06.12.2001

SWP scores pyrrhic victory

Peter Manson gives his impressions of the Socialist Alliance's December 1 conference

As I watched Logan Hall begin to fill up, I wondered how many of the hundreds now taking their seats would still be there by the end of conference business.

In particular, of course, I was wondering about the Socialist Party comrades. For the SP leadership, locked in its sect mentality, to accept Socialist Alliance democracy and to put the interests of the whole before those of the SP itself is an intolerable proposition. The SA must remain at all costs an ineffective, amateur, loose alliance - or, even better, be removed from the scene altogether. For Taaffe and co left unity is unthinkable unless it is under actual or potential SP hegemony.

By contrast we in the CPGB were looking for a constitution that would start to leave behind backwardness and begin to make the SA a national force to be reckoned with. That means a democratic and centralised organisation, able to take decisions and act, while carrying the membership with it - for the SP leaders an anathema.

They had been looking for an excuse to abandon the alliance ever since the Socialist Workers Party had come on board and had made it plain that this conference would almost certainly provide them with the occasion. If it failed to adopt the SP's own constitution - or something like it - with its "consensus democracy" (ie, an institutionalised SP veto) and bureaucratic restrictions on the rights of majorities (ie, the SWP), they would walk out altogether.

But the SP is not a single, monolithic bloc. Like all organisations it contains different forces looking for different outcomes. For example, whereas in most parts of the country SP comrades have boycotted the alliance, playing no role whatsoever within it, in a small number of places they have been enthusiastic participants. And the most enthusiastic of all has been Dave Nellist, our national chair since the founding of the alliance, who as a result of his commitment has won the respect of every partisan of the project.

Clearly there was room for some kind of compromise, if the SWP decided to take advantage of these divisions and offer one - some concession that comrade Nellist could present to Peter Taaffe as a partial victory. Or was the SP walkout inevitable and would our chair be part of it?

Comrade Nellist seemed to be preparing the ground right from his first speech. Opening the conference, he said that the situation demanded a mass socialist alternative and, "whatever happens in this conference", the conditions for building such a formation "are present and will not go away".

Comrade Nellist explained that the conference agenda was very crowded and that debate would have to be severely limited if we were to complete it. So only two speakers - one for, one against - were allowed on the first major procedural motion from the executive: that the conference be regarded as an annual general meeting and that a new executive be elected.

For John Rees of the SWP it was all very simple: let's choose an executive and "get on with the business of opposing the war". But the CPGB's Marcus Larsen, opposing for the executive minority, replied that there was no need to rush into elections before we even knew what method would be adopted. He pointed out that one proposed method envisaged the handing in of nominations four weeks before conference and, whatever constitution was adopted, there would clearly be no time for a proper consideration of the candidates' relative merits.

When it came to the vote, it soon became clear that, although the SWP easily formed the biggest single bloc in the hall, it did not have an absolute majority. It needed the support of the International Socialist Group and some independents to see through the motion, which received 315 votes (256 comrades - including the SP, CPGB and the other groups, as well as most independents - voted against electing an executive at the end of the conference).

The next procedural motion was from Workers Power, who wanted an hour set aside for a debate on the imperialist war. In fairness Stuart King made some good points, correctly stating that the SA had no position on Afghanistan and a whole range of other things connected with the war. That is why we should have had a two-day conference. With the defeat of that proposal, however, it was essential to make use of every minute of conference time to deal with the essential business of establishing a working structure - without which the SA would be unable to implement agreed policy. The motion was overwhelmingly defeated on a show of hands.

After a half-hour interruption for speeches against the war from comrade Nellist, Tariq Ali and our Italian comrade from Rifondazione Comunista, the main debate of the day began. There were six draft constitutions on offer and a good cross-section of SA opinion was heard during this important debate.

Proposing the model put forward by the main SWP-led bloc, Nick Wrack declared - in response to comrade Nellist's earlier comments - that this was the constitution to "raise the banner of an alternative form of socialism". The SA, he said, had to move on from operating "simply as an electoral alliance" - we needed to build a organisation that "intervenes independently" in separate campaigns.

In order for the SA to become more effective, he went on, it had to be "more centralised in one sense", but not overcentralised. And we also needed democracy and accountability in an organisation in which "all can participate". All in all, a good speech - but one that was vague enough to have suited the SWP's purposes.

Up to now the atmosphere had been calm - almost too calm. But when Hannah Sell started speaking the tension began to rise. She was blunt and to the point: up to now the SA had been a federation, but if it was centralised it would quite simply lead to the break-up of the alliance. Many groups and individuals would be "forced out", including the Socialist Party, she said, as sections of the audience began to react audibly to this hyperbole.

