08.11.2001

Sectarianism and a binary constitution

Jack Conrad argues that there are right and wrong ways of fighting sectarianism and achieving unity

Having dealt with the Socialist Workers Party and its inherited ?statement of aims? in the first article of this short series, we reach ?membership?. In general this section - as treated by the SWP - has the definite virtue of moving the Socialist Alliance decisively beyond being an amorphous ?confederation? of political groups and individual members who might or might not be factionally attached.

Individual membership would constitute the bedrock of the Socialist Alliance. One system of membership operates - dues are collected below and after deductions pass upwards. There is no mention of trade unions or the political groups being granted special access to leading committees - though clause B6 does somewhat obscurely talk of ?other forms of affiliation?. At our stage of development this is quite acceptable ... there is no urgent need to give concrete answers on trade union affiliation, etc. The SWP?s proposals must though be improved by some judicious amendments.

Running through clauses B1, B3 and B4 one finds repeated formulations that it would be best for all concerned to swiftly cut out and discard. And then there is the toxic clause C13. Here is what we are complaining about: members have to ?abide? by the ?anti-sectarian, cooperative and positive way of working? (B1). Membership ?assumes? a ?commitment to the anti-sectarian and cooperative way of working, looking to build unity rather than set out a position to create discord, positively supporting and encouraging the notion of alliances and ensuring that any critical debates are conducted in a positive manner and without personal attacks? (B3). ?Individual members are thus welcome from other groups and organisations and membership of these should be declared on application/renewal of membership? (B4). Clause C13 gives despotic powers to the executive. At a whim it can ?disaffiliate? local Socialist Alliances, ?remove individual membership? and ?refuse to ratify? candidates if it is ?concluded that the basic statement of aims has been breached?.

Such clauses are either irrelevant pieties, in which case they should be deleted, or sinister. These formulations could be used to expel almost anyone. Eg, is the Socialist Party in England and Wales consistently ?anti-sectarian, positive and cooperative? in its ways of working with the Socialist Alliance?

There must be specific rules making it a disciplinary offence to support candidates running against the Socialist Alliance. A code of membership duties is needed as well as rights. For our part we can agree with a good deal of the SWP?s four ?requirements of membership? (Pre-conference bulletin 2001 p21). No one can argue with the fourth criterion, the obligation to pay the ?relevant membership free?. However, we do have differences, albeit those of detail, with the first three.

1. Members must ?support? Socialist Alliance ?candidates and campaigns in elections? - why support just elections? This formulation is both too broad and too narrow. Replace with a duty ?not to oppose? Socialist Alliance candidates or obstruct campaigns. That would represent a vital step forward without running ahead of ourselves. 2. Members must behave ?in a democratic and cooperative manner?. Moralistic and again much too wide. Why not simply say that members are obliged to ?abide by the rules of the Socialist Alliance?? 3. ?No racist, sexist, homophobic and discriminatory behaviour?. Something along these lines could be included in our constitution. As an aim, not a membership requirement. Society at large is still riddled with racist ideas (not to mention an overarching national chauvinism). What of sexism and homophobia? Can any of us really say with hand on heart that they are completely free of sexist or homophobic attitudes? And do not attitudes reflect themselves in behaviour, even if that is only at the level of body language? Should the Socialist Alliance set up special courts to vet recruits and expel miscreants? I think not. Racist, sexist and homophobic behaviour ought to be combated within the Socialist Alliance - and we ought to promise that will happen. But how?

Here is an example of good practice I witnessed. I was pleased to attend the Scottish Socialist Party?s 2nd conference in Edinburgh as a visitor. One of the most contentious debates on the first day surprisingly concerned clause 28. A handful of SSP members rose to argue against backing the abolitionists. Their excuse was that the SSP would drive away wide swathes of the Scottish population if it ?sided? with homosexuality. One million people in Scotland did indeed sign up to Brian Sutor?s bigot?s referendum to retain clause 28 (so much for Scotland being far ahead of England and Wales in terms of political consciousness).

Anyway, what impressed me was not so much the passionate rhetoric directed against these prejudiced souls. Rather it was the fact that no one threatened them with expulsion. That approach - unity in action - is the correct way to overcome backward ideas. Note the SSP went into the June 7 2001 general election with a manifesto commitment to oppose homophobia.

