29.11.2001

Conference - a rough guide

John Bridge, a member of the Socialist Alliance conference arrangements committee, goes through the ins and outs of the December 1 conference and gives some partisan guidance

Time will be a cruel master on December 1. On the massively overcrowded agenda there is a rally; a batch of points of order and procedural motions; half a dozen rival constitutions, a complex raft of amendments and alternative methods of choosing the executive; and, topping that, there is the question of a Socialist Alliance paper and the aim of becoming a party. A tall order for a one-day conference.

Consequently the CAC?s scheduled timetable puts limits on opening speeches of five minutes, even two minutes. Fall behind and the whole thing is in danger of going off the rails and collapsing into complete chaos. An ever present danger.

Workers Power is demagogically arguing for an hour?s debate on the ?war on terrorism?, the Socialist Workers Party is determined to see executive elections (and, one presumes, hustings) on the day and the Socialist Party in England and Wales is threatening to ?cease participating in the SA? if the SWP?s constitution is ?forced through? (The Socialist November 23). Negotiating our way through that maze successfully can be done, but there are plenty more diversions and even potential explosions waiting to happen.

It is with these thoughts in mind - and in order to bring nearer the transformation of the Socialist Alliance into a revolutionary party of the working class - that we present this guide to December 1. In all probability there will be some, perhaps many, mistakes for which I apologise in advance. They are unintentional. (Needless to say, corrections will also need to be made to the official conference agenda, for which I must take my share of the blame.) Nonetheless, given the mammoth task represented by December 1, even a guide such as this - with all its undoubted shortcomings and faults - can prove helpful.

Start

Conference is to be introduced by Dave Nellist - chair of the Socialist Alliance. Things should if possible start exactly on time - 11am. Every minute lost cuts into the time for debate. Contributions - already frighteningly short - might have to be reduced still further.

Time is not our only problem. There are deep political tensions. Eg, comrade Nellist is a leading member of SPEW. Whether the comrade gives the valedictory speech therefore remains to be seen. His organisation may well decide on a walkout. We shall see. Either way, a preliminary item of business must be heard: the first report of the CAC, the conference arrangements committee. Formal agreement is needed for the agenda and standing orders. That done, we can begin.

Procedural motions

The first procedural hurdle that has to be jumped is Michael Wagstaff?s motion. The comrade argues that the decisions of the conference should be ?non-binding? because of a ?failure to adhere to proper democratic procedures?. He says that the Socialist Alliance needs a newsletter or paper which can provide a ?forum? for discussion.

Of course, many agree about the necessity of a paper. Without one, debate has been - he is right - stunted and rather listless. But comrade Wagstaff?s motion does not take forward the Socialist Alliance. It would derail it. Virtually the whole agenda would fall and an early, disastrous, finish would then be certain. Vote against his motion.

Next comes an executive motion that ?enables? it to act as a ?technical drafting commission?. Here the commas, hyphens, capital letters, etc, or lack of them, that can legally hang us in the bourgeois courts, can be inserted or deleted. Obviously the motion must be passed.

The second motion from the executive is more controversial. Indeed the last executive meeting found itself divided over whether or not this conference will also function as our annual general meeting. What is at issue? The answer is quite simple. An AGM can elect a new executive/leadership of the Socialist Alliance.

Normally there would be no problem here. However, given that what we have before us on December 1 is a conference which is designed to radically overhaul the structures of the Socialist Alliance, including the powers of the executive, its relationship to branches and individual members and the method of electing the executive, matters are far from straightforward.

After all, one proposed method of electing the executive demands that nominations are submitted a full month in advance. Impossible. Another includes electing executive members from members? platforms which at present do not exist. Difficult. Nor has the CPGB?s call for the CAC or the current executive to act as an election preparation committee been taken up. Short-sighted.

Consequently mayhem threatens or at the very least our executive will lack the legitimacy needed to function as an authoritative centre. Call a membership/delegate conference in the spring of 2002. It can also get to grips with our local election manifesto and campaign, etc.

So, yes, unfortunately, this executive motion should be opposed. If it is passed the executive election could just about proceed without disaster striking - if there is a spirit of give and take on all sides. Especially from the SWP - the dominant faction. Thankfully at this present moment in time the smoke signals coming from the SWP are positive.

