19.06.1997

Scargill bans democracy

Scargill draws the line against the fight for democracy - Mark Fischer asks, ‘Which side are you on?’

Participants at the June 14 meeting of the Campaign for a Democratic Socialist Labour Party were faced by a ‘picket’ by members of the National Executive Committee of the party and various of their toadies, including a supporter of Roy Bull’s homophobic Economic Philosophic Science Review and the Marxist Bulletin (see back page). The leaflet reproduced on this page was distributed by the witch hunters. It marks a qualitative development in the fight for democracy in the SLP. All comrades on the left of the SLP - whatever their past disagreements and tactical differences- are threatened equally by this new proclamation from the unelected acting general secretary.

In effect Scargill has moved to ban campaigning for a change in the constitution of the party. At a stroke, this undermines the feeble position of those who have argued for a ‘heads down’, ‘internal’ approach to the struggle for democracy and who have criticised others for their advocacy of openness.

We ask these comrades, should the workers movement know this or not? Are advanced workers not entitled to be aware that, should they join the SLP, they are banned from even attempting to change its rules and regulations?

Scargill’s edict carries all the foul trappings of dictatorship, with its catch 22 logic and heavy-handed threats. Apparently “the central principle” (my emphasis) of the party’s constitution is nothing other than the denial of the right of other organisations to join. Campaigning against this stipulation in the constitution - which has never even been voted on by the membership - is forbidden as it is “in contravention of the SLP’s constitution”. In fact, any manifestation of dissent from this - “meetings”, “campaigns” or “correspondence” - will “not be tolerated”. Those who wish to continue the fight for democracy in the party are warned that they consequently place themselves outside SLP statutes and “will be dealt with accordingly”.

This important development should obliterate all the distinctions on the left of the SLP. The carefully constructed facades of some who have been at pains to present themselves as an ‘organic’ SLP opposition opposed to ‘external’ tendencies are exposed as useless.

Comrades, Scargill is not prepared to tolerate any opposition to his bureaucratic party regime, no matter what form it presents itself in.

This might have the beneficial effect of at last cohering the chronically divided left. There are sections that have partially capitulated to the witch hunters’ regime in the SLP, outrageously blaming others in the opposition for ‘provoking’ the leadership into repressive acts.

Apart from unity, the only option now left to these comrades is to objectively join the witch hunters themselves. Already, some trends on the left have constituted themselves against those comrades and oppositionalist branches they view as ‘tainted’ by association with the Weekly Worker and the Communist Party. It was therefore worrying - to say the least - to see Alan Gibson, leading supporter of the Marxist Bulletin (see ‘Party notes’ Weekly Worker June 12 for this group’s campaign against SLP left unity), standing on the NEC ‘picket line’ alongside the scab Economic Philosophic Science Review.

Gibson seemed to be comfortable with the company (and even distributed his own anti-CDSLP leaflet, placing all the comrades attending the meeting “outside the SLP”). We wonder what other MB supporters and its co-thinkers internationally feel about this?

The particular fate of small sectarian grouplets in the left of the SLP such as the MB are one thing, the orientation of this wing of the party as a whole is another. Essentially, the opposition to the Scargill regime of diktat and bureaucratic fiat must come together on a principled platform to fight this latest ratcheting up of the witch hunt in the party:

For unity! Any attempts to split the democratic opposition should be viewed with contempt. Scargill has lumped all those campaigning to change the so-called constitution together as people who “will not be tolerated” in his party. Those who try to perpetuate divisions risk objectively doing the witch hunters’ job for them.

For openness! There is a huge hypocrisy among some sections of the left on this question of principle. Publicly, they criticise those SLP comrades who make the struggle in the party the property of the wider movement - primarily through the Weekly Worker of course. Incredibly, the Marxist Bulletin for example damns the public exposure of the anti-democratic regime in the SLP as “violating the democratic rights of ... SLPers” (Marxist Bulletin No2, p12).

Privately, such forces are quite happy with the role of the Weekly Worker and actually rely on it to provide this service to the workers’ movement. Thus, their public protestations of innocence are utterly hypocritical. One comrade actually went so far as to ask me: “Why should we be open about what’s happening? That’s your job.”

Openness in our movement is not the preserve of this paper, some private eccentricity of ours. Thus, I think it is commendable that the CDSLP will be producing an open publication, which will take the fight for a democratic workers’ party into the movement as a whole. What has happened in the SLP over the last week - the proscription of even campaigning to change the party constitution - is surely not the concern of the few hundred SLP activists.

It matters to the class. Those comrades who have put their narrow sectarianism before that higher concern now have the chance to break with this rotten method. Scargill has done us all a service in that sense. He has drawn a line and made the alternate options admirably clear, comrades - now, which side are you on?