The Socialist Alliance should move by degrees - as fast as possible, as slow as necessary - towards achieving the fullest unity in democratically agreed actions. As a precondition the right to criticise before and after, must, of course, be enshrined. Such discipline is an aspiration though and must primarily be brought to life through common political struggle, patient education and raising consciousness. There should be no right of minorities to ?actively? campaign against the Socialist Alliance during an action as proposed by the Workers? Liberty comrades (Pre-conference bulletin 2001 p26). That is to positively institutionalise disunity. Membership should, in the words of the CPGB?s amendment, carry ?an obligation not to obstruct? campaigns decided on the Socialist Alliance, if by that is meant a definite action.

The Socialist Alliance must stress unity in action, not unity in thought. Catch-all ideological offences must certainly be avoided. Sectarianism, for example, is in the eye of the beholder. It is also one of the most notoriously misused words in the lexicon of the workers? movement. As a grapeshot insult it is meant to send every critic, every thinker and virtually every left group flying. Sectarianism is often casually equated with all small groups as such and, more to the point, holding strong principles.

Sectarianism is actually putting the interests of the part above the working class as a whole. True, many left and revolutionary groups function as sects: ie, their overriding reason for existence is the promotion of some special discovery or unique ideological recipe. The SWP and SPEW being prominent examples. But such essentially ?honest? sectarianism cannot be abolished by decree (or membership clause). It can only be overcome through joint work, exchanging ideas and the subsequent growth of trust. Ending sectarianism must be envisaged as a process.

Leave aside the SWP?s threat to ?remove? members or candidates who ?breach? the rambling nonsense in the ?basic aims? (C13); what of debate being ?conducted in a positive manner and without personal attack?? This again can easily be transformed into a catch-all which permits an irresponsible majority to witch-hunt any dissenting minority that is considered a nuisance or a threat.

Is this article ?positive?? It will, I sincerely trust, ?create discord? in certain quarters. And the author makes no apology for attacking individuals when and where he considers them to be in the wrong. I am confident that hardened politicians such as Peter Taaffe and Clive Heemskerk, John Rees and Lindsay German, Martin Thomas and Mark Hoskisson are not going to wilt. They will, if they see fit, reply - no doubt in kind.

Certainly when it comes to acidic invective, few of us can match our greats: eg, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky, etc. Marx was once described by an infuriated opponent as an insult on legs. He was determined to expose ridiculous ideas by making them appear ridiculous. That method is one that we should not be afraid to emulate. The benchmark of a civilised political culture is the right to insult and offend others - though there is no need to include the right to insult and offend in our rules.

Purging and witch-hunting? Are we suffering from paranoia? Or do real grounds for concern exist? Forget the SWP?s murky internal life, the tangled history of expulsions and the recent excommunication of the International Socialist Organization. The SWP?s sister organisation in the USA suffered a rude expulsion from their International Socialist Tendency over what appears to be pure semantics. Was the Seattle movement anti-capitalist or anti-corporate? Look to our own Socialist Alliance. Not so long ago within the Socialist Alliance - yes, despite the SA?s ?commitment to the anti-sectarian and cooperative way of working? - the CPGB has found itself on the receiving end of a whole series of attempts to bar or browbeat. Shamefully both the SWP and SPEW involved themselves in such moves.

Charges invariably referred to the Weekly Worker?s failure to abide by what might be called the ?commitment to the anti-sectarian and cooperative way of working?. Polemics and reporting disputes - signs of a healthy political culture - were equated with sectarianism and were therefore by definition outside the norms of the Socialist Alliance. Thankfully, for the moment at least, wiser councils have prevailed.

In light of that background we view the SWP?s membership clause B4 with some trepidation. The clause is directly carried over from the March 1999 original: ?Individual members are ... welcome from other groups and organisations and membership of these should be declared on application/renewal of membership of the Socialist Alliance? (Pre-conference bulletin 2001 p19).

Five brief points. One, our present membership forms do not ask for such information. Two, a central membership list which includes factional affiliation would superbly expedite any witch-hunt. Neil Kinnock would have given his right hand for such a weapon, as he rounded on Militant in the mid-1980s. Three, justification for requiring a declaration of factional affiliation derived from the elaborate collegiate elections envisaged by the Liaison Committee in 1998-99. Four, the SWP?s constitutional amendment contains no such collegiate system - it proposes election by slate. Five, there is no need to introduce a declaration of factional affiliation on membership forms. Every reason to remove the formulation from our constitution.