Probably there is to be a series of huddled negotiations sponsored by the CAC to facilitate drawing up a common slate. In other words there is to be an unofficial, unaccountable and untransparent election preparation committee. Better that than nothing. The CPGB for its part has drawn up a draft slate in case the conference is to be our AGM. It has been e-mailed to our allies in the Socialist Alliance - not only the principal supporting organisations, but nominated individuals too. Together let us strive for the maximum unity and the maximum effectiveness.

The Workers Power motion on the US/UK war on Afghanistan is superficially attractive. But it actually lacks seriousness. An hour?s debate on the SWP, CPGB, AWL, Workers Power and SPEW motions submitted to the last Liaison Committee is not enough. And, with the Socialist Alliance in its present state of disorganisation, the absence of a political paper, etc, any resolution passed would merely be an empty gesture. Hence, despite the seductive rhetoric that will come from the lips of Workers Power comrades, the motion ought to be rejected.

Rally

Not to have formally recognised the overarching importance of the ?war on terrorism? would have been unforgivable. That is why it is quite right to launch conference with a couple of rallying speeches which can put the subsequent proceedings into the context of the challenges we face. Moreover in my view the ?war on terrorism? has thoroughly exposed all the many weaknesses of the Socialist Alliance: eg, the lack of programmatic and political debate, our inability to lead without a weekly political paper. The war has especially exposed the wrong-headedness of treating the Socialist Alliance as an SWP on-off united front. In the main the Socialist Alliance has been off for the duration.

Apart from comrade Nellist?s own remarks no one is quite sure who else will speak. As I tap out these lines on my word processor, the CAC does not know whether or not Tariq Ali or Jeremy Corbyn have agreed, or exactly who will replace them if they cannot or will not address our conference. Mike Marqusee has been suggested, so has George Galloway.

Session one

Session one will debate and decide upon which of the six alternative constitutions on offer is to function as the stem - or basic model - which is then subject to debate and amendment in session two.

The plan is to provide the movers with five minutes each. After them there will be up to 16 contributions from the floor. Comrades are expected to submit speakers slips which will include information on factional affiliation, etc. The idea in this and other sessions is to ensure factional balance and allow so-called independents to have their proper say.

All models have their pluses. But essentially they are either based on the principle of federalism and the interests of the part or centralism and the interests of the whole.

The constitution that provides for the maximum degree of democracy with the maximum degree of effectiveness is undoubtedly the one supplied by the CPGB. No House of Lords - ie, Socialist Alliance council - which can overrule the executive. No royal officers that stand above the executive.

Politically it is based on the firmest foundations and possesses the clearest aims. Socialism - ie, the rule of the working class - and through that general freedom, is the goal. To get there a precondition is the formation of a Socialist Alliance party equipped with a full programme and a frequent political paper. There are no special privileges for minorities. However, the right to form platforms or factions is recognised and provision is made for recognised platforms to get an automatic - non-voting - seat on the executive. Democracy is no plaything, but vital if effective unity in action is to be achieved.

The constitution drafted by the SWP - and supported by the International Socialist Group, Mike Marqusee, Neil Thompson, Declan O?Neil and Nick Wrack - is in many respects profoundly flawed. The political aims amount to little more than banal platitudes - typical of sentimental socialism. That and the failure to even mention the working class in relation to socialism, let alone defining socialism as the rule of the working class, is no mere slip. The SWP has never taken programme seriously.

Nevertheless this constitution, like the CPGB?s, does reconstitute the Socialist Alliance as a single national organisation with individual membership and individual membership rights and obligations. Its underlying principle is centralism.

The other constitutions promote to one degree or the other the anarchist principle of federalism. The rights of the part are supreme and these rights are to be guarded - not by the freedom to publish, but by heavy bureaucratic walls, moats and other such defensive devices. Workers Power would, for example, light-mindedly give any hollow trades council or defunct single-issue campaign automatic voting rights on our executive. A sectarian?s dream world. Each of the principal six supporting groups would also be granted representation - again automatically. Bureaucratically there is a bar on any single organisation gaining a majority on the executive.

The RDG, Pete McLaren and SPEW adopt a similar approach, along with the presidential or royal election of office-holders: the leader, treasurer, etc. SPEW gives the federalist principle such an anarcho-bureaucratic twist that it would strangle us by putting in place the constitutional right of minorities to veto the decisions of any Socialist Alliance majority. Here we have the part elevated over the whole in extremis.