Comrade Sell was not "suggesting we're putting ultimatums" - no, of course not - but "we will not countenance this federal alliance being centralised in the hands of one party. The SWP has the right to build the SWP, but not to wreck the Socialist Alliance," she concluded to the groans of many delegates.

But we had heard nothing yet when it came to SP hypocrisy. Both Roger Banister and Judy Beishon pointed to the recent demise of the SA in Ireland as a lesson we should learn: "We don't want to see the Socialist Alliance go the same way as in Ireland," said comrade Banister. Such touching concern for an entity the SP in Ireland refused to participate in at all.

The SP comrades bragged about the huge influence they exerted in the class - comrade Banister reminded us of the 70,000 votes he won in the election for Unison general secretary: a lot more than the whole of the alliance got in the general election. Did the SA really want to turn its back on an organisation with councillors and union general secretaries in its ranks?

While of course the winning of such positions represent real gains for our class, I could not help wondering why such an important and influential organisation as the SP could not muster more than a hundred or so supporters at the conference - around half the number the SWP mobilised (without trying too hard).

Comrade Beishon did her best to answer the many speakers who condemned the SP for wanting to exercise a minority veto. This was perfectly democratic, she said, since all organisations would be able to wield it equally (although comrade Beishon conveniently ignored the fact that individual members would not even have this negative 'right' - their votes would always be essentially worthless). However, she went on, under the SWP proposals only one organisation would have a veto - the SWP itself, because as the dominant grouping whatever it said would go. Yes, comrade Beishon really is trying to persuade us that majority decision-making is undemocratic.

But what was even more distressing was the foolishness that came from the mouth of comrade Nellist. According to him, if the SWP, for example, had used its majority to insist that September 11 should not be condemned, then without a veto we would somehow be prevented from expressing our outrage at the suicide attacks in the USA. In fact the opposite would be the case: under the SP proposals any organisation, however small, would be able to prevent us collectively issuing a condemnation.

How could such a respected leader as comrade Nellist be reduced to uttering such inanities? I can only conclude that his words were just as unconvincing to himself as they were to us. Presumably he felt obliged out of some misguided sense of loyalty to Peter Taaffe to follow the 'party' line and to put the SP's sectarian interests before those of the class.

He had begun promisingly by correctly stating that the choice between a "federal, genuine alliance" and a more centralised, party-type formation was a "legitimate argument" which depended on the stage you were at. But then he went on to make the assertion - without offering us anything to back it up - that at this stage only a federation was viable.

He warned against "taking your car into the garage for an oil change" and finding yourself driving out a different model. Personally I would not mind exchanging the clapped out Socialist Alliance 2CV for a brand new, streamlined BMW. However, comrade Nellist concluded: "If a new party is born today, I will not be part of it" - after nine and a half years as chair of the Socialist Alliance and its forerunners.

In reply comrade Rees declared that, far from wanting to dominate the SA, "The SWP has no interest in a Socialist Alliance that is anything other than hugely bigger and hugely more diverse than the SWP." We should believe him. The SWP wants a big, reformist, pool in which to swim in order to recruit masses of disillusioned ex-Labour Party members to the already existing revolutionary 'party' - the SWP.

This scheme, of course, is just as sectarian as anything the SP can concoct, but it does at least allow us the space to continue our struggle for what the working class really needs - a genuine democratic, centralised party.

Speaker after speaker got up to urge the SP not to abandon the alliance - none of them swallowed its "consensus democracy": neither members of the groups nor the independents the SP claims to want to defend. Marcus Larsen, proposing the partyist CPGB constitution, declared that the situation where the left is divided into sects "has to end". We must build a more centralised, yet more democratic organisation as "the next step towards what the working class needs - a party". That task was being hindered by federalism and, far from retaining guaranteed positions for the groups, they must now be ended.

John Bridge (CPGB) was scathing in his condemnation of the SP's false concern for the rights of minorities - apparently workers would not join us unless they could be assured that, say, five percent of members would be able to stop the other 95% from acting. On the contrary, said comrade Bridge, "workers know the importance of effective organisation. They know the importance of democracy and, yes, centralism." He reminded the conference of that most basic of trade union principles: unity is strength - ie, centralism is strength.

Like the CPGB's proposals, those of Workers Power also wanted to set out the aim of a working class party. However, the WP comrades, along with the Revolutionary Democratic Group, still believed that we should stick with federalism - albeit without the paralysing bureaucratic restrictions contained in the SP's proposals.

The Alliance for Workers' Liberty, in its conciliationist rush to accommodate the SP, recommended a vote for the proposals of Pete McLaren, who unfortunately was unable to be present owing to illness. Comrade McLaren's draft constitution would have basically locked us into the status quo.

