27.06.2001

Hackney

Fight for democracy

The antics of the Socialist Party damage unity but the Socialist Workers Party must learn new ways. The chair of Hackney Socialist Alliance, Anne Mc Shane, writing in a personal capacity, calls for a commitment to democracy and unity

It was not surprising that Hackney was one of the areas where the Socialist Alliance did best in the general election. Cecilia Prosper, standing in Hackney South and Shoreditch, got 4.6% with 1,400 votes.

The Communist Party of Britain stood against the SA and got 259 votes - which merely had the effect of costing the SA our deposit. However, it was very positive that the post-election speech of CPB candidate Ivan Beavis was a pro-unity one. Leading Hackney CPB member Monty Goldman agreed with SA members that we need to talk. Hopefully CPBers have begun to see the importance of left unity and will overcome their sectarianism.

However, there is still fear among some CPB members about the fact that the constituent parts of the SA have different ideas and that the lack of certainty about the ?line? may create chaos. In particular the issue of Europe and the euro is one that appeared to concern those CPB members to whom I spoke. But an approach to the CPB is on the agenda for the next SA officers? meeting and there appears to be general agreement on both sides that we need dialogue.

As readers will no doubt be aware, June 7 also saw three council by-elections in the north of the borough, which the SA contested. The most politically significant for the left was Northwold ward, where the Socialist Party stood an anti-cuts candidate, sponsored by some local Unison stewards, against the SA. Previous reports in the Weekly Worker have catalogued the events leading up to this split and criticised the SP?s refusal to play any positive role in the SA, despite its formal membership.

In essence the SP ran a similar campaign to that of Hackney First, a new localist grouping - simply concentrating on cuts - and the SP?s final leaflet dropped even its former commitment to fighting racism. The votes reflected the essential similarity between the campaigns with the anti-cuts vote divided exactly evenly between Hackney First and the SP. SA candidate Diana Swingler gained 187 votes (6.3%), while both anti-cuts candidates got 145 (4.8%).

The SA?s result was positive, as our literature had focused strongly on the issue of asylum-seekers - quite rightly fighting to win working class people away from the nationalism and bigotry so prevalent in the present climate. In Queensbridge we also won 6.3% and in the Tory seat of Springield the SA received 3.7%.

In the aftermath of the election it is difficult to know if the SP will come back into Hackney SA. It is certainly being encouraged by the CPGB to do so and we have fought for its inclusion on the officers? committee and in meetings. However, it is ultimately up to the SP itself. It distributed a leaflet at the recent forum to discuss the way forward for the SA which set out its version of events in the last few months and called on the SA ?not to repeat the mistakes of Northwold?.

One SP member, Jude Ritchie, said at the June 21 forum, attended by over 100 people, that Unison is considering standing candidates across Hackney in the local elections next year and called on the SA not to stand against them. Unfortunately his contribution showed that the SP is still playing games. It knows full well that the 1989 Local Government Act prevents workers standing for the council which employs them. When its preferred anti-cuts candidate, SP member Brian Debus, a Hackney council employee, was informed that he could not stand in the Northwold by-election, the SP had to bring in another of its comrades, Glenn Kelly, to replace him.

This ?Unison? decision (more likely a decision of SP Unison members) to contest council elections is again simply a posture to hide the truth - ie, that the SP does not want to be in a minority in the SA. The real agenda of the SP could be gleaned underneath all the lies and distortions in the leaflet to the forum. This advocated a federal structure for the SA, where ?Individual workers and different political groups ... can work together while retaining their independent ideas and organisations.? Crucially, ?Decisions about who should stand in particular wards ... should be reached by democratic discussion and consensus? (my emphasis). Therefore no vote should be taken so that the SP is not asked to abide by decisions.

It is clear that the SP in Hackney is being used to further the narrow ambitions of Peter Taaffe and his attempts to wreck the SA project. In a borough which is one of the most leftwing in Britain this is a remarkable piece of sectarianism.

But, however wrong the SP is to abstain from the struggle within the SA, there is a truth - exaggerated, to be sure - about the methods of the Socialist Workers Party. It appears in the aftermath of the election that sections of the SWP leadership want to make the SA in their own image. The platform of speakers for the forum held last Thursday became the focus of argument and disagreement between SA officers at our first meeting after the election.

The platform was initially to have consisted of Neil Thompson, FBU militant and SA candidate for St Helens South, and Cecilia Prosper. However, at the end of the officers? meeting the SWP also put forward Lindsay German and either Mike Marqusee or Will McMahon for the independents. This was objected to by several non-aligned comrades, as it was argued that Lindsay German had not played any role in the SA and if we wanted another speaker it should be from the executive.

