17.05.2000

Making Liz the last

Last Saturday I attended the AGM of Republic, the main pressure group for republicans in Britain. There were over 300 at the meeting. The dominant class politics could be described as radical petty bourgeois and social democrat. As in previous years, they ran a mock election for president. On the short list were Tony Benn, Betty Boothroyd, Helena Kennedy and Ken Livingstone. Helena Kennedy won, defeating Tony Benn by one vote!

In his speech, the chair, professor Stephen Hasler, pointed out that republicanism could no longer feed off the scandalising of the Murdoch press. The era of the movie star or 'glam monarchy' of Diana Spencer and Sarah Ferguson was over. The timely death of Diana Spencer had given the monarchy an opportunity to rebuild a more conservative image. They had been assisted, explained Hasler, by a deal struck between Tony Blair "and his boss, Rupert Murdoch". The press would lay off the royals until they had repackaged themselves.

The royals had returned to the mundane politics of opening schools and supermarkets. This seemed to be working. Nevertheless, there were a number of reasons for optimism. First, Blair's constitutional changes would undermine the long-term future of the monarchy. Second, Ken Livingstone, an openly declared republican, had been elected to the second most powerful political job in Britain.

Hasler reminded the meeting that there were a number of opportunities for marketing the 'family firm'. In the next few years we could look forward to the queen mother's 100th birthday, the queen's 50th jubilee in 2002 and Prince William's 18th birthday. Hasler told the audience that he had been a guest speaker at a very fine lunch in the City where top Buckingham Palace officials had been present. Apparently palace officials are worried about what will happen when Charles becomes king. They are toying with the idea of having a referendum on the monarchy, which they would win, thereby taking the issue off the agenda for 40 years.

The meeting then saw a taped interview conducted by Hasler with Malcolm Turnbull of the Australian Republican Movement. Turnbull predicted that Australia would soon become a republic. This time they would not mix up voting on the principle of a republic with the issue of what kind of republic. The situation in New Zealand was also giving cause for optimism. Moves were beginning to change the law and remove royal titles.

Jonathan Freedland, a Guardian journalist, made a keynote speech on assessing where British republicanism was now. Opinion polls indicated that the monarchy was very popular among the over-60s, but in the 18-24 age group more than 50% were against it. A large number of votes waiting to be tapped and nobody prepared to take advantage.

However, the defenders of royalty were fighting back. They were now presenting the monarchy as the last bulwark to protect our democratic rights. Civil liberties were threatened by Tony Blair and New Labour's centralisation of power and control freakery. We have seen tampering with the right to jury trial and the attempts to fix the mayoral election. If the head of state was an elected politician, like Blair, they could get their hands on total power. Fortunately (sic) our non-political queen cannot be taken over by New Labour. In this twisted logic, the monarchy is the only bit of 'democracy' we can rely on!

Freedland made two other points. First republicans should move away from focusing on the personalities and behaviour of the royals. We should get back to republican principles, stressing the importance of popular sovereignty, as the basis for a society based on a free and democratic people. The issue was winning power for the people.

The second principle was 'gradualism' and non-violence. It would take 20 to 30 years to get rid of the monarchy. So we should take it easy, step by step. We should accept that the queen is popular, and aim to make her 'Liz the Last'.

On a number of occasions the leaders of Republic laid claim to being the vanguard of republicanism in Britain. Their strategy of 'gradual republicanism' was the only game in town. Is the British left an alternative republican vanguard? Take the SWP, one of the main organisations of the left, and the problem is soon apparent. In reality the SWP is the rearguard of British republicanism. Their worship of spontaneity means that they will do more or less nothing to promote republican consciousness, until they see the masses storming Buckingham Palace. Then they will turn up selling Socialist Worker and handing out SWP membership cards!

The SWP are hoping, indeed praying, that the bourgeoisie or the petty bourgeoisie will abolish the monarchy. It is not something that the working class should worry their little heads about. They should concentrate on their allotted role as trade unionists demanding more money for health and education. It is a testimony to the economism and demoralisation of the British left that a campaign like Republic can, with some justification, claim to be the vanguard of the struggle to rid society of all forms of hereditary privilege.

What is missing from current British politics is an independent working class republicanism. This is why we have set up the Republican Communist Network, an alliance of groups and individuals who see a connection between the fight for republicanism and the aim of a communist society. The RCN means rejecting the gradualism of Republic and the spontaneous and tailist republicanism of the SWP, Socialist Party and Scottish Socialist Party.

The RCN aims to promote militant and revolutionary republicanism within the political and trade union wings of the working class movement. It was founded around support for the slogans of 'republicanism', 'revolutionary democracy and culture', 'workers' power', a fourth slogan yet to be decided, and 'world communism'.

This alliance initially involved the Campaign for a Federal Republic (CFR), the Red Republicans (RR), the Revolutionary Democratic Group (RDG) and the Communist Tendency (CT). But we were soon joined by the CPGB. It took about a year (1999) to get the RCN up and running in Scotland. This year we have begun to establish a branch in England.

There is no quick way to build a new organisation. Even now we are still debating one of the basic slogans. At the May 6 meeting of the RCN in Edinburgh a survey of opinion on the missing fourth slogan indicated a choice between 'international socialism' and 'international socialist revolution'. At present the 'smart money' is betting on the latter, which is acceptable to the RDG, CPGB, CT and some Glasgow Marxists, some Red Republicans, some CFR and some members of the South London Republican Forum.