But nobody, least of all the independents, spoke up for the SP's proposals - apart from SP speakers themselves of course. For example, James White of Barnsley SA thought he would support the SWP's constitution - "although it needs amending". He described the SP comrades as "very valuable" and appealed to them to "engage with whatever constitution is passed - it can be amended next year". If they did not, he hoped that the SP rank and file would reassert itself.

Chris Williams of Leicester Radical Alliance also made it clear that he would not be following the SP out of the SA: why leave when it would mean having to "start from scratch on your own"? For him "give and take" was the key to making the alliance work. Liam McQuade of Tower Hamlets SA wanted to know: "When is an ultimatum not an ultimatum? When the Socialist Party says it's not." He described the SP's view of the future of the alliance if the SWP constitution was passed as "so deeply pessimistic I would seek therapy for it".

Dave Packer of the ISG asked the SP, instead of simply asserting that the SWP would take over the alliance, why not "stay in and see"? Comrade Packer thought "they'd be mad to try - we'd all leave". This was a view echoed by many others, but the SP was determined not to be persuaded.

Finally the speeches ended and the votes were taken. While the rest of us used the 25-minute break for a snatched sandwich, the stewards were counting the ballot papers. The results showed the SWP-ISG et al proposals to have won the support of slightly more than 50%: SWP - 345; SP - 122; McLaren - 97; CPGB - 42; WP - 27; RDG - 21. The total of votes cast for the five unsuccessful constitutions was 311 - an SWP majority over the rest of just 34 votes.

I would estimate that there were perhaps 240 SWPers in the hall, the rest of its votes coming from the ISG and independents. But surely almost all of the SP's 122 votes were cast by SP members. Many independents were clearly swayed by the AWL's arguments to cast their votes for Pete McLaren's status quo.

At this point I was studying comrade Nellist's expression for any signs of what he would do. But he was giving nothing away, and he continued to chair in his usual even-handed manner. The SP comrades were still in the room - they would now try to amend all trace of majority decision-making out of our new constitution.

Their first opportunity arose with a motion to limit representation on the NEC to 40% for any organisation. This was one of several attempts to prevent the domination of the alliance by a single grouping (ie, the SWP), using bureaucratic means. True to form, the SP cast its votes for this proposal, but it was defeated by around three to two. Similarly a Workers Power motion calling for automatic representation on the executive for the six principal organisations also fell.

Now we came to the next big bone of contention - the method of electing that executive. Since the constitution we had just passed already specified what that method should be, it would remain in place unless one of the other six methods on offer were accepted. The SWP-ISG et al constitution stipulates the election of a slate of candidates. There is nothing wrong in principle with the proposing of slates in order to achieve the necessary political, geographic and gender balance - indeed it is actually desirable to do so rather than leave the outcome to chance. But the method put forward meant that members could vote only for a whole package - take it or leave it.

The CPGB had proposed an improvement, whereby a slate, in the form of a recommended list, would be drawn up by a representative election preparation committee, whose remit would be that of ensuring such a balance. Other comrades could draw up rival lists if they wished. However, in our view it is essential that the actual voting should be for individuals, not the slate as a whole.

Unfortunately this was rejected by the SWP bloc and went down, along with proposals for the use of the single transferable vote system and a more complicated version of the SWP-ISG method, proposed by the AWL, which provided also for proportional representation for self-declared caucuses. Thankfully the proposal that conference should not only elect the executive, but also the national officers, proposed by the Leeds Left Alliance, also fell.

With the defeat of all alternative methods, the slate method would now apply for the election of the executive, who would choose officers from their own number. This last point was an advance, since it would permit easy recallability should an officer suddenly become unable to fulfil their duties.

It was the next debate that saw the SP make its final challenge. In fact it was a strange point to oppose, since the motion in question, proposed by the SWP's Weyman Bennett, took the form of a recommendation that members vote for a balanced, inclusive slate. But the SP's Clive Heemskerk condemned this as the "benign kingship or benevolent dictatorship of the majority". Ludicrously he suggested that the SA was now offering "more rights to organisations outside the alliance" than loyal supporters like the poor, oppressed Socialist Party.

Comrade Heemskerk's reasoning was that the SA had approached the Socialist Labour Party and the Green Party (and in Hackney there had been talks with the Morning Star's Communist Party of Britain) seeking electoral cooperation. Here we were seeing the SP in its true colours. It obviously considers itself far too important to be treated as an equal within the SA. It graciously concedes that it may negotiate with the Socialist Alliance in future, instead of simply presenting us with ultimatums (choose us or we stand anyway).

Comrade Heemskerk declared that conference had one last chance to block the SWP - a motion imposing a 30% 'weighted vote' limit to reduce SWP influence. Under the Leeds Left Alliance motion, in local alliances no more than 30% of any committee could belong to any one group, and no more than 30% of those voting at a decision-making meeting could be a member of the same group. A bureaucratic nightmare.

