on June 14 (he was the only branch member to vote for the motion). The comrade clings to the palpably false division between internal and external debate about politics. The debates of the bourgeois parties are on open display every day in the bourgeois papers. I know perfectly well the general thrust of the issues at the heart of the Tory party leadership contest (I am not a member). This strengthens the bourgeoisie and its hegemony over our class. We must have openness before our class. We have nothing to lose from it and everything to gain.

This is the second time this comrade has resigned from the branch. The first time was over the branch making a ‘mistake’ by supporting the candidacy of Ian Driver after the NEC bureaucratically disbanded the CSLP. When it was clear the mistake was his, he crawled back into the branch and demanded his place back on the executive.

Now, the branch’s ‘mistake’ is to not support his motion which rejected support for the June l4 meeting and rejected an open publication, claiming that the campaign for SLP democracy was ‘outside’ the SLP. This unfortunate error on his part gives voice to what Scargill is suggesting in his letter to Ian Driver (see page 3), claiming that the campaign is a separate organisation. This is not the case.

What is most galling is the hypocrisy. Comrade Gibson has no problem with other SLP publications, such as the Marxist Bulletin. This bulletin is published by SLP members, some of whom are former members of the International Bolshevik Tendency (an organisation which sees itself as an external faction of the Spartacist League). I would be extremely surprised if the editors of the Marxist Bulletin did not pass on a copy or three to their former comrades overseas in the IBT, even if just for old times’ sake.

It is opportunism to pursue a privileged position for one grouping and deny others the same rights.

It is vital that these differences amongst the democrats in the SLP do not stop us organising together. All campaigns in the SLP for democracy, whether they emerge now or later, whether they claim to be more internal than others, must join as one to have any success.

The formation of the SLP was, and remains, the most important development in the British workers’ movement for a generation. To recreate and continue the sectarian and short-sighted divisions of yesteryear into the party would be a great pity. Comrades, now is the time to talk, to talk constructively, and to talk openly. There are no private, secret, or ‘internal’ roads to democracy.

Campaign for SLP democracy

Conference for all SLP members
Saturday June 14, 11am-5pm, Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, London WC1 (nearest tube Holborn)
Sponsors include SLP Southwark councillor Ian Driver and voided Stockport CSLP secretary John Pearson