20.01.2000

On the bourgeois republic

If Tom Delargy's report (Weekly Worker January 13) is correct the meeting of Scottish Republican Communist Network members sounded like a session of the Spanish inquisition (Monty Python version). You may remember that Python's victims were tied up in a comfy chair and beaten with cushions and tickled until they gave in. This appears to have been the fate of the Campaign for a Federal Republic (CFR).

Apparently two members, Mary Ward and Nick Clarke, were ambushed and interrogated. "Under relentless questioning" Mary eventually gave in and signed a confession. Nick was more resistant, but eventually he cracked as well. He duly abandoned his previous views rather than suffer the humiliation of being on his own. Perhaps this is what happened, perhaps not. It is not how Nick remembers it.

Tom Delargy implies that now Nick and Mary have given up their fight for federal republic. He says: "While I am over the moon that the CFR were persuaded to make this historic concession to their critics [on a workers' republic], I suspect that Dave Craig and the CPGB (PCC) might need some convincing." Before we accept the idea of "historic concessions" or decide whom, if anybody was browbeaten, let us examine the motion that was actually passed [see also Letters, this issue - ed].

The RCN motion says: "The SSP is committed to the abolition of the monarchy and all crown powers without recourse to referenda and to campaigning for wider political democratic demands, and to a genuinely democratic workers' republic free from all vestiges of feudalism."

This motion is ambiguous. One interpretation starts from the first sentence, which says, "The SSP is committed to the abolition of the monarchy and all crown powers". If this happened we would have a bourgeois republic. This republic might include "wider democratic demands" which the Scottish Socialist Party would be fighting for. This is quite consistent with what we have called a minimum programme - that is, a republican and democratic programme. However, the SSP should not rest content with a bourgeois republic, but fight for a "genuinely democratic workers' republic".

None of this contradicts the positions of the Campaign for a Federal Republic whose platform supports a federal republic and a workers' republic. Everybody in the Republican Communist Network supports a workers' republic. If there is controversy and compromise it is likely to be over the question of the bourgeois republic. So it is here that we must focus the argument. It is important to remember that the RCN does not yet have a position on this matter except for the slogan 'Republicanism', which is as yet undefined.

Abolishing the monarchy means creating a bourgeois republic. This is confirmed by the fact that the motion does not call for the immediate abolition of parliament. Of course some people want to abolish the monarchy, but are frightened to admit this is a bourgeois republic, for fear of damaging their 'street cred'. But in politics we need to call a spade by its name.

The Marxist case for a bourgeois republic has a number of aspects. Like the case for votes for women or an increase in wages, it is a reform, indeed a democratic reform, that does not of itself abolish capitalism. Indeed after a bourgeois wage increase, even in a bourgeois republic, the class struggle will continue. Consistent ultra-lefts oppose both on the grounds that all reforms compromise the working class, and should be opposed. But that is anarchism, not Marxism.

However, a bourgeois republic is not simply a democratic reform. The theory of permanent revolution suggests that achieving a bourgeois republic can open the way to a workers' republic. This is especially the case if the new republic has the characteristics of dual power. We can cite the examples of this process in Russia 1917, Germany 1918, Spain 1930, Portugal 1974, etc. Consequently the argument is between those who see the bourgeois republic as a transitional demand, and those who believe it is a reactionary demand to be opposed. The latter, despite their good intentions, simply undermine opposition to the monarchy.

This leads to a third point. The exact character of a bourgeois republic cannot be determined in advance because it is product of class struggle. The formation of a bourgeois republic is a process and will depend crucially on whether it is handed down from above or won by mass struggle from below. Anybody who claims that a bourgeois republic will be like the French fifth republic or the American republic of 1999 rather than the Russian dual power republic of 1917 has a static, not a dialectical, view of the world. The class struggle will decide, which is why a workers' party must act as a leadership.

In the United Kingdom the modern British monarchy has 300 years of tradition. It has been a great source of stability for the state. Despite its origins in feudalism, it has long since been transformed into a bourgeois monarchy. The queen is the head of state in a bourgeois democracy, supported by the bourgeoisie. The British constitutional monarchy has given the capitalists many advantages. So whilst in the abstract they could do without the expense of a monarchy, the institution is preserved and supported.

At the same time the working class does not have the consciousness or political organisation to rid society of this parasitism and bureaucracy. The monarchy stands as an historic symbol of the strength of the ruling class and the weakness of the working class. Abolishing the monarchy is not about destroying this symbol, as idealists think. It is about class struggle and changing the balance of class forces. When the monarchy is abolished the whole of society will know that something significant is happening. It will mean that the working class has begun to flex its political muscles, even if as yet it is not sure which direction to go.

The abolition of the monarchy - the bourgeois republic - is a class question. It is a question of which class can force the issue. Even if it seems contradictory, the working class will bring the bourgeois republic and the bourgeoisie will oppose it. The party of the bourgeoisie stands for the defence of the monarchy and the party of the working class for its immediate destruction.