Comrades have a first and second preference alternative vote. Use the first preference for the CPGB?s constitution. Use the second for the SWP?s.

Counting is due to take place during the 30-minute lunch break. If you can, supply your own food. There are facilities available, but at least 500 comrades are expected and time is at a premium. Dave Osler?s lunchtime fringe meeting for independents - with Mike Marqusee and other speakers - has had to be hastily rearranged and will now be held at the back of the hall. We wish them well.

Session two

Presuming that the SWP constitution gains most votes, conference proceeds to the amendments that apply to this stem. First there is the Workers Power amendment, which would ?guarantee? executive places to the six principal organisations. We support inclusion, but not through the anarcho-bureaucratic methods of federalism which Worker Power employs to achieve it. Vote it down.

The Phil Pope amendment is equally bureaucratic. It would limit any one organisation to no more than 40% of the seats on the Socialist Alliance executive. Conference in our view must be the sovereign body within the Socialist Alliance. It has the right to elect whomsoever it deems fit. Political inclusion and balance must be arrived at through open debate, not fixed rule. Vote against.

Now we come to the four competing methods of electing the executive. Initial votes will be ?in principle?. Hence comrades can put their hands up for them all if they so wish. But after that any that have not been rejected will be put to a second vote. This time, you vote for one only. If one of them wins a simple majority it will replace the method proposed in the SWP?s stem constitution (again presuming this is the successful stem). Only the movers can speak - they will get four minutes.

Mike Davis of Leeds Left Alliance wants an alternative vote for officers and 10 ?ordinary? members. Vote no. Like the SWP, the Alliance for Workers? Liberty favours a slate election but with caucus rights and a mathematical formula for minority representation. Vote no. Geoff Barr agues for STV elections for a definite number of individuals. A massive job of calculation ... but supportable ?in principle?.

The CPGB?s is the simplest method. First past the post with provision for an accountable election preparation committee. This method is the most transparent, it does not discriminate against non-aligned individual members and rewards balance and inclusion of minorities. Vote yes.

If the SWP slate method of elections is carried, conference will briefly debate and then vote on a protocol drawn up by the ISG, John Nicholson, Mike Marqusee and Nick Wrack. Three minutes for. Three minutes against. This resolution ?encourages? comrades to vote for a slate that ?broadly represents the forces which at this stage have successfully collaborated in building of a Socialist Alliance?. A worthy objective. Not binding. But on the right track. Vote yes.

Now we should find ourselves at policy-making and structures. There are four motions in this section of the agenda. The AWL says a special conference ought to be convened if ?requested by a one-third minority on the executive? or a petition by 10% of the paid-up membership. It also removes the sting hidden away in the SWP?s constitution which allows the national council to oust executive committee officers by a two-thirds majority. The AWL is quite right on both counts.

Bending the stick on calling a special conference is altogether the correct approach. As to the national council, this is to be the SWP?s trump card, through which it can get its way at any time if politically thwarted by the executive. Executive members can also be summarily sacked. The SWP will be generosity itself when it comes to executive elections. Standing before conference the comrades can, and surely will, boast that the SWP constitutes only a tiny percentage on its total slate for executive elections. But there is another SWP face. Its national council is held in reserve. It can override the executive under the SWP?s constitution, even though the executive is elected by conference - ie, the membership as a whole. Two centres of power resting on two centres of authority is a recipe for civil war. Hence we will definitely support the AWL amendment.

The CPGB/James White composite on an appeals committee likewise deserves support. However, the same cannot be said for amendments 11 and 12 from Mike Davies, the Green Socialist Network, etc, and Phil Pope et al. Both these amendments are bureaucratic and undemocratic.

Comrade Davis allows the constitution to be changed only by a three-fifths majority. Yet nothing should be final, everything must be provisional and should, if the need arises, be subject to quick and easy change. A simple majority is all that is required, not special majorities. Vote no. Comrade Pope adopts the same bureaucratic principle to overcome his anarchistic fears of being dominated by the whole. He insists that policy can only be made by two-thirds majorities and ?national? political organisations must be capped when it comes to conference delegates. What a faint-hearted mockery of democracy. Vote against.