It may not have been apparent that the setting up of the RCN branch in England has been fraught with difficulties. There is a temptation for comrades to become a little frustrated by the problems we have had to deal with. The air has been thick with accusation and counteraccusation. So we face a real test of politics. It is always better to bring the politics out into the open. They are more likely to fester and rot if they are hidden in a dark, damp corner.

Prior to the launch of the RCN in England, a contest broke out between the CT and the RDG over who should convene the founding meeting. We will not dwell on whether this battle was a result of an accidental misunderstanding or deliberate attempt to overturn an RCN decision. Suffice to say that the question was settled at the London launch meeting in February. A neutral chair acceptable to both 'sides' was elected.

Whilst the meeting was conducted democratically, it was quite tense. One comrade had to be warned by the chair for his language and at one stage walked out when he lost a vote, later to return. The meeting then elected virtually unanimously an RDG and a CPGB comrade as secretary and treasurer.

What should have happened after the meeting? The RCN is underpinned by political alliances, which includes that between the RDG and the CT. Therefore after the dust had settled and we had hopefully recruited some new members, it would be necessary to try to rebuild some bridges with the CT. Then we could hold further meetings. At the same time we needed to broaden the alliances on which the RCN was founded. The RDG was keen to win the Alliance for Workers' Liberty into the RCN.

It is fair to say that the CPGB were less keen on bridge building with the CT. This was partly as a result of the behaviour of the CT comrade at the meeting. But it was also because they had a slightly different view as to the importance of the alliance with the CT. Since the CPGB were the largest group in the RCN in England their views had to be taken into account.

Unfortunately the dust was not allowed to settle because of the intervention of comrades with a different perspective - Barry Biddulph and the Trotskyist Unity Group (TUG). In March they organised a caucus meeting of 'non-CPGBers', after which they wrote to the press. They claimed falsely that the CPGB had not behaved democratically and that the launch meeting was not democratic. They decided to try to split the RDG and CPGB by calling for the resignation of the secretary, but promising to allow the CPGB to keep their post. They then tried to convene a "full RCN" meeting in April, which they must have realised, unless they were stupid, would split the RCN.

The real problem was that they decided not to write to RCN officers with their complaints, but rather publicise their allegations. A CT member backed this action. Thus a CT-TUG bloc was born. Of course members have a right to question officers and call them to account. But to go directly to the press before raising these matters in the RCN was well out of order. Imagine if you had a complaint against the officers in your trade union branch and instead of first raising it in the branch, you went straight to the media. Would this action help to resolve the difficulties or would it tend to magnify them?

This was an irresponsible and undemocratic action. Perhaps Barry and TUG simply did not care about the effect of their actions, because quite simply they do not agree with the aims and slogans of the RCN. Why would they care if the whole project went pear-shaped? There is at least some circumstantial evidence that Barry did not accept the slogans on 'republicanism' or 'revolutionary democracy'.

Still, nobody would want to base their actions on hearsay or inspired guesswork. The RDG wrote an open letter to these comrades to ask if they did indeed support these slogans. We suggested that if they did not, they should consider resigning.

We are democrats, not libertarians. We are for accountability both of officers and members. The RCN is a network, not a party. It is not governed by the rules of democratic centralism. But we would still expect members and officers to behave responsibly and be held to account for their actions. It is not the case that officers are held to account, while members can go round behaving like a bull in a china shop.

When Barry received the open letter from the RDG, he hit the panic button. His caucus of 'non CPGBers' had already transformed itself into a 'Democratic Faction' and now became a campaign to stop the witch-hunt. This was a load of nonsense. Asking Barry and TUG a simple question does not constitute a "witch-hunt". It requires a simple one line answer - 'Yes, I do support these slogans.' End of story.

After many e-mails which studiously avoiding answering the obvious, we were none the wiser. Perhaps Barry was worried because if he gave a straight answer to a straight question, then comrades would wonder why he had joined. Perhaps it was because Barry had been voided from Arthur Scargill's party? Or hadn't we learnt lessons from the SWP? Yes, of course we had. We learnt that not all expulsions or resignations were bad. It was the method that was wrong. We are in favour of the democratic method, in which all related matters are made open and transparent. The SWP expelled Chris Jones because he was a militant republican. But John Rees of the SWP never had the honesty to provide Chris with a written charge, allow him to be defended politically, or give a political statement as to the reasons.

Of course Barry might take comfort from the fact that the CPGB have a different view of the situation. They tend to think that although Barry and Phil of TUG are a pain in the ass, (and that is the polite version) we should by and large ignore them until they go away. The RDG, on the other hand, demands that our relations with Barry Biddulph and TUG should be demarcated politically.

Barry is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes by claiming it is only Dave Craig's view of revolutionary democracy that he disagrees with. We are meant to believe that he agrees with Allan Armstrong, Mary Ward and John Bridge, etc. This is of course one gigantic red herring. Agreeing with Dave Craig is not and never has been the criterion for joining the RCN. So at the end of the day it boils down to the RDG demanding that Barry and TUG stop factionalising: that is, behaving irresponsibly. Against this, Barry demands that we stop the non-existent witch-hunt.

The May 6 meeting of the RCN gave an airing to these controversies. The meeting did establish and accept that the February 6 launch meeting was democratic. It did accept that the basic slogans were the criteria for membership. It did reassure Barry that there was no 'witch-hunt' for him to be frightened of. It did accept these matters would be resolved at the meeting of the RCN England on June 17.

The RCN is committed to open and democratic methods and accountability for officers and members alike. Whatever problems and controversies arise, we will solve them by democratic means and not by anarcho-Stalinist methods. Only if we do this will we have any possibility of becoming a revolutionary republican alternative to gradualism.