The monarchy is like a barricade built across the road to socialism. We have to smash that barricade and drive our forces through the gap. In doing so we open up new possibilities for advance. That is how the theory of permanent revolution and transitional demands must be applied. Whilst the working class does not have the consciousness or political organisation to smash the monarchy, it will remain in place.

The Republican Communist Network in Scotland was correct to make a priority of winning the SSP to fight for a bourgeois republic. We want to win the SSP to take up a militant and revolutionary struggle for the immediate abolition of the monarchy. The Network has two huge advantages in this. First the SSP is already formally republican. Secondly analysis of popular consciousness points to over 50% of the Scottish people in favour of abolishing the monarchy.

The question is, what is the SSP doing about it? Is popular opinion being galvanised and organised into a political struggle? The answer is no. Only the most token lip service is paid to republicanism. The SSP is hoping that the bourgeoisie will abolish the monarchy on their behalf. It is no coincidence that Sheridan takes the oath of allegiance for his seat in parliament.

If the SSP were a genuine republican party of the working class, it would already have made the campaign for a republic one of its central demands. But this should be done under the understanding that a bourgeois republic is the beginning of the struggle, not the end. The SSP would make clear that it was opposed to Blair's constitutional 'settlement'. Only by developing democratic rights to their limits can the Scottish people begin to exercise control over economic and social life.

It would be a mistake to underestimate the opposition to republicanism. We have seen the monarchist movement in Australia and the mobilisation of the Countryside Alliance for extra-parliamentary struggle in England. The idea that Scotland should go it alone would play right into the hands of these reactionaries.

A Scottish republic would be painted as nationalist, anti-English, and against the interests of the English and Welsh people. The issue of democracy would soon be lost in the political rhetoric of Scottish nationalism and English chauvinism. This is why republicans in Scotland should openly appeal to the people of England and Wales to join them in a united federal republic. We must be absolutely clear that the workers must unite across the border for a common democratic political objective - the federal republic, based on the principle and practice of national self-determination.

The CFR is therefore quite right to put forward the demand for a bourgeois republic if the aim is to put the leadership of the SSP on the spot. Unfortunately, looked at from this angle, the motion does not really do the business. First it does not take the bull by the horns and call the abolition of the monarchy exactly what it is - a bourgeois republic. This is a compromise or fudge with leftism.

However, calling for a bourgeois republic is not sufficient. It would mean tail-ending the SSP and the majority of the Scottish people. The vanguard cannot be content with proposing what most people are already in favour of. We have to come up with a plan about how to abolish the monarchy. The motion says nothing about tactics except to rule out a referendum. We are not going to tell the workers what to do, only what not to do!

At this stage campaigning for a referendum could be a valid democratic tactic. There may be many other means of carrying out anti-monarchist and pro-republican agitation. But why limit our ambitions to this? If the SSP is serious about a republic, the party has to campaign for a constituent assembly. What differentiates the SSP and the SNP from the Tories, Labour and the Liberal Democrats is that the latter are claiming that devolution is a final constitutional settlement. This is something that must be fiercely rejected from every platform, in every election campaign and during every strike.

The SSP must establish its reputation as a militant anti-constitutional party. However, the agitation for a constituent assembly in the Bolshevik tradition is combined with the demand for a provisional republican government. The SSP must have the ambition to stand candidates and mobilise the working class behind a struggle for a provisional republican government. Such a government must aim to take power, convene a constituent assembly and take action against fascism and counterrevolution.

A motion, limiting itself to a general call for a bourgeois republic, without any tactical orientation, except opposing a referendum, is not sharp enough to put pressure on the SSP leadership. It lets them off the hook. In general terms the SSP leadership can agree with a bourgeois republic, as long it is not a serious commitment to action, and as long as they can pose left by calling it a 'socialist republic'.

Let us now turn to the alternative interpretation of the motion, which is presumably how Tom sees it. Here the abolition of the monarchy is the act of the workers' republic. This gives up totally the fight for a bourgeois republic. This would be a major error. It would mean forgetting the immediate struggle for a constituent assembly and a provisional government in favour of abstract propaganda for a workers' republic. At a time when major constitutional changes are taking place in Britain, for socialists to limit themselves to propaganda for a workers' republic confines communism to the very fringes of politics. Of course we are on the fringes already, but the point is to develop politics that puts us into the main field of political battle.

We must be clear on the relationship between the immediate task of abolishing the monarchy and the strategic aim of a workers' republic. Calling for a workers' republic is pie in the sky, when there are no soviets and the working class is on the defensive. It is especially so if communists cannot get right how the fight for a bourgeois republic should be conducted in the here and now.

This brings us back to different interpretations of the motion. If the motion was silent on the bourgeois republic and only advocated a workers' republic it would be quite wrong. It would mean forgetting about the immediate political struggle. On the other hand the motion appears to point to both. But it neglects to identify the need for a constituent assembly, provisional republican government, the central role of the working class and the need for unity with England and Wales in a federal republic. Of course the national dimension is avoided altogether. In the circumstances of the new Network this was perhaps inevitable. Still, if the bourgeois republic is included, it is Tom that has made the historic compromise, not Nick and Mary.