23.08.2000

Defend SSP democracy

SWP and SSP special conference, November 12

Normally the Scottish Socialist Party has had an excellent track record regarding internal democracy, stemming from its roots in the Scottish Socialist Alliance. Factions have had extensive rights, being given an automatic voice on the leading body and at conference and the right to freely publish material for circulation both within and outside the SSP.

It seems, however, that the tolerance of the leadership has begun to evaporate, given the prospect of the Socialist Workers Party joining. The SSP executive has written a position paper for national council entitled 'The general election and developments within the SNP and SWP'. The paper suggests an orientation towards the Scottish National Party's hard nationalist wing in the light of its current leadership contest and the likely victory of the so-called social democratic wing. Equally worrying is the drive to severely limit the influence the SWP would have over the SSP if it joins by curbing or eliminating the existing rights of members, not least factional rights. The basic message is that the SWP would practically have to liquidate its organisation in Scotland in order to be allowed in. However in attempting to block the SWP the whole democracy and standing of the SSP is put in jeopardy.

The SSP leadership's orientation towards nationalist politics is revealed not only by its wish to build closer links with the SNP fundamentalists, but also in the dismissive way in which comrades Alan McCombes and Allan Green refer to the SWP - which is, after all, the largest left organisation in Britain. The approaches made by the SWP are described as "first and foremost a tribute to the outstanding success of the SSP", rather than an opportunity to build a stronger left better able to influence the class and take on the United Kingdom state.

This new turn by the SWP should have been welcomed, but instead Tommy Sheridan prefers an alliance with the SNP. Interviewed in The Observer (August 13) he said that if, after the next Scottish parliamentary elections, the SNP were to form a minority administration involving by necessity a coalition with smaller groups then the SSP would in all likelihood get involved in the negotiations. Yet another worrying proof of the nationalist path the SSP leadership has chosen. Comrade Sheridan reckons the SSP will win eight to 10 seats and the SSP executive wants to make sure nothing - not least the SWP - gets in the way.

There are real political differences between the SSP and SWP: eg, the SWP claims to be a revolutionary organisation. But in terms of practical politics the main bone of contention revolves around the national question. The SWP wants to ignore or downplay the national question in Scotland. The SSP wants to exacerbate it to the point where Britain breaks up along nationalist fault lines. This would hardly be promoted through unity with a relatively big SWP faction - run and controlled from London. Hence the frantic search for disagreement and the clampdown on membership rights:

"We recognise that there will be some policy differences between the SSP and others - especially on issues such as our key demand for an independent socialist Scotland; our insistence that all our candidates for public office pledge to live on no more than a skilled worker's wage; and our support for changing the drug laws."

Actually the SWP will have no problem with these 'key demands', especially in view of their new diplomatic and thoroughly economistic line on Scotland (a vote for independence being a vote against Blair). Undaunted, the executive paper then moves from an implicit attack on the SWP to an explicit attack on all SSP members:

"While we respect the right of any member to dissent from these, or any other policy, we could not contemplate abandoning or diluting any of our policies in order to accommodate new forces that may be considering joining. Such a move would rightly be considered unprincipled ..."

Agreed. But surely it would be equally unprincipled to change the constitution with the specific intention of keeping out such "new forces".

The executive goes on to remind us that, "Every party member and grouping has the right to try and change policy at annual conference." We are then told that, "Between conferences all SSP members would be expected to defend party policy, or at least not to campaign against it." This volte face is in line with most of the left's distorted notion of democratic centralism - in reality bureaucratic centralism. But, given that the SSP has never claimed to be a democratic centralist organisation and has inherited a wide diversity of political groupings and views from its origins as the Scottish Socialist Alliance, this formulation/proposal must be opposed vigorously.

After questioning the right of open dissent, the executive proceeds to question the established right of factions to publish and even organise within the SSP:

"Groupings within the party are free to organise platforms/tendencies and to distribute their own material within the party. While upholding the right of platforms to organise their own private meetings, we would encourage openness and transparency, in order to generate an atmosphere of trust and respect within the party.

"While platforms will inevitably discuss the programme, policies and political direction of the party, it is important to emphasise that the majority of party members belong to no distinct faction and have a right to expect open debate within the party structures."

If comrades McCombes and Green are correct in saying that the majority of SSP members belong to no distinct group then they must be referring to the paper membership. By far the majority of relatively active members (I mean, for example, those who would turn up to annual conference) belong to factions, mainly the International Socialist Movement/Committee for a Workers International faction (now deeply alienated from Peter Taaffe in London and with a dissident faction of its own based in Dundee around the person of the North-East organiser, comrade Phil Stott).

