16.10.1997

Hands off my ‘constitution’!

Simon Harvey of the SLP

There are a number of aspects of life in the SLP which can be garnered from a perusal of the preliminary agenda for December’s congress, issued by the NEC. This document contains the motions/amendments to constitution as well as the nominations to the national executive.

In all, 63 resolutions are presented in the document. Seventeen have been ruled out of order, all of which were submitted by Constituency SLPs. Of the remaining 46 ‘acceptable’ resolutions, 40 have come from CSLPs. So, in all, 57 CSLPs submitted resolutions. The remainder (four) come from the NEC, and one each from the womens’ and black sections. There are no resolutions from the non-existent youth section and none from the non-existent affiliated unions.

Party membership

Our acting general secretary is fond of claiming ‘his’ party as the fourth largest in Britain. The above tends to suggest otherwise. Firstly, comrades will be aware that the usual attendance for monthly CSLP meetings can be counted on two hands, at best. This generous estimate would mean no more than 570 active members in the SLP. At the bottom end of the range, with just three members being required for the formation of a CSLP, we come up with only 171 active members. This tends to suggest a membership figure well below that of the Socialist Workers Party and perhaps even the Socialist Party - not to mention Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party. At the founding conference of the SLP, around 1,600 members were claimed by the platform. Evidently, ‘growth’ has not been spectacular.

Out of order!

Let us take a look at those resolutions which have been ruled out of order. Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of them concern members’ response to the anti-communist witch hunt which has poisoned the internal life of the party since its formation. In all, 13 of the 17 motions ruled out of order concern party democracy.

Obviously scanned over by a lawyers’ (QC’s?) eye, the Kafkaesque reasons for exclusion, astonish, if not amuse. As is known by regular readers of this paper, the Campaign for a Democratic SLP recommended a motion which deleted the witch hunting clause II (4) and (5) and added a new subsection to clause II (3), which would have allowed congress to accept affiliation to the SLP from “socialist, working class and other progressive organisations”.

I understand that this was passed by at least one CSLP, but failed to be honoured with a public ‘out of order’ ruling. Apparently it was lost in the mail. Five of the resolutions not allowed fell foul of clause II (4) and (5).

The resolution recommended by the CDSLP was criticised by some for not being sophisticated enough. Comrades were to advised to hone and limit resolutions to avoid the censor’s red pen. The amendment from Coventry CSLP seems to be an attempt at this more ‘subtle’ approach. It states:

“‘Add a new subsection 8 to clause II: ‘Members may, at any time, form internal tendencies (on a number of issues) or factions (on single issues) to change party policy. These tendencies and factions must be open, not secret, and must be committed to building the party.’”

Clever. The NEC replies: “Out of order. Conflicts with clause II (4), (5), clause III (3). Damn.

Other comrades attempted to avoid this trap by covering their bases in amendments. Such attempts come from Streatham, Hampstead & Highgate, Wythenshawe & Sale East and other CSLPs. No dice. The NEC responds to the submission from Streatham: “This motion is out of order because it consists of six separate amendments when CSLPs are limited to one amendment.”

Illustrative of the cynicism and contempt of the membership with which resolutions were ruled out of order is the treatment doled out to Exeter and Walthamstow.

The NEC’s response to Walthamstow was: “This motion is out of order because it consists of five amendments.”

Exeter received the following rebuff: “This constitutional amendment has been ruled out of order because it conflicts with clause II (4) and (5), clause III (2) and (3).”

What is amazing is that Exeter and Walthamstow moved an identical constitutional amendment. It reads:

“Members of the party have the constitutional right to advocate changes of party policy on any question, and to combine together in tendencies or platforms to change the policy of the party leadership, subject only to their abiding by the rules, constitution and objectives of the party and decisions made by the appropriate party bodies. Only the party congress has the right to ban tendencies that may be harmful to the reputation and integrity of the party, and shall have the final say in such matters.”

Walthamstow has too many amendments; Exeter not enough. Catch 22!