Local and regional organisation follows next on the agenda. The Dave Church/AWL composite amendment contains borrowings from the CPGB?s constitution and is all the better for it. Membership, it says, carries the ?obligation not to obstruct campaigns decided upon by the alliance?. That is our formulation and this approach is absolutely essential in the fight for Socialist Alliance unity and discipline. At the same time there is a recognition by comrade Church and the AWL that minorities have the right to promote their views. If they intend to take an action in ?conflict? with the Socialist Alliance they should though inform the alliance at the relevant level. The last sentence considerably weakens our centralist intentions but, given the present stage of development and level of consciousness in the Socialist Alliance, the amendment taken as a whole is just about supportable. Vote yes.

The John Nicholson/Declan O?Neil amendment No14 would bind the supporting organisations to locally agreed decisions on actions. The branch should be central. This formulation is too localist and too centralist. Minorities must have the right to carry out actions that are not agreed or sanctioned by a local majority. Eg, someone might wish to publish a polemical pamphlet on the future of the Socialist Alliance. Should they have to go to the Socialist Alliance either locally or nationally to request permission? Of course not. Therefore vote no.

Mike Davis and the Leeds Left Alliance have another stab at curbing democracy with the so-called ?30% rule?. Under amendment 15 no political organisation can cast more than 30% of the vote within the Socialist Alliance nor should they have any more than 30% of the officers. Yes, it is pocket calculator time once more, as votes are weighted in internal elections and the selection of candidates.

For our part we say that the best, indeed the only, way to ?curb? the power of the SWP is to openly criticise and polemicise with them. Engage politically with its membership, cadre and leadership. Above all recruit to the Socialist Alliance. In point of fact because communists are secure in their ideas and confident about the future they do not seek special rights for minorities such as ourselves or special curbs on anybody - majorities and dominant factions being no exception. Consistent democracy is our motto and guiding principle. Vote no to amendment 15.

The Revolutionary Democratic Group?s ?democratic federalism? actually champions organisational primitivism, organisational opportunism and localism. Decisions by the democratically elected executive are only ?advisory, not binding?. Local Socialist Alliances are not ?branches of a national party?, but autonomous mini-parties in their own geographical areas. Awful. Reject.

After that tranche, the agenda takes amendments to the SWP?s rambling statement of aims and membership. The Workers Power/CPGB/Andy Gibbons composite has the great advantage of brevity and firm principle. We aim for a working class party and socialism. People before profit serves as our programme until a ?full programme is adopted?. Etc. Far superior to the SWP?s sentimental socialism and empty phrase-mongering. Vote yes.

The Andy Gibbons/ISG/Workers Power composite on the ?self-organisation of the specially oppressed? is unobjectionable. I would expect the SWP to accept it.

The Pete Brown/GSN amendment No19 deals with affiliation by trade unions, political organisations, etc. We support an individual-membership Socialist Alliance. Affiliation by a trade union should be considered when such a case actually arises. In the meantime vote no to all federal scheme-mongering and constitutional amendments.

The RDG/Martin Ralph amendment on the rights of the small supporting groups would be supportable in principle if the comrades had limited the representation being sought to the modest level of the national council. They do not. Maybe it is clumsy drafting, but they appear to be demanding automatic seats on the executive for every two-a-penny grouplet. And that is how it reads. Silly. Reject.

Amendment 21 from the AWL concerns ?transparency? in decision-making. Impossible to seriously disagree with the good practice the comrades outline for every level of the Socialist Alliance. Support.

Amendment 22 from the CPGB is incomplete in the conference agenda. It should - and will - read: ?Members may establish short-term or long-term platforms on whatever political basis they see fit. Platforms shall be officially recognised by the executive committee if they have more than 20 fully paid up Socialist Alliance members. Members? platforms have the right to submit motions to conference and the executive committee and to send a delegate to the executive committee. That delegate shall have speaking rights but not voting rights.? Vote yes.

Joanne Slattery?s amendment is tabled in opposition to what she sees as the ?primacy? given by the Socialist Alliance to elections. She also wants to substitute members being obliged to support SA candidates with a formulation that reads instead ?broad support for the aims of the Socialist Alliance?. What might at first glance be considered a left criticism of the Socialist Alliance seems on closer examination to be motivated more by soggy liberalism. Vote no.

The Phil Pope et al amendment No24 on candidates and elected members duties is unproblematic. In point of fact it is very good. Socialist Alliance councillors, MPs, etc shall ?live on no more than the average wage of a skilled worker?, etc. Support.

