25.02.1999

Second time farce?

The March meeting of Socialist Alliances must not end without agreement again

History, as a well known German once said, happens the first time as tragedy, the second as farce. Unfortunately, the founding conference of the Network of Socialist Alliances to be held in Birmingham on March 27 is in danger of confirming this maxim.

The latest issue of The All Red and Green, the bulletin of the Network’s Liaison Group, contains the options proposed by various affiliated organisations and local alliances. The Rugby founding conference in September last year agreed by a slim majority that the Liaison Group’s proposals for an elected Liaison Committee should be operated on an interim basis. However, as no elections were held, the self-appointed Liaison Group of John Nicholson, Dave Nellist, Pete McLaren and Dave Church continued to rule over things.

Because there was such polarisation, with a 40% minority proposing an inclusive, delegate-based structure, it was agreed that an all-day recall conference should be held to settle the question. Unfortunately, comrades will see from The All Red and Green that the Liaison Group is proposing an agenda - in contravention to the decision of the Rugby conference - which will make it almost impossible to deal adequately with the Network’s structure/rules for a second time.

In their wisdom, the Liaison Group is recommending that the (second) founding conference of the Network only put aside two hours to consider 17 different proposals around four structural questions: aims and background; name; membership and subscriptions; and organisation. Given the five minutes allocated to each proposer, a total of one hour and 25 minutes will be given over to presentation and only 35 minutes for subsequent debate - or two minutes per proposal. This can only be a recipe for confusion and disaster.

At the Rugby conference, the CPGB moved a motion to alter an equally pinched agenda so that the whole business of the day could be devoted to arriving at clarity on the essential question of the Network’s structure. Unfortunately, this was defeated, and the unworkable interim agreement was the result. Yet now the Liaison Group proposes to curtail the discussion yet again, filling up the remaining two hours with report-backs of campaigns and an “exchange of information regarding socialist slates in each regional constituency” for the European elections - information which could easily be shared through a regular bulletin.

It is ironic that life has passed the Liaison Group by. Through its failure to move beyond the organisational issue at Rugby, real forces have come together - including, significantly, the Socialist Workers Party - which has to a large extent left the Network on the sidelines in the developments around joint slates for the European Union elections. This is not entirely unconnected with the question of structure. The United Socialists - who have ironically now adapted the title ‘Socialist Alliance’ - were able to move forward because they are an alliance of organisations. The Liaison Group’s proposals for a party-type structure based on pink-green individuals, clearly unsuitable for a federal alliance, is a recipe for exclusion and impotence.

What is most disturbing at the bottom of these shenanigans is the fact that there are those in the alliance who - in the name of ‘inclusion’ - actually cannot countenance different approaches to building the Network of Socialist Alliances. In effect, they deem proposals which are different from their own as being inadmissible. Open and honest political debate and comradely discussion are anathema to their political method.

In the latest All Red and Green the falsification of the CPGB’s position continues with our proposal being given the subheading, “A central committee?” Anyone who has read the proposals of the London Socialist Alliance and the CPGB can see that they are diametrically opposed to such an interpretation. Instead, they are based on maximum flexibility, recallability and the automatic inclusion of all political forces on a national Liaison Committee of the Network.

The latest revised proposals from the Liaison Group are far more restrictive. Their proposed five ‘functional officers’ would be elected for a whole year - despite their name they would inevitably act more like the politburo of a political party than the functionaries of an emerging and fluid alliance. The officers and indeed the Liaison Committee need to be flexible, responding to changes at the grass roots. If, under the Liaison Group’s proposals however, an elected officer fails in their duties or is obliged to drop out, perhaps through illness, then it would be a full year before they could be replaced - either that or we would have to go through the fuss of a special conference.

The CPGB’s proposals, subsequently amended and adopted unanimously by a well attended general meeting of the LSA, call for officers to be elected by and accountable to the Liaison Committee, where each affiliated organisation and local alliance is represented.

If justice is to be done in considering all the various structural proposals, there must be the maximum time allowed for democratic, open debate on March 27. The experience of the SLP and the Labour Party shows we need an end to backroom deals and the steamrollering of clique agendas.

The CPGB has written to the Liaison Group requesting that it reconsiders its proposed agenda and, in the spirit of cooperation reached at the expanded Liaison Group meeting of January 16, agrees to abide by the decision of the Rugby conference.

Marcus Larsen