It is SPEW that needs to maintain B4 if it is to fulfil its mission of rolling the Socialist Alliance back into a loose conglomeration of local and political groups. SPEW and its anarcho and localist allies of convenience are even less ambitious for the Socialist Alliance than the SWP. When not holding back finances in their ?war? on the SWP and those ?heavily inclined to support? them, SPEW is set upon little more than an election nonaggression pact (SPEW national circular, December 21 2000). Along with Bakunin, their organisational totem is federalism. Therefore SPEW?s constitution provides for what it calls members? platforms.

Let us call one of them the Socialist Party platform. These members? platforms possess awesome power, including the right to freely veto decisions at a local and regional level. Changes to the constitution by the annual conference are also subject to a members? platform veto. Put in a nutshell, the SP platform has the anarchistic right to do as it pleases while being able to bureaucratically overrule any majority. With two-faced cynicism this is all proposed in the name of winning workers and those entering into struggle. A worthy objective. However, the constitution proposed by SPEW does not attract. Rather it repels.

Militant workers know from bitter experience of the real world the benefits that come from effective organisation. Few have the slightest trouble understanding the advantages of democracy. Trade unions expect minorities who have voted against strike action to abide by majority decisions and respect picket lines. Minorities certainly have no right of veto. The Socialist Alliance should embody democracy and effectiveness in its constitution. The scabs? charter drafted by SPEW must be rejected.

The annual conference, in SPEW?s constitution, decides the policy of the Socialist Alliance. This will be ?open to all members?. The SWP uses the same C1 formulation, so a specific comment on the annual conference is necessary. Obviously a strong geographical bias is inevitable if we leave conference - that is, conference votes - open to all members. Those living nearby the location find it easy to attend. Those living far away will not. That is why a system of elected delegates is far more democratic. We look forward to such an arrangement (there should be encouragement for minorities to be generously represented: eg, if a local Socialist Alliance is given five delegates, the executive committee could recommend that two of them represent minority viewpoints).

Not surprisingly the executive committee proposed by the SPEW comrades champions the parts rather than the whole. Six officers - party leader, treasurer, etc - will be elected by single transferable vote. Then we have six ?representatives? of individual members; three ?representatives? of the Socialist Alliance?s Euro-MPs, MPs, councillors, etc; five trade union ?representatives?, who ?must be either a national officer, or executive member of a TUC-recognised trade union?; and finally there are the members? platform ?representatives?. Through this collegiate system, with its complex set of restrictions, women-only places, etc, SPEW could find itself eclipsing the SWP as the dominant faction on our leadership.

All such constructs now represent an obstacle to deepening unity and effectiveness. The same goes for special ?guarantees?. Workers Power, for example, not only wants automatic representation for the six principal supporting organisations on the executive: it would give the same status to all ?affiliated labour movement or community organisations? (Pre-conference bulletin 2001 p23). That is to ask for our executive committee to be flooded with ?representatives? of hollow trades councils, defunct union branches and dubious local campaigns. A factionalists? dream world. A nightmare for the Socialist Alliance.

SPEW adds another bureaucratic twist of its own by inserting a clause which limits the influence of political organisations. No more than 40% of officers ?at all levels? shall belong to any one members? platform (Pre-conference bulletin 2001 p23). Unless ?all? members? platforms ?agree?. To ensure this SPEW has to have the B4 declaration of factional affiliation.

On the contrary we say voters - ie, members or delegates - in the Socialist Alliance must be free to elect whomsoever they see fit. Presumably in the SPEW system successful candidates would be declared null and void and be turfed out if they took the quota of their political organisation above the 40% cutoff? And who decides which candidate is to be given the boot? What happens if one of the officers subsequently decided to join a members? platform and thereby took it over the fixed quota? What happens if the SWP absorbs the International Socialist Group? Would lists of nominations ?at all levels? be policed by the executive committee? The SPEW constitution is actually not designed to work. It is unworkable. But it does serve as a - threadbare - propaganda cover for SPEW?s anarchist rejection of Socialist Alliance democracy.