But this motion was opposed by another member of the Leeds LA, Mike Fennell of the AWL. He pointed out that majorities do have rights. Removing them is not the way to protect the rights of minorities. He accused the movers of wanting to wish a away a whole swathe of SWP members: "They exist; we have to accept them." Like others before him comrade Fennell appealed to the SP - in vain - to "give it a chance".

With the defeat of this motion the SP walkout was now certain. But in the meantime a couple of useful amendments had been passed. The unamended constitution envisaged two, potentially rival, power centres - the NEC and the national council, where there would inevitably be an SWP majority. The AWL amendment makes the executive answerable only to annual conference, and only "accountable" to national council, whose powers to replace executive members and officers are removed.

The SWP accepted this amendment in good grace and it was passed overwhelmingly. The establishment of an appeals committee was also, more narrowly, accepted - this was the only vote that the SWP lost. If it was ever in doubt the "formal right to dissent" was agreed in another amendment. Minorities could "publicly promote their views" - which made a mockery of comrade Nellist's earlier suggestion that the SWP might be able to stop the rest of us condemning the attacks on the World Trade Center. The right to form platforms was also accepted, and subscription rates were agreed for 2002.

All in all, the passing of a centralist constitution, and the removal from it of the worst bureaucratic shortfalls, represented an advance for democracy and effectiveness. But the SP comrades did not see it that way. Alone, apart from a handful of independents, they voted against the new constitution, as amended.

At this point Dave Nellist interrupted proceedings: "I make this announcement with some regret," he said, declaring that as far as the Socialist Party was concerned, the SA had relaunched itself as an SWP-dominated party. "On a personal level," he continued, "I want the best out of this organisation." As the SP comrades started to troop out, there were a few catcalls, but most of the remaining comrades looked on in subdued disappointment.

Then John Nicholson took the microphone to propose we show our appreciation for all the hard work of comrade Nellist. He left to loud applause and cheers - a committed and hard-working man, who deserves better than the sectarian isolation demanded of him by Taaffe and co in a grouping which will surely now face a renewed crisis.

While the SP comrades were moving towards the door, an independent comrade, Ray Holmes of Derbyshire, strode to the microphone and shouted to the SPers: "You've sold me out. I agree with the SWP when I agree with the SWP." He was not the only independent member who resented being dubbed an SWP stooge.

After a five-minute break, conference continued with comrade Nicholson in the chair. We still had to vote in an executive and time was running short. Nominations for whole slates were called for and these were eventually displayed at the back of the stage using an overhead projector.

The SWP proposed a 21-person slate, including three SWPers and one comrade each from the AWL, CPGB, ISG and WP. The CPGB proposed a slightly larger executive with two comrades each from the remaining principal organisations (and Chris Jones from Liverpool and the RDG). The SWP slate was voted in. So the new executive consists of: Lesley Mahmood, Margaret Manning, John Nicholson, Declan O'Neil, Celia Foote, Nick Wrack, Dave Church, Tess McMahon, Tony Reid, Liz Davies, Steve Godward, Will McMahon, John Fisher, Dave Packer, Mark Hoskisson, John Rees, Rob Hoveman, Weyman Bennett, Martin Thomas, Marcus Larsen and Mandy Baker.

Subsequently a five-strong appeals committee was elected, which included two SWPers: Candy Udwin and Rachel Cohen. The other members are James White, Mike Marqusee and Greg Tucker.

The final motion discussed concerned a proposal from the CPGB, ISG and AWL for an SA paper. Amazingly this was opposed by Mark Hoskisson of Workers Power, who argued that it would result in one of two things: either it would only "be able to articulate lowest-common-denominator politics" or it would be full of contesting views, which would obviously confuse its readers - a "tower of Babel", he suggested.

This motion won the support of most of the independents, but it was defeated by SWP-WP opposition. What a contradiction - we take a step forward to put the Socialist Alliance on a more effective footing, but deny it a voice in the shape of a regular publication.

Comrade Nicholson now proposed that conference should be drawn to a close, even though there were still four motions on the agenda and around half an hour still available (actually the hall was booked till 6.30). But comrades were by now in no mood to argue - there was an air of resignation following the unfortunate departure of the SP.

Comrades Nick Wrack and Liz Davies did their best to lift the atmosphere in their closing speeches. They both expressed disappointment at the loss of the Socialist Party, but urged us to build the alliance. Comrade Davies described our new constitution as "not ideal", but thought we could "suck it and see". She said the Socialist Alliance was now "more democratic and inclusive than any other left organisation I know of".

Despite the setback, we must now make sure the alliance continues to advance. In order for the SA to remain in the forefront of our work, and not be reduced to an SWP electoral 'united front', we desperately need a newspaper. Since the SWP is unwilling to provide the leadership in this respect, SA partisans must make it a reality themselves.