Supposedly for the sake of the non-affiliated 'majority', the executive warns factions that, "Attempts to enter party discussions with a predetermined, uniform line, which all members of the platform are forced to adhere to, will breed resentment and hostility rather than cooperation and unity."

This can be roughly translated as: if the SWP joins and votes as a bloc at annual conference, they would be a significantly large enough group to change SSP policy. Hypocritically, the executive comrades are describing exactly what the CWI faction has done since the first days of the Scottish Socialist Alliance.

Aside from being large enough to change party policy, the other threat posed by the SWP is its publications. So it is hardly surprising that the executive seeks to restrict the distribution of factional publications to within the SSP:

"We naturally expect that all sections of the party would see their primary task as the building of the SSP. We also expect party members and groupings to unite in support of any campaigns initiated by the party, and to sell the party newspaper, the Scottish Socialist Voice, rather than their own separate journals."

This would certainly be a sticking point for the SWP. Which is understandable, given they are being asked to move from selling a well produced weekly that actually comes out weekly to a badly produced fortnightly that comes out monthly, if that. Of course, they are told, it is perfectly acceptable to sell within the SSP - which, as the SSP leadership is well aware, defeats the purpose. Socialist Worker is aimed towards the class, not the existing left.

Needless to say, these new restrictions, if passed, will affect all groupings within the SSP and have a detrimental effect on the character and direction of the SSP.

After this none-too-subtle statement, the SSP executive puts forward a list of recommendations regarding both the SNP and SWP.

In terms of initiatives around the SNP, the SSP leadership wants to: put out a leaflet aimed at SNP members/supporters; organise a fringe meeting at SNP conference; organise a press conference after the result of the leadership contest to appeal to disaffected members to join the SSP; and for SSP branches to organise public debates with local SNP branches.

After these measures aimed at getting SNP members in, the second set is aimed at keeping SWP members out. There are plans to postpone annual conference due to the possibility of a general election in May. In other words the SWP cannot overturn SSP policy before the general election.

"A special conference should be held in November 2000 to discuss the SSP election manifesto, the political basis for the SWP joining the SSP and related organisational and constitutional issues."

This special conference is to take place on Sunday November 12, the weekend of Socialism 2000. Allowing only one day ensures debate is minimised. Comrade McCombes is to draft the election manifesto for September 12 and it should be out to branches soon - presumably so as to use it as an 'agree with it or stay out' ultimatum in negotiations with the SWP.

The recommendations end with one final attack on democracy, a move towards a delegate-based conference:

"Should there be a satisfactory political basis for the SWP joining the SSP, there will, almost certainly, be constitutional and organisational implications. In order to encourage the fullest integration of the SWP into branch and party structures, and minimise any suspicions from any section of the party over the representative nature regarding the turnout at any one event, the executive believe that there would be an overwhelming case for the special conference to consider whether subsequent SSP conferences, after the SWP joined, should be organised on a delegate basis."

Instead of inaugurating a more representative system, what would be created by a delegate conference at the present time is a factional turf war. Whichever faction happens to dominate any individual branch would try to elect its own members as delegates. Eg, a branch with five communists, 25 SWPers and 32 CWI members in attendance would send CWI delegates to conference. That is why we communists favour PR under such circumstances. Nonetheless, the way in which SSP conferences are currently held, allowing one member one vote, is far more representative than a first-past-the-post winner-takes-all delegate system. The current system should therefore remain until it is replaced by PR.

At the last Dundee SSP branch meeting both the Republican Communist Network and CWI dissidents submitted amendments to the executive statement. As it turned out, they were largely in agreement. The united amendment, which will go to the November conference, states that factions should be able to distribute material both inside of and outside the SSP, that factions should be able to organise and vote as a bloc, and that, alongside selling Scottish Socialist Voice on public activities, comrades should be free to sell their own separate publications. The RCN amendment also included the removal of the section on delegate conferences, but this was defeated. The Dundee CWI comrades are under the illusion that a delegate-based conference would prevent domination from Glasgow.

The RCN won a tremendous victory at the last SSP conference in Edinburgh when the majority voted against the leadership and defeated the proposal to move to a delegate conference. Indeed the RCN resolution extended factional rights. This time in Glasgow the outcome may be different, as the leadership will play upon the ever-present sectarian tensions between the SWP and CWI in order to get its proposals passed. What happens in England and Wales and the Socialist Alliance project will be crucial.

If the comrades south of the border get their act together, champion consistent and inclusive democracy and start converging into one revolutionary party, the nationalist tide can be turned.

In the meantime all SSP members who consider themselves democrats must unite once more in order to rebuff the leadership's renewed attack on democracy at the November 12 conference.