So how should the executive committee be elected? The SWP proposes election by slate. A number of other submissions, including the CPGB?s, use exactly the same formulation. After thinking about it, I now believe this to be a mistake. How it is supposed to function can be gleaned from the SWP?s ?national policy-making structure? section. The ?alternative vote? system suggested by the SWP means that members/delegates will chose in descending order between rival slates. If no slate gains an absolute majority, then the slate with the least votes will be eliminated and those votes distributed according to the next preference. In the course of that process one slate sooner or latter gains an absolute majority. The 20 or 30 comrades on that slate now constitute our executive committee.

What are the pitfalls? Ownership of the slates lies not with the conference. The parts, the factions, draw up their preferred list and bargain with various individuals and competing factions. At present that means the SWP rules supreme. Everyone else can only hope to gain a place on the leadership of our organisation at the behest of that faction. Backroom deals will determine the content of the majority slate. There is no transparency. No democratic supervision. Dave Church, the Socialist Alliance?s membership secretary, is not off the mark when he says that individual, unaligned, members are ?becoming wary? that our present arrangement could leave them in the position of being ?used? by the principal supporting organisations (Pre-conference bulletin 2001 p10). That wariness can only but be compounded by introducing the SWP?s slate system.

A couple of other objections. One, the existence of excluded, oppositional, factions are encouraged, not discouraged. Two, non-factional individuals - that is, those unaligned ?independents? not included on the majority slate - have no chance of finding their way through. Popular, but perhaps difficult, comrades will either have to draw up their own or stand on equally no-hope slates. That or kowtow before the dominant faction. A bad atmosphere which rewards toadying, not forthright criticism.

No doubt the SWP has every intention of being generous. The five other principal supporting groups and a favoured selection of aligned independents will be included. But that is not the point. No one denies that the majority has the absolute right to determine the composition of leading committees. But such a right can either be exercised with a heavy hand or through a much lighter, indirect, touch.

A recommended list drawn up by an election preparation committee benefits the whole while taking nothing away, in terms of rights, from the majority or dominant faction. How does such a system work? The retiring executive committee appoints an interim election preparation committee. The remit is to draw up a list of comrades to be recommended to the Socialist Alliance?s annual conference. There are guidelines which stipulate the need achieve a balanced list. Eg, gender, ethnic background, political faction, experience and geography.

The idea is not so much to achieve fairness in an unfair society. Rather the election preparation committee has the job of considering what collectivity would give us the best Socialist Alliance leadership. An alloy that fuses diverse strengths makes the sharpest, the toughest sword.

Once conference opens, this committee immediately becomes the servant or property of the members/delegates. The election preparation committee must be democratically confirmed and can be changed. The chair of the election preparation committee begins by delivering a preliminary report to conference. Members/delegates each receive a printed list of all the nominations to the executive committee along with initial recommendations. There will be a number of other similar reports at set intervals.

The election preparation committee meets in almost permanent session. Members or delegations can oppose or support this or that candidate or combination of candidates before the committee. Are there enough women? What about this prominent Socialist Alliance councillor? Why is that windbag included? Subsequent deliberations are reported to conference by the chair and can, of course, be challenged.

Another plus: members/delegates can actually listen to and judge various candidates in the course of the conference and its deliberations. Both those who are, or who are not, on the recommended list. Excluded minorities, awkward but valuable individuals, have the distinct possibility of breaking the recommended list ... if the election preparation committee has steered in the direction of exclusion as opposed to inclusion. Voting is after all by named individual, not a take-it-or-leave-it slate. Every member/delegate has a set number of votes, say 20, and can cast them for any nominated comrade they wish. For the sake of illustration that could include 19 votes for those on the recommended list and one who is not. Inclusion invites votes for the whole list, while exclusion would not.

A final point. There is no ban on factions, or even non-factional factions, drawing up their own recommended lists. But, instead of setting up one slate against another in a winner-takes-all gladiatorial contest, the election preparation committee and individual voting system advocated here institutionalises the huge advantages to be gained from collectively drawing upon all talents, all factions and all strengths. The dominant faction is subject to moral pressure and scrutiny. No more. The recommended list system is not perfect. No system can claim that. It is though admirably suited to the Socialist Alliance.

The CPGB welcomes the proposal coming from the SWP that officers should be directly appointed by the executive committee itself. C5 actually says ?from amongst? the executive. The treasurer, chair, nominating officer, trade union organiser, etc, should be elected when and where needed, not according to some snapshot popularity poll by an atomised membership. That is right. The mayoral or presidential system never had a legitimate place in our tradition. It crowns would-be labour kings like Arthur Scargill. Officers should be strictly accountable to their peers. They should be elected and replaceable by those whom they work alongside. If a comrade drops out because of illness, pique or work pressures, another comrade can easily be elected. By the same measure those officers who fail or who become isolated from the political majority can be replaced without humiliation or the drama of a full-blown special conference.

