14.12.2000

Socialist Alliance

LSA campaign against monarchy

The December 12 meeting of the steering committee of the London Socialist Alliance voted unanimously to accept a resolution presented by the Communist Party on republicanism. This calls for "a militant campaign for the immediate abolition of monarchy" and "the widest possible debate in society and the left around what sort of republic socialists should campaign for".

Formally, this is a step forward for the LSA. It remains to be seen, however, just how actively the constituent elements of the alliance will want to campaign on the issue as the general election looms. The adoption of a decent republican resolution does not mean that the congenital economism of organisations such as the Socialist Workers Party or Socialist Party has been overcome. While no one is prepared to say they are against the abolition of the monarchy, who is really prepared to fight for it?

Moving the resolution, Mark Fischer pointed out that The Guardian's recently initiated campaign for a republic underlined that the institution was not a peripheral one, or "tinsel", as he put it. The form of the British state is a constitutional monarchy. The paper has estimated that a legislative mountain would need to be scaled to disentangle the monarchy from the institutions of the state. It is integral to the nature of the political system that rules us.

He recounted a friendly joke from one of the meeting's participants who had suggested that the resolution represented the CPGB "taking its political lead from The Guardian". Comrade Fischer pointed out that, unintentionally, this quip had revealed our real weakness. In the absence of the workers' movement taking a lead, the vacuum is being filled by reforming elements of the establishment.

In their hands, republicanism is thus transformed into a prop of the state, a means to strengthen the legitimacy of the political forms that mask the rule of capital. For instance, The Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger, wrote to the attorney general, Lord Williams of Mostyn, "asking for an assurance that he will not be prosecuted under the Treason Felony Act, given that he has no intention of advocating the overthrow of the monarchy by force" (The Guardian December 6). Indeed, Rusbridger helpfully suggested that the act could be reinterpreted so that only calls to overthrow the monarchy by force would be treasonable - "he offered the paper's support in the application" (ibid.).

The debate around the CPGB's resolution highlighted the basic programmatic flaws of the majority of the left. Dave Packer of the International Socialist Group charitably observed that, while the demands advanced by the CPGB were normally "off the wall", there was often "a rational core" to our arguments. He agreed that the monarchy was not simply a decorative flourish. It embodied "big powers", he suggested, as we live under a "monarchical system". Oddly, he then went on to dub the question "not a central issue".

Mark Hoskisson of Workers Power introduced an amendment - accepted for tactical reasons by the CPGB mover - that removed an original paragraph in the resolution calling for "an immediate referendum on the monarchy", replacing it with the call for "a militant campaign for the immediate abolition of the monarchy". He pointed to the limited nature of referenda as a democratic device. True, but not the real point. What matters is not the nature of the device - be it a referendum, a parliament, or a constituent assembly - but how it is fought for. Do we use tame, constitutional methods, or the militant and revolutionary methods of the working class?

However, the most admirably clear and unambiguous intervention on this issue came from Jill Mountford of the Alliance for Workers' Liberty. Comrade Mountford seemed impatient with the whole debate and towards its end expressed the miserable perspectives of the left in a pithy little 'what if ...' scenario. As she put it, "If there was an option between a militant campaign in defence of the NHS and one against the monarchy, I know which one I would choose." As do we, comrade ...

One CPGBer commented later that this was an incredible thing for a Marxist to say. On the one hand, Jill's mind's eye sees a movement under a banner reading, 'We're sick of being sick'. On the other, there is one which takes the streets under the slogan, 'We are sick of being ruled'. And, given a choice, the comrade would plump for the former ... presumably because that is proper working class politics.

The resolution was adopted with a unanimous shrug of indifference rather than enthusiastic acclamation. Oddly enough, precisely this sort of almost apolitical listlessness was highlighted by a feature writer in The Guardian. Polly Toynbee comments that, "In some quarters a faintly blank look of surprise greets news of The Guardian's republican stand. Why bother? Aren't there more pressing matters? Are there no poor children, disaster schools, desperate estates, overcrowded prisons?" (The Guardian December 6). Has the woman perhaps been sneaking unnoticed into LSA meetings ...?

The monarchy debate came towards the end of the December 12 meeting and while it was pretty sparsely attended (just 15 comrades) and had a definite 'end of term' feel to it, a number of other important discussions and votes were taken.

In particular, the meeting overwhelmingly passed a resolution which "condemns the decision of the Socialist Party ... to publicly announce candidates it intends to stand in the general election ... without reference to the local Socialist Alliance". Clive Heemskirk of the SP looked distinctly uncomfortable as he attempted to defend the overt wrecking operations of his group. He suggested that he found the attack "odd". All affiliated organisations had been written to by the national steering committee in the summer and asked where they were interested in standing candidates. The SP had nominated its preferences - some 18 constituencies - and was now acting on what had been "public knowledge" since then. Comrade Heemskirk questioned the reality of most LSA selection processes, stating that membership figures were very hazy.

