04.02.1999

Waiting for the chop

Simon Harvey of the SLP

There is still no confirmation that Roy Bull, the “former editor” of the Economic and Philosophic Science Review, has “resigned” from the vice-presidency of the Socialist Labour Party, as general secretary Arthur Scargill announced at January’s national executive committee meeting. Scargill held up what he claimed was vice-president Bull’s resignation letter, but refused to read it out - still less to allow NEC comrades to read it for themselves - because it allegedly made “personal attacks” on other SLP members.

If Bull has gone, the whole party should be told and the reasons given. After all, it is less than three months since he was elected at the November special congress, when he unseated Patrick Sikorski of the Fourth International Supporters Caucus. His success threw the SLP into crisis, with a large minority in uproar at the election of the editor and main contributor of the homophobic EPSR. Stung by their own defeat, the Fiscites called on Scargill to fix Bull’s removal, threatening otherwise to boycott this year’s European elections in London, where the regional committee is still controlled by Fisc.

But why is vice-president Bull so uncharacteristically silent on the question of his own ‘resignation’? Surely it is because he is awaiting the outcome of the ‘complaints procedure’ consideration of the EPSR before committing himself as to whether he should remain in post, while Scargill on the other hand has pre-empted the complaints committee’s inevitable findings. The Bullites are challenging the decision of the December NEC prohibiting their bulletin from commenting on the affairs of the SLP or publishing any article which “may lead members to conclude” they are attacking women or homosexuals. If (or rather when) the NEC’s ruling is upheld later this month, the vice-president has let it be known that he will have to “review his position”.

It was Scargill himself who insisted on using the complaints procedure to press charges against the Appeal Four - Brian Heron, Carolyn Sikorski, Terry Dunn and Helen Drummond - who had had the temerity to circulate an ‘Appeal for a special conference’ after the cancellation of the 3rd Congress.

When the four refused to withdraw their appeal and “cease their activities”, Scargill decided they had to go - and the complaints procedure is his chosen vehicle. Comrades Heron and Carolyn Sikorski are leading Fiscites. Heron is London regional president, while Sikorski is an NEC member elected by the women’s section. Comrades Dunn and Drummond were the most important activists involved in the setting up of the party in London in 1996. All four were among Scargill’s closest allies and courtiers. Yet he now intends to purge them from the SLP they helped found.

The January NEC rubber-stamped Scargill’s proposals to ‘try’ the Appeal Four on February 13. The hearing will be at The Place, 17 Dukes Road, Euston. Of course the Appeal Four have absolutely no case to answer in reality. They intended and believed their appeal to be fully in accord with the constitution, but Scargill ruled that only constituency branches or affiliates, not individuals, could request a special congress. The December executive meeting unconstitutionally outlawed the circulation within the party of any document whatsoever - except by itself.

So what is the complaints procedure? Comrades with long memories may recall that this four-page, closely typed paper suddenly surfaced at the December 1997 2nd Congress. Despite objections from the floor Scargill insisted on having it ratified there and then. In this he was successful - with a little help from a previously undisclosed ‘trade union affiliate’ and its 3,000 votes.

The document states that any individual or constituent part of the party may bring a complaint against any other. But only “the general secretary” can give authorisation for it to proceed. He acts as prosecutor in every case. The three-person ‘jury’ is appointed by the NEC. The defendant may call witnesses - but only if they meet with the approval of the committee!

There is no provision in the procedure for the accused to be represented - although comrade Imran Khan is said to be willing to defend the Appeal Four. Another well known leftwing lawyer, Mike Mansfield, has written to Scargill stating that all the charges are completely unfounded and cannot be supported by the constitution. And he should know - he wrote it.

Just to be sure there are no slip-ups, the NEC can overrule the complaints committee’s recommendation - with the sole proviso that it cannot increase any penalty awarded.

Obviously this Kafkaesque procedure guarantees “the general secretary” gets his way in every case. But Scargill is facing a little local difficulty further down the line. The procedure allows for an appeal by the convicted comrade, to be heard by five members of an appeal panel. The 15-strong panel is elected at the annual congress, but again it is “the general secretary” who selects the five comrades from the panel to hear the appeal. Another Scargillite fail-safe.

Unfortunately for the Great Leader, in his rush to enshrine his dictatorship, he forgot to allow for the election of the panel at the special congress. No doubt he will dream up some way of overcoming that little problem - contravening his own constitution has never bothered our general secretary up to now.

The Appeal Four and Scargill have exchanged enough paperwork to consume a small forest, but so far the accused have declined to publicise their case. Comrade Heron rather touchingly believes that he will leave behind a “democratic memory” in the SLP after his expulsion - so why bother to inform the members in the here and now? He appears to have ruled out a principled fight, which would necessitate the fullest mobilisation of remaining SLP democrats - particularly in London, where the four have the most support. That would be ‘disloyal’, it seems.

Having backed Scargill to the hilt when he bureaucratically voided the left, banned meetings, closed down branches and tried to suppress any hint of opposition, the Fiscites are at a loss when he uses the same methods against them.