WeeklyWorker

12.06.1997

Openness against the witch hunt

Simon Harvey looks forward to the Campaign for a Democratic SLP’s conference and calls for unity

This weekend sees the convening of a conference to launch a campaign for SLP democracy. The conference comes at a crucial time for the party. Just over a year old and with the general election over, the party must now get its own house in order in the lead up to the October national conference.

This will be crucial if the SLP is to become the party our class needs. While the SLP still maintains an organic relationship to the crisis of Labourism, this will not automatically turn into mass membership, no matter what Blair does.

The ongoing witch hunt against revolutionaries in the party, the absence of democracy, arrogance at the top, lack of information, continued organisational ineptitude - magnified by heavy-handedness - are all having a debilitating effect on the membership.

Branch activity is at a low ebb. There is no clear leadership - based on democratic dialogue - on where we are going. Some branches are already falling into electoralist habits, waiting for the local government elections next year.

What our party needs is the clean, vibrant, fresh air of working class democracy. My column has been saying that repeatedly and most SLP members I know consider the current state of affairs intolerable.

The SLP’s very own general election manifesto included a section called ‘Justice for all’ which boldly claims that Socialist Labour fights for “proper legal representation, a fair hearing and a fair opportunity to put your case: these rights should be available to all, not just a privileged few.” These basic rights are a minimum essential, and are yet to be won in our party. And won they must be. They will not be handed over to us by the NEC as it is currently constituted.

This is why the current campaign for democracy is being established and why it deserves all SLPers’ support.

You would imagine it would not be that difficult a task to organise a single campaign for SLP democracy. Alas, no. Differences on tactics, reticence due to the witch hunt atmosphere, mistrust due to political unfamiliarity, and at times downright sectarian dishonesty are keeping democrats in the SLP from uniting in one campaign. This is a great shame. For we either fight or hang together.

I have been informed that as well as the campaign being launched this weekend there exists another, as yet secret, invite-only, democracy campaign. It has joined the fray with the production of the document ‘Statement to the NEC and SLP members on the question of party democracy’ printed on this page. This is an adequate document although it suffers a little from economism and a softness on Labourism. To my mind, it is abstract and too timid. Apart from asking the NEC to give us democracy, backed up by the signatures of branches, there is nothing more concrete about winning the struggle for democracy in the party. However, this missing aspect is pointed to by the document itself where it argues that “a united SLP will not be created if the leadership tries to hand down orders from above ... Political discipline has to be created on the basis of agreement reached in open discussion. It cannot be imposed”.

My only difference here is that discipline need not be based on agreement, but on both sides accepting the outcome of a debate and decision.

However, the central point remains: without open, democratic discussion, party discipline can only be bureaucratic. In conditions of such bureaucratism, the membership must reserve for itself the right to rebel against such strictures.

It appears likely that this ‘other’ campaign will content itself with following ‘official channels and create itself as a self-style loyal opposition, even to the point of self-censorship.

Of course, there are no official channels in the SLP. Members seem to be graded by level of acceptability. Witness the special treatment Harpal Brar receives. He is the editor of Lalkar, a publication with organisational and programmatical differences to the SLP. Yet he is a favoured member despite being in blatant contravention of Scargill’s so-called ‘constitution’.

The only real channels in the SLP at present are the ones we create. There is nothing at all wrong with receiving branch endorsements for such statements as to the one referred to, or distributing a petition to the NEC or other examples of such campaign methods. They should all be part and parcel of any democracy campaign. How we campaign for democracy in the SLP is more than just the campaign itself and its stated aims. The way in which we conduct the struggle will influence the way the party develops.

The ‘Reading statement’ (as I’ll call it - see below) outlines the case for a just rebellion against bureaucratism, leading towards creating a truly open, vibrant and militant culture; however, the authors are yet to follow this logic through themselves.

So where did this ‘Statement to the NEC ...’ come from? From what I know, it originated from a meeting of around 20 SLP members in Reading on May 31. Unfortunately, many of those who attended will not be attending the campaign conference for a democratic SLP.

The Reading meeting, ostensibly called to continue a discussion on Europe, also discussed the current situation regarding democracy in the SLP, which led to the ‘Reading statement’. It also discussed the viability of party branches being based on constituency boundaries and the possibility of developing resolutions and an NEC slate for the October conference.

There is not just one simple reason for the development of two campaigns for SLP democracy. On the surface, the furore seems to be over the distinction between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ campaigns. Unfortunately, this is leading some initiators of the Reading statement to echo Scargill’s suggestion that the conference this weekend is something other than an SLP campaign.

Some comrades have yet to learn the crucial lessons that the SLP’s formation should have taught. They continue to pursue their narrow sectarian agendas, seeking to carve out ideologically homogeneous sects writ a bit bigger. Some of these forces judge the time to split is now. For others, it is heads down.

Some of the differences amongst SLP democrats are explained by the lack of joint work, of an absence of dialogue between members. Other differences relate to a basic disagreement over strategic orientation and tactical nuance. What is clear is that unless those who strive for democratic change in the SLP sit down together and talk, mistrust, misunderstanding and misinformation will continue.