By force of numbers the SWP won its preferred platform. SWP members, clearly under instruction, were not about to listen to any of the objections from independents and the CPGB. An internal SWP document has apparently instructed members to push for platforms at post-election meetings to be comprised of Lindsey German, or another prominent SWPer, along with an independent. All other constituent views should only be voiced from the floor. Such a policy is apparently designed to push the smaller organisations - known inside the SWP as ?the sects? - to the margins.

But if pursued it will almost certainly backfire on the SWP. It is not only the CPGB, the Alliance for Workers? Liberty and Workers Power that do not want to be pushed around and denied democratic rights. Leading independents Liz Davies and Mike Marqusee have made it known very clearly that, having left behind the control-freakery of New Labour, they are not about to put up with an undemocratic SA. Other new members recruited over the election campaign have also said in discussions that they joined the SA, not the SWP. Unless the SWP starts to operate as a democratic majority it will strangle the SA project.

In any event Lindsey German?s speech at the forum did not contain any real ideas about how we should take the SA forward. She simply focused on a description of the period, one which she maintained is positive in terms of working class militancy. Our class, she argued, is emerging out of a period of defeat stretching back to the miners? strike. She did not, however, explain why it was that throughout the best part of that period the SWP has been telling anyone who would listen that we were now in an ?upturn? and it was a fantastic time to be a socialist, claiming that strikes, militancy, etc were on the increase despite the official statistics. Her reply to the CPGB?s argument about the need for a party was that we cannot simply declare the SA a party and we need to go through a period of recomposition.

Mike Marqusee disagreed with the idea of a revolutionary party as he said it would be an obstacle to winning people. However, he did say that he would be arguing for a membership rather than a federal structure for the SA nationally. He will be putting forward proposals for a charter of members? rights which will include the right to sell your own publication and other democratic rights.

Neil Thompson spoke of his experiences and the FBU vote on Labour Party funding. He also reported that Mike Perry, the Socialist Labour Party candidate who stood against him in St Helens, came to him after the election and said he would be campaigning for the SA next time round. This is clearly very positive and should be used by the SA nationally to urge SLP militants to follow his example.

In summing up, both Lindsey German and Mike Marqusee welcomed the fact that some leading SLP members are coming over to the SA. Also in that vein, they condemned the SP for its sectarianism and dishonesty in the council by-election. The chair, Anne Mc Shane, called on the SP to come back on board the SA and has made follow-up attempts to ensure they come to officers? meetings.

But, however right Lindsey German is to take the SP to task for not participating properly in the SA, the SWP leadership?s own reluctance to commit itself to the next logical step for the SA project is evident. It appears that there is confusion about what to do. People have been encouraged by the new culture in the SA. Many SWP members enjoy being in such a relatively open organisation. There must be no retreat to the old ways.

The capacity of the SA to create a momentum around it in Hackney can be seen in the success of SA-backed campaigns to keep nurseries and community centres open, against the ongoing vigorous efforts of the council to inflict cuts. The Labour group has regained control of the council after the by-elections and is waging a vicious campaign to gag the SA. At the count on election night, at the instigation of senior council officers, the election agent for Hackney South and Shoreditch was served with an injunction. This injunction barred us not only from flyposting, but also from putting up removable placards on lamp posts or trees - something that is considered to be a legal and perfectly acceptable election activity in many parts of the country.

In their eagerness to gag us the Labour bureaucrats even went so far as to pay a private detective to visit John Rothery, one of the national SA officers, 150 miles away in Walsall. They are also taking a civil action against us for ?6,100 - what they claim are the costs of removing placards put up before we were served with the injunction. Now we are also being told that the SA cannot hire meeting rooms in community centres run by the council.

SA officers agreed to launch a campaign against this massive attack on freedom of expression. With the council preparing to push through a new round of cuts, Labour is clearly out to gag the SA. But this is not just a Hackney question - it is an issue for the workers? movement as a whole. If Hackney council gets away with this it will be used against the SA and the left throughout the country. It appears to be the first time such action has been taken against a political group during election time.

We are producing publicity materials and a petition to be circulated in the workers? movement and among civil liberties groups. We will also be campaigning among the working class in Hackney to make the link between the economic struggle and the fight for democracy. It is ironic that this attack has forced the SA to take democracy seriously. More and more it is becoming an issue - both within and without.