Special treatment

This cynicism is no mere slip. One multiple amendment to the constitution has been let through the steel trap. It states:

“Congress is of the view that the existence of a black section is incompatible with clause IV (13) of the constitution, in that their existence effectively perpetuates discrimination. Congress therefore agrees to delete from the constitution all references to a black section, including:

1. Clause VI(4) - delete ‘black section’
2. Clause VI(10) - delete ‘black section’
3. Clause VI(17)(d) - delete ‘black section’
4. Clause VI(18)(c) - delete ‘black section’
5. Clause VII(2)(e) - delete ‘black section’
6. Clause X(2) - delete ‘black section’
7. Clause XI(6)(e) - delete ‘two black representatives from the region, nominated by the black section in the region’
8. Clause XII(4)(e) - delete ‘two black representatives, nominated and elected by the black section in the constituency’
9. Clause XIII(3)(g) - delete ‘one black representative nominated and elected by members of the branch who are members of the black section’
10. Clause XV, lines 4/5 - delete ‘black section’
11. Standing Orders (1) - delete ‘black section’”

This motion, moved by Ealing & Southall CSLP, using the logic applied against others deemed out of order, seems to consist of at least 11 amendments. However, this CSLP is the fiefdom of none other than Harpal Brar, Stalinite editor of Lalkar. Besides the fact that this seems to be a politically stupid resolution, it is interesting that Scargill - sorry, the NEC - feels it has to let this one through. I thought that comrade Brar would have had more political nous than move on such an issue. It will divide blacks and Asians at the conference, and the majority of white delegates - not wishing to be thought of as in any way racist - will feel they must vote against it. It also ignores the question of the womens’ and youth sections.

Next week, I will look at some of the resolutions ruled inside the line - from the weird and wacky ‘Defence of SLP constitution and strengthening the party’, emanating from supporters of Roy Bull’s Economic and Philosophic Science Review to the mundane such as on housing policy - drafted as though the SLP were about to form the next Westminster government. You will be happy to hear that I will also look at motions on Europe, Ireland and other more relevant issues.

NEC splits and the vice-president

There are five nominations for vice-president. They are: Royston Bull, Alan Gibson, Dave Proctor, Patrick Sikorski and John Wilcock.

It does not take a genius to work out what is going on here. Scargill’s undisputed man in Wales, Dave Proctor of Tower NUM, is up against the incumbent Fourth International supporter, Patrick Sikorski. Fisc’s star wanes. Whether Bull will be allowed to contest in this ring remains to be seen. And I wonder if his fragile ego could stand being asked to stand aside by Scargill. Alan Gibson is the left candidate from the Marxist Bulletin, produced by former members of the International Bolshevik Tendency.

Now I understand why Brian Heron decided to stick to his demanding job in education; and why Sikorski, when he had to choose between his work on the underground, along with his RMT base, and the full-time tasks of general secretary, preferred career to commitment. As the Weekly Worker pointed out all along, witch hunts have their own, twisted logic and their own momentum. The hunters become the hunted.

Where are they now?

I can reveal another sign of the weakness of the Fiscites’ grip on their Nietzschean dreams of riding on Scargill’s wave of history. It concerns NEC member Phil Griffin, a former Socialist Outlook comrade of the Heron and Sikorski. The comrade, you may recall, was responsible for closing down the entire Greater Manchester branch last year, and in witch hunting north-west comrades such as Steve Smethurst and John Pearson. Not only is the comrade not standing again for the NEC: he has packed his bags and moved to Greece.

Other sitting NEC members conspicuous by their absence on the nominations list are: Dave Rix, Graham Till, Stuart Bruce, Paul Davidson and the SLP’s first election candidate, Brenda Nixon. Where are they now?

Two China policies?

Arthur Scargill has responded to Cardiff SLP concerning its disgust at the ‘Don Hoskins’ (aka Roy Bull) article on China which appeared in the Socialist News of September/October.

It appears an ‘alternative’ view to the Beijing massacre of 1989 will be presented, as it has been conceded that the SLP has no policy on this event. I, for one, welcome this. Particularly if it leads to a debate in the SLP on the issue.

Just who will be ‘commissioned’ for the article is another matter. Will it come from Mike Pearn, who holds that China is (was?) state capitalist? Or will Fisc get the job? Perhaps they would put in the context of a ‘deformed workers’ state’ in crisis, confronted by Trotsky’s political revolution. Or maybe Victoria Brittain will push a liberal ‘human rights’ angle? Will Arthur let a thousand flowers bloom?

One SLP member who will not be happy is Harpal Brar. As Don Preston reported last week,Brar’s publication, Lalkar, has been fulminating against the “counterrevolutionary Trotskyist ravings of the Weekly Worker”. This is because this paper has the temerity to contest the Brar’s version of events, which are along the lines of ‘Hoskins’ in Socialist News. The Weekly Worker is condemned along with the “carping, whingeing, whining and snivelling gentry from the several dozen petty-bourgeois counterrevolutionary Trotskyists”.

I look forward to the next issue of Lalkar and its appraisal of the alternative view on China to appear in Socialist News. Harpal Brar, in the name of consistency, will of course expose the ‘putrid social-fascist/Trotskyist’ views of the comrade. Fat chance.