Several speakers in the debate pointed out that the comrade was being "disingenuous" - at best. At the time of the LSA's London conference earlier this year, the SP had posed as the defender of the autonomy and sovereign rights of local alliances. Now, they were simply announcing their candidates with no reference whatsoever to the local groups. Why this dramatic turnabout?

Rob Hoveman of the SWP pointed out that the SP list of 18 constituencies ought to have been viewed as part of a consultation process. At no time was it anticipated that these would be presented as fait accomplis to local alliances. Rejecting a call by Steve Freeman of the Revolutionary Democratic Group for "bilateral talks" between the SWP and SP to resolve the matter, comrade Hoveman correctly emphasised that these provocations were a matter for the Socialist Alliance as a whole to confront and resolve.

The resolution - which will now be referred to the Liaison Committee of the national network and its executive - was passed with just an SP vote against, along with a Red Action abstention.

The meeting also voted down two resolutions from Red Action. One, a rather carping complaint against "OTT propaganda" deserved defeat. The other - in amended form - was supported by the CPGB delegate. This called for the approach on the issues of fighting racism and chauvinism to be "critically re-evaluated" by the manifesto sub-committee and the Liaison Committee executive. Predictably, the unproductive debate that ensued revolved around the use of the slogan, 'Refugees are welcome here', with SWPers in particular suggesting that those questioning its use were guilty of attempting to "duck" a sensitive issue.

In fact, CPGB comrades out on the knocker during some of the recent election contests have reported quite a bit of 'ducking' on this issue - but from those forces who expressed alarm and outrage that the slogan could be questioned. As we have pointed out, the uncomfortable truth is that, across wide swathes of our class, refugees have not been welcome. What is the use of a slogan which is palpably untrue? Some comrades actually suggested that its purpose was to provide a degree of comfort to the communities and groups being targeted. As a sentiment, this is quite laudable - it is "a statement of human solidarity", as comrade Mountford put it. As a political slogan, a response to a real problem in our class as whole, it is absolutely hopeless. As comrade Heemskirk of the SP correctly observed, "Who does it convince?" It seems to imply that the battle is won - clearly untrue.

This resolution was lost by three votes to 10, but is bound to resurface. It will be forced onto the agenda as the Socialist Alliance increasingly engages with the working class itself.

Lastly, the meeting debated a resolution from the SWP on the controversy surrounding Terry Liddle and his supposed collaboration with fascists (see Weekly Worker December 7). This was eventually amended to a general statement of 'no platform' for "known Nazi sympathisers or organisations". On the initiative of a number of comrades, the resolution was gutted of any mention of comrade Liddle whatsoever. In particular, John Bulaitis roundly condemned the witch hunt against the man, stating that the LSA should give "no credence" whatsoever to this disgraceful campaign. It was gratifying that this was the general opinion of the meeting - any calls for the LSA to stage its own 'inquiry' into comrade Liddle will clearly fall on profoundly deaf ears.

More controversial was the resolution we were left with. This states: "The LSA steering committee believes that no member of the LSA should appear on platforms with known Nazi sympathisers or organisations or engage in formal or informal discussions with them."

Mark Fischer of the CPGB opposed this "sweeping" ban, stating that there were circumstances where we would be well advised to attempt to engage with and expose the wacky ideas of reactionaries, especially where they have been able to build themselves a measure of support amongst demoralised sections of the class itself. He pointed out that members of the National Front and British National Party contribute to a discussion page ("informal discussions", that is) on Red Action's website (which thereby provides a 'platform' for them, of course). "And why not?" he asked. Their ideas were rubbish; they represented no problem for Marxists to expose.

Oddly enough, the RA comrades distanced themselves from this stance. One commented that it was not about "sharing a platform", but "exposing their arguments" (they just happened to be exposed on the shared 'platform' of a website, of course). Only the CPGB rep opposed the resolution: RA abstained.

The dire financial state of the alliance was reported by comrade Hoveman - just £500 in the bank - and the stringent financial regulations and requirements imposed by the home office on registered political parties briefly outlined. Along with the lack of centralised data about the real state of play on the ground with local SAs, this underlined just how much work still needs to be done in the short space of time before Blair calls the election. Similarly, the open conference to adopt the Socialist Alliance's manifesto (March 10 2001) needs careful preparation.

However, recent good results for us around the country contributed to an optimist feeling that the job can be done.

Mark Fischer