01.08.2001

Hackney

Putting federalism above democracy

On July 25, Hackney Socialist Alliance had a members meeting to discuss a new constitution for the election of officers. As usual, there were far too many items on the agenda to be properly debated within the allotted time, but the meeting decided to take a series of report-backs with a minimum of comment.

Naturally we had a report from Genoa. Two members of Hackney Unison, Nicola Docherty and Richard Moth, who had been beaten up by the police in Genoa, had just got back home safe and unbowed, but physically battered. Another Unison member has been sentenced to a year in jail in Sweden as a result of the Gothenburg demonstration. We pledged our support.

Other report-backs included a Turkish comrade on the death fasts in Turkish prisons, which is also opening up the possibility of Turkish and Kurdish revolutionaries becoming more involved in British political activities. In addition several local issues were briefly covered regarding Hackney?s corrupt and incompetent council. They needed more discussion, but had to be referred back to the officers for more detailed consideration.

Turning to the new constitution, previously we had guaranteed a position for each of the groups that made up the Socialist Alliance on the executive committee, a system that aimed to ensure a political balance. Except that the Socialist Party had no members on the executive because they refused to get involved.

The new constitution is based on ?one person, one vote?, but the executive recommended a list, that included comrades from all the groups and which also aimed to maintain a political balance. This was voted through with only two abstentions (SP) and one against (Workers International Press).

The Socialist Party opposed the change, preferring we kept the old ?federalist? constitution at least until the national conference in December. They argued that they wanted to stand as Socialist Alliance candidates if they could stand on their own programme, but reserved the right to stand alone if they so wished. They could not accept being ?dictated to? by the Socialist Workers Party. This was not intended as an ultimatum, claimed SP comrades, but a defence of federalism. A rather tetchy SWP, provoked by the SP?s pious hypocrisy, pointed out that the SA could not be held to ransom in this way and the SP should make up their mind whether they were in or out.

The executive agreed that Hackney would accept any national conference decision, but in the meantime a functional executive was needed to handle the large amount of work we are burdened with. Change should not be delayed.

Liz Davies, former Labour Party national executive member, made it explicit that she had no intention of joining the SWP, but wanted to see the Socialist Alliance move forward. She stated that independents like herself did not enjoy automatic representation on the executive and were therefore completely excluded by the old constitution. They could of course be coopted onto committees by the groups, but they had no rights per se. Only ?one person, one vote? could ensure their equality.

As is usual with these occasional debates with the Socialist Party comrades, it soon transpired that their fondness for federalism is based solely on their hatred and distrust of the SWP. George Binette of Workers Power, speaking in favour of SP involvement, pointed out that the proposed constitution had been opposed by the SWP. Will McMahon secretary of the executive committee, himself an ex-Labour Party member, said that the SWP was probably in a minority on the committee and that he was prepared to argue for a special extra guaranteed place on the committee for the SP if it would come on board and play a positive role. The SWP also made it clear that it wanted the SP comrades to be active members of the SA and was not plotting against them.

In my contribution I pointed out that we had leant over backwards to bring the SP on board because we wanted the unity of the left. However, the SP?s position, that it must have the right to do whatever it wants, is anti-democratic and disenfranchises the SA as a whole. The Socialist Party was simply unprepared to submit itself to the will of the majority when it comes to common actions and was putting itself and its narrow interests above the Socialist Alliance.

Such pleading earned a haughty retort from the SP speaker - to the effect that there were no real independents in the SA, just docile acolytes of the SWP. The SP refused to participate on any committee, obviously unprepared to test its anti-SWP paranoia. This was no attempt to win friends and influence people, but a ham-fisted sectarianism which alienated everyone.

In Hackney the SP has not only organised separately from the SA, but quite intentionally against us. A couple of months ago I was leafleting on one side of Stoke Newington High Street for the SA candidate in the June 7 council by-election, while the SP leafleted for its own candidate on the other side of the street. If you read the two leaflets the biggest difference was the candidates? picture. In fact the SA majority and the SP both have the same economistic method.

Phil Kent