15.11.2001

Democracy and the anti-war movement

Singer Damon Albarn spoke for millions when he collected his MTV award last week. In front of a live TV audience, he said: ?Fuck the music. Bombing one of the poorest countries in the world is wrong. You?ve got the voice: use it.?

On November 18, up to 100,000 people are expected to use their voice and attend the national anti-war demonstration in London called by the Stop the War Coalition - one of the biggest that Britain has seen for decades. More and more people are questioning a military attack led by a shaky coalition that cannot even say who exactly their enemy is or what their war aims for a post-Taliban Afghanistan are.

All the more important that the anti-war movement gets itself organised in order to provide a democratic leadership to all those people who not only want to stop the war, but are looking for alternative answers. It is good to see the left exercising leadership and beginning to make a real impact on British politics. Effectively the lead banner has passed from the pacifist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament to the Stop the War Coalition.

However, pacifism is still looming large in the coalition, along with political slogans that offer hidden political support to the regime in Afghanistan. Then there is the lack of democracy.

Communists will fight hard to build a big anti-war movement. But without criticism of where we are now, we will never get to where we want to be. A few points will illustrate the current problems the coalition needs urgently to address.

Inclusiveness: On the national meeting of the Stop the War Coalition in London on October 28, the CPGB and the Alliance for Workers? Liberty were excluded from the executive committee for putting forward a minority position: whereas the main enemy is undoubtedly at home in the form of the UK and US governments, it is important also to oppose islamic fundamentalism and fight for democracy and secularism everywhere, our motion argued.

There are now some 40 people on the new executive - virtually everybody nominated was voted through - amongst them Carlos Rule, member of the Stalin Society and the Socialist Labour Party. The only people the Socialist Workers Party majority voted against were the representatives of the CPGB and AWL. When Anne Mc Shane of the CPGB proposed the inclusion of all those nominated, comrade Lindsey German from the SWP made clear that for her we had committed a cardinal sin: ?How can you expect to be voted on the executive committee if you don?t agree with our aims and objectives??

In fact, our comrades had pledged to build the anti-war movement, despite our differences.

Interestingly, the SWP?s sister organisation in Pakistan, the International Socialist Group, also has a position of arguing against islamic fundamentalism. In an SWP email circular we read their report of a demonstration in Pakistan: ?We had placards denouncing war, religious extremism, interference in Afghan affairs, consequences of war on Pakistan, etc. At the end of the protest march a few rightwingers who were with us in the march objected to the religious extremism placards and one was torn apart? (my emphasis Anti-War Notes 4 November 8).

Democracy and openness: One of the first decisions of the new executive was to stop the weekly open organising meetings, ?which will now be held monthly? (STWC email circular, November 7). Fifty or so people were not told in time and vainly stood around waiting for a meeting that did not happen.

This is a very unfortunate decision. The open meetings saw, week after week, up to 700 people discussing issues relating to the war - which shows that there is a real desire on the left to talk big politics. A monthly meeting is bound to be reduced to rubber-stamping decisions that the exclusive executive committee has made in the meantime. Where or how often this committee meets is treated as a secret. Non-elected members are no longer welcome.

Debates and decisions of the executive are not properly reported anywhere. Independent members of the STWC or those whose organisations are not represented can only guess at what is being discussed. For example, at the meeting on October 28 the executive presented its proposed aims for the coalition. Instead of the earlier formulation, ?We do not condone the attacks in New York?, the statement of aims now reads, ?We condemn the attacks in New York.?

How did this happen? In earlier public meetings the SWP fought tooth and nail for the coalition not to make this change (which is of course in line with the SWP?s own position - it still has not condemned the attacks in any of its publications). Was the SWP outvoted in an executive meeting? Did it give in voluntarily? Those who hope to find answers in the first and so far only issue of the STWC bulletin will be disappointed. We only find resolutions of the Media Workers Against the War and fact sheets such as ?Why this war is wrong?.

On November 7 an STWC email circular commenting on national anti-war activities stated: ?Latest reports include a meeting of 500 in Oxford (Chelsea Clinton was there!)?. Without any more information, this snippet gives the impression that Chelsea Clinton supports the coalition. Not true, of course. Unfortunately we have to rely on the bourgeois press to find out what really happened : ?Chelsea Clinton was among a group of American students which disrupted an anti-war meeting in Oxford,? says the front page of The Times (November 10).

Politics: Representing the coalition on ?Newsnight? on November 8, the SWP?s Lindsey German was asked to describe our view of September 11. She repeated the old position: ?We do not condone those attacks.? A slip of the tongue? Maybe. But it does quite clearly reflect the SWP?s position of hidden political support for the Taliban. While the comrades of Workers Power at least have the guts to come out openly with their - wrong - demand to ?defend Afghanistan?, the SWP?s support is merely inferred.

In a recent issue of Socialist Worker, we read the following: ?The Taliban?s treatment of women reflects both the underdevelopment of the villages the Taliban had come from and the trauma of the war years. Like every other guerrilla group, they were composed of men who had spent years in fighting units. Taliban leaders feared that their soldiers would behave as some previous mujahedin groups had on taking a city. The war years had seen repeated abuse and rape of women. They said that forcing women into seclusion was a means of protecting them? (October 6).

The anti-war movement does not have to apologise or defend the appalling regime of the Taliban. We have to make clear that we are against the imperialists, along with their Northern Alliance allies, and the utterly inhuman and reactionary Taliban regime. There is a third, independent working class, position.

Building the movement: We are told that the coalition must not criticise islamic fundamentalism, because our movement needs to be as broad as possible. ?Of course as an individual I oppose fundamentalism and I oppose the Taliban. But we will have more people on our marches if we do not raise too much politics,? argued Suresh Grover from the National Civil Rights Movement at the October 28 meeting, backed up by the SWP?s leading theoretician, Alex Callinicos: ?Let?s not down the winning formula for our broad movement with all sorts of political demands.? Clearly, for these comrades the movement is more important than the aim.

These kinds of politics are a step back from the progress that has been made in the Socialist Alliance. The role of the alliance has been criminally downplayed in the coalition. Many local SA branches have practically disappeared - they will no doubt be revived in time for next year?s local elections - while most SA members are actually carrying on meeting - under the far less organised umbrella of the Stop the War Coalition. The current level of democracy, openness and political debate in the coalition is far below that achieved in the alliance.

Tina Becker