It is vital that the democrats in the SLP unite. A broad campaign must be able to include different perspectives on the SLP’s direction as well as tactical and even some strategic differences. Despite the protestations of those around the Marxist Bulletin, there are no fait accomplis being proposed at this weekend’s democracy meeting. The agenda, the discussion and the final outcome are all open. All SLP members, including ‘voided’ members, are welcome.

It is my hope that the conference will be able to establish some clarity in the fight against bureaucratism in the SLP. Essential to this is the need to both spearhead the fight against the witch hunt and establish an SLP publication to carry on those debates including issues which, as the reported topics at the Reading meeting show, are impossible to separate out from democracy.

The struggle for democracy in the SLP is about what sort of party we build, and for what sort of socialism we are prepared to storm the heavens.

‘Statement to the NEC and SLP members on the question of party democracy’

The post-election situation, with a Blair government in office, will sharpen the political struggle within the labour movement, between those who seek to discipline the movement according to the needs of the government, and those who want to strive for the interests of the working class. In this situation our new party will be tested out. If we are to grow significantly we shall have to show that we can provide leadership in the struggles that are likely to emerge in the face of New Labour’s acceptance of Tory spending limits for the first two years.

We should not make the mistake of believing that the working class will come flocking into our ranks simply because we offer ourselves as an alternative to New Labour. The working class does not turn to a new political party merely on the basis that it says it is an alternative. Workers will judge us by what we do.

From this standpoint we need to develop a perspective for mobilising the working class around demands which express their interests in the given situation: in defence of jobs and services; for increased funding in education, local government, and the NHS, based on social needs rather than limited by Tory spending levels.

In order to develop a practical perspective we need to recruit into the party the best fighting elements within the unions in those areas mentioned.

In order to develop such a perspective we need a democratic party which draws on the experience and creativity of wide layers of the working class across the spectrum of industries. A perspective cannot be developed from the top down, it needs to be based on the real experiences of the working class. Discussion cannot be limited to the NEC.

Moreover, we are a new political party with a membership from widely different backgrounds. We cannot therefore take for granted agreement on a whole range of political questions. We have to consciously and patiently work at developing political agreement through discussion and joint work. We have yet to seriously begin a discussion on what sort of socialism we are striving for and how to fight for it. Without agreement on such fundamental issues the party will not develop a common method of work and will not become a material force in the struggle between the classes.

Regrettably, instead of organising a discussion at every level of the party, the NEC has acted as if it were an authoritative leadership based on a long standing political programme. From this standpoint we believe that the methods employed by the NEC threaten the future prospects of our new party. Fundamentally their approach is a top down one, profoundly undemocratic, as shown by the following:

1. Instead of organising a discussion amongst the membership on electoral policy (there was no discussion at the March policy meeting or the founding conference) the NEC itself decided to seek 100 candidates. There has been no discussion of electoral strategy whatsoever. There has been no response from the NEC to the requests for a membership discussion (such as the statement signed by 27 members in the South West).

2. The NEC has decided on ‘party policy’ for ‘British withdrawal’ from the European Union, without a discussion amongst the membership as a whole. To take such a decision on a key political issue without a discussion amongst the membership is an undemocratic way to proceed.

3. Branches have been instructed that they must set up CSLPs (on the basis of a constitution that the members have neither discussed nor voted on) even where there is no real basis for it. As to the question of whether or not we want to build our organisation according to electoral boundaries, this has not even been discussed. The letter sent out by the then general secretary implied that unless we did so, a branch would not be able to send a delegate to the AGM.

4. A number of members have been effectively expelled by the NEC/general secretary in a bureaucratic and undemocratic manner. People have been excluded for apparent breaches of the constitution (which nobody has voted on) under the following extraordinary conditions:

Such methods are unacceptable in a working class never mind a socialist organisation. They threaten to strangle our party democracy and create a climate of fear. They pose a question as to whether the members have any democratic rights whatsoever. If the general secretary/NEC can effectively expel people in such a way, this means they have unrestricted power to determine who is or is not a member.

5. Instead of taking advice to prepare for the launch of a newspaper, the leadership rushed it through without ensuring the necessary infrastructure to produce it on a regular basis. It failed to consult the membership on what sort of paper was required. It decided that there would be no debate on it. It has now decided to centralise its production in Barnsley! As a result of all this, the ‘monthly’ paper has not been produced on a regular basis.

We joined the SLP because we believed it offered the possibility of building a socialist alternative to New Labour. The experience of a Blair government is likely to create the conditions in which any illusions in it will be shattered by its anti-working class policy. Moreover the Labour into power organisational changes which Blair is pushing through at this year’s AGM will destroy the last possibility of using that body as a means of pressure on a Labour government.

In order to build such an alternative we need to break with the method of ‘generals and foot-soldiers’ which existed in the Labour Party. A united SLP will not be created if the leadership tries to hand down orders from above, instead of creating the conditions for a vibrant internal democracy, where debate is not restricted to a short AGM with a crowded agenda, once a year. Political discipline has to be created on the basis of agreement reached in open discussion. It cannot be imposed.

We therefore believe we need:

We ask the NEC to circulate this statement to the branches for discussion. We would, of course, be happy to discuss the questions raised with the NEC.

May 31 1997