Incidentally, while on the subject of officers, there have been some foolish mutterings, warning us against the idea of authoritative leaders. For example, having clashed with Dave Nellist, our chair, on more than one occasion, John Nicholson, our joint coordinator, says he wants to avoid what he calls the ?cult of leadership?. He has floated the suggestion of two co-chairs. His model is the Green Party. Ours should be the Bolshevik Party and Lenin. August Bebel, Rosa Luxemburg and Leon Trotsky could also be cited. Communists and revolutionary socialists treasure and well know the value of tried and tested leaders.

Tommy Sheridan has for instance played an outstanding role in the Scottish Socialist Party as an acknowledged leader - putting to one side ideological criticisms of his left reformism, nationalism, etc. As long as there is the robust culture of questioning, regular elections, recallability and the right to form temporary or permanent factions, then there should be no fear of ?leadership cults?. Certainly what the Socialist Alliance has suffered from is lack of leadership, not the cult of leadership. We therefore seek to create the conditions for more and better leadership.

Having said that, what rhyme or reason is there in listing six named positions in the SWP?s constitution - unless there is a legal requirement? We support the principle of every level of the Socialist Alliance electing, and if need be recalling, its officers. But flexibility when it comes to specific positions and responsibilities is best way to proceed. The executive should also be able to appoint officers and subcommittees from outside its ranks too. The idea of cooption, albeit by a two-thirds majority (included in C7), is not, however, one we would support unless those elected were limited to a voice but no vote on the executive committee. Cooption with a vote is prone to flagrant abuse. That way a majority can make itself into an overbearing one.

There is a constitutional time bomb ticking in the SWP?s constitutional clauses C9 to C14. The comrades call this time bomb the Socialist Alliance?s ?national council? (Pre-conference bulletin 2001 p20). Their national council will consist of members of the executive committee along with one delegate from each affiliated local and regional Socialist Alliance. The national council ?will be able to determine policy? and in parallel to the executive committee ?will be responsible for the running of the national organisation, for finances, membership, arrangements of national meetings, communications with local groups and individuals, national bulletin production and distribution, liaison with other groups and organisations, arrangements for seeking and enabling electoral unity; and any other matters delegated to them by the annual conference? (C12).

Why two committees and the entwining of powers? Revolutionary socialists and communists have in general opposed bicameral constitutions as much as they have the election of monarchical officers. The executive-national council division is a recipe for generating tension, though the eventual triumph of the executive over the national council is almost inevitable. One meets frequently, monthly, and consists of those with the levers entirely in their hands. The other is slow, quarterly, and easily thwarted. Frustration, however, breeds resentment and even revolt. An appeals committee, or control commission, would be an excellent idea. But two centres of executive power will structurally imbalance and weaken the Socialist Alliance.

In the midst of a big political challenge - a general election, outbreak of war, etc - that could prove very harmful. A concrete example. The Socialist Alliance executive committee agreed to condemn the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The SWP found itself in a small minority. The subsequent Liaison Committee - to all intents and purposes the national council by another name - meeting on October 6 had a clear SWP majority. It could have reversed that ?condemn? formulation with the SWP?s ?we cannot condone? if the issue had been pressed.

At present that would not trigger a constitutional crisis. The Liaison Committee elects the executive. What happens though when that is no longer the case? What happens when two committees are elected according to two different systems and therefore rest on two different sources of legitimacy - on the one hand the annual conference and on the other a quarterly mixture of executive members and branch and regional delegates.

Calling regular delegate meetings to discuss and vote on specific questions would be beneficial. The national council should be able to decide upon all matters put to it by the executive committee. Votes have an indicative status - a declaration, a call, a considered opinion, etc. But introducing dual power - a second centre of power, a House of Lords - is to set the stage for a damaging clash. Much better to have a clear line of responsibility going from the top to the bottom: at the apex stands the annual conference with legitimacy running down from there to the executive - which represents the whole in between the annual conference - and then to the regions, workplace and geographical branches, and finally the individual member. This is the sort of organisational structure favoured and advocated by the CPGB.