Elections

All going to plan, the time now should be 4.30pm. If the AGM vote at the beginning of the day has been won, and if the SWP has also won its method of election to the executive, then we will proceed to choose the new executive by slate. The CAC has made provision for other methods of election, but the chances are that conference will be presented with a slate or slates of candidates who, yes, are to be voted through on the basis of ?take it or leave it? and the winner takes all.

At the point of writing we have not seen an SWP slate. Nor have we seen any other slate. Because of this the CPGB felt obliged to draw up its own - broad and inclusive - list of 21 comrades. Who knows what will happen on the day? But hustings and a series of rival slates battling it out on the conference floor would not be a good thing. Time is not on our side. The CPGB is therefore not only willing to talk, bargain and compromise, but keen to do so.

Session three

It should be 5pm. If that is the case then there is no problem in voting on the seven resolutions that relate to our Socialist Alliance structure but are not for inclusion in the constitution.

Resolution one comes from the retiring executive itself. Annual membership subs should be set at ?6 for unemployed comrades and ?24 for employed comrades. Unless there are convincing arguments against this measure, vote it through.

The case for higher dues would though be far more convincing and easier to make if the SA had already equipped itself with a regular journal or paper. The resolution from the ISG, CPGB, Andy Gibbons and the AWL outlines exactly that urgent perceptive. A journal as the first step towards a paper.

Without such a publication the Socialist Alliance can never amount to much. A political paper is vital. Vote yes. Also vote yes to the AWL/CPGB amendment on minority input into a Socialist Alliance journal/paper. We can take or leave an internal bulletin. But unless there is controversy - invariably provided by minority viewpoints - in our public mouthpiece, the project could prove deadly boring and therefore stillborn.

The resolution from Nick Long/RDG, etc on the launch of a Socialist Alliance party is correct in its general approach. It rightly concentrates on the principle, not dates. Support.

Resolution 4, submitted by John Nicholson and Declan O?Neil, piously calls for ?broadening? participation in the leadership of the Socialist Alliance by ensuring that it reflects our membership in terms of geography, age, gender, race. Males over 40 are singled out as being particularly bad news.

This resolution is presumably well intentioned. However, the purpose of a leadership is to provide leadership, not to reflect our membership statistically. The executive committee will, if it is to be effective, contain a preponderance of experienced comrades. Another word for that in general is those over 40 - whether or not they happen to be male or female.

There will also be a distinct statistical bias towards the London area in any effective leadership. Why? Because there are some eight million people living in London alone and over 20 million in the South East. London is the capital city where parliament is located and big business, political organisations, etc, have their headquarters and their best, most experienced personnel.

Few of the revolutionary socialist and communist leaders within the Socialist Alliance were born in London. Most moved to the capital because of political commitment and drive. Out of seriousness. An asset that should be valued, not denigrated.

Then there is transport and the relative ease with which comrades can meet. Those in London can get together frequently. For example the CAC met once a week and then, as conference got nearer, that was upped to twice a week. No comrade from outside London attended - not even once. The real, effective CAC also consisted of professional politicians from the supporting organisations. The Socialist Alliance needs such comrades and their experience and their dedication. The age of the amateurs passed long ago. Make way for the new.

Resolution 5 from the AWL is rather long. However, it is an excellent rejoinder to SPEW?s dishonest promotion of ?independent? working class candidates in elections. The Socialist Alliance should seek to incorporate candidates standing under a trade union/campaign banner. Back them if they are genuine and have a ?substantial profile? ... but there can be no blanket rule necessitating that we stand down for SPEW fronts, etc.

The AWL?s resolution No6 also commands our support. There should be debate in local Socialist Alliances, no bans on publications, no suppression of minorities, etc. Vote yes. Andy Gibbons?s resolution on trade union fractions deserves support too. The Socialist Alliance must organise in the trade union movement, including in existing broad lefts. In the future we envisage a more ambitious approach. But comrade Gibbons has pointed to the first step ... let us take it together and pass his resolution.

Close

It is exactly 6pm. Comrade Nellist - still in the chair, one trusts - has just closed conference. The new executive has been elected, everyone has enthusiastically sung ?The Internationale? at the top of their voices and we head not for home ... but over the road to ULU and room 3a for the fringe meeting organised by the ?For an effective and democratic SA? platform. Speakers include Dave Church, Martin Thomas and Jack Conrad.

After that the CPGB has booked a nearby pub room where comrades can at last down a well-earned drink - or two - and relax.