19.02.2004

Respect and our next steps

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group proposes a "viable political strategy outside Respect" for the Democracy Platform of the Socialist Alliance

When we look at the broader picture in the socialist movement, the organisations who are unlikely to join Respect include the Democracy Platform of the Socialist Alliance (DPSA), the Communist Party of Britain, the Socialist Party, Workers Power and the Alliance for Green Socialism. The DPSA should seek to open a dialogue with these organisations to see if a common approach is possible. If the DPSA rejects Respect as currently constituted, we are not alone. Will the non-Respect forces be prepared to work together? If so we have the possibility of a viable political strategy outside Respect.

Much will depend on the politics of the DPSA. Born at a moment of severe crisis for the Socialist Alliance, it has pitched into the important issue of the Respect unity coalition. We made interventions on the SA national executive, at the national council and publicly at the launch of Respect. Dave Parks says of our intervention: “I just want to congratulate all the various components of the DPSA for their collective intervention at the Respect conference and also at the last national council. I think collectively you have all done an excellent job - both the groups and individuals concerned” (email, February 2).

He makes an additional point that, “whatever the disputes between the varying parties on this [DPSA] list, it should also be remembered that despite those differences they have collectively managed a very impressive, coordinated intervention … which has done the whole movement a great service”.

This was an excellent beginning. The Socialist Workers Party wants to present us as dyed-in-the-wool sectarians. Our line meant that we did not fall into that trap. Now we face difficult decisions about the next steps to take. We will see if the DPSA has a coherent strategy which can unite the SA minority or whether there will be further fragmentation.

Certainly at present the SA minority is split three ways. There are those exiting through the door on the right. This liquidationist tendency has declared the SA dead and is set to chase the SWP in the hope of getting some crumbs from its table. In doing this they are helping the SWP and betraying those who want fight back. Readers of this paper will surely recognise these opportunists as the International Socialist Group?

At the other extreme is the anti-Galloway bloc led by the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty. They have made Galloway the major factor in their opposition to Respect. Their recent ‘Open letter to Mark Serwotka’ and ‘Questions and answers on Respect’ make Galloway the main focus of their political line. They are seeking the moral high ground because gorgeous George has a few dodgy friends like Tariq Aziz and wears designer suits! They are set to exit through the door on the left marked ‘Breakaway league of independent Socialist Alliances’.

The third position follows the DPSA’s intervention at the Respect conference of constructive engagement. This was based on the ‘Britain at the crossroads’ document, linking the SA’s republican socialist programme to the anti-war movement and the crisis of democracy. There is an objective need for both a mass democratic and social movement and a broad-based workers’ party. The movement and party are complementary. The former is necessary if the people are to be mobilised to change the way we are governed. The latter is necessary if the working class is going to provide political leadership and become the vanguard of the movement for democracy and socialism. In this way a democratic movement can produce the growth of a mass party.

Hence we did not reject Respect out of hand, but sought to change its aims and policies. But the SWP-Galloway bloc made no concessions. Our amorous advances were rebuffed. We were unable to meet Galloway as requested. We did not secure any greater clarity over the aims and strategy of Respect. Nor were any of our amendments accepted into the policy statement. No surprises.

The negative response from Respect does not mean we will be knocked off course simply because our proposals were rejected. We have to carry on the fight, but in a different way. We should continue our ‘yes’ to constructive engagement, but add ‘no’ to joining Respect. In the face of conference decisions, it would be wrong to join. It would imply we were not serious in fighting for our policies. The DPSA must make it absolutely clear that the outcome of the conference was not acceptable to us.

However if we refuse to join we have to explain the reasons why. Had all or any of our proposals been accepted, it would have been difficult, if not politically impossible, to turn round and refuse to join. It would have appeared that we acted in bad faith in proposing amendments. Our alternative proposals would be seen as neither serious nor considered, and we would be exposed as sectarians. So not joining Respect was and remains a tactical question, not some absolute moral principle. We should not rule out joining Respect in the future.

‘Britain at the crossroads’ did not start from an abstract call for a workers’ party, but from the development of a real, living mass movement. The anti-war movement brought millions onto the streets, involving working class and middle class people and a range of political parties, religious groups, trade unions, etc. This movement was implicitly a democratic movement. The task of the Socialist Alliance was to relate to this movement and transform it into a consciously democratic and social movement and, in doing this, begin to transform itself into a workers’ party.

Respect is not a movement for democracy and the SA is not a broad-based workers’ party. They are half-baked versions of both, riven with contradictions. Our task is to continue with constructive and critical engagement in both. But we can do so confident that our intervention is based on what is objectively necessary and possible. Our arguments can have real political force.

A broad democratic movement leads directly to the vexed question of republicanism. This is the ‘democratic deficit’ at the heart of Respect’s politics. Respect says: “There is a crisis of representation, a democratic deficit, at the heart of politics in Britain. We aim to offer a solution to this crisis” (Founding declaration). But it fails to explain either the crisis of representation or the democratic deficit. It does not say how we can solve the latter. It claims to “offer a solution to this crisis”, but then fails to say what that solution is. This is not serious politics.

Any real democratic movement or socialist organisation in Britain must have a firm, principled and militantly hostile opposition to all royal and hereditary institutions. This is not simply a matter of the corruption of democratic values which monarchy symbolises. It is because the constitutional monarchy as a system of government enables and facilitates a massive concentration of political power in the hands of the executive and bureaucracy.

The failure of Respect to adopt a democratic republican policy was a major political mistake, which reflects a lack of understanding and commitment to genuine democracy. Any progressive organisation which has such contempt for the sovereignty of the people cannot expect to gain their trust and confidence. In opposing republicanism Respect will be seen as lacking any real commitment to democratic principles.

Let me sum up the key points. Respect has been founded on a false political perspective. Its short-term aim is to win seats in elections. Its long-term aims - whether to build a movement or a party - are confused. Its rejection of policies on democracy, republicanism, immigration controls and representatives to be paid only a workers’ wage was motivated by opportunism. It is an electoral front for the SWP. The founding conference failed to convince the majority of the DPSA, CPB, AGS, SP and WP that the project is credible.

Given the “crisis of representation” and the “democratic deficit”, the failure of the coalition to adopt a democratic republican policy is a major error. Not only does this indicate that Respect does not have the policies to fill the democratic vacuum, but that it has no respect for the sovereignty of the people, whether in England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales. The working class can have no confidence or trust in any organisation which lacks commitment to democratic principles and to building a genuinely democratic culture both in society and within Respect itself. The failure to oppose immigration controls was motivated purely by electoral considerations.

In the light of the above considerations the DPSA should not join Respect. Our task is to raise the political consciousness of the working class and encourage workers to organise politically. Refusing to join is a useful means of explaining what it is necessary to do. We are not refuseniks because we are opposed to building a broad democratic republican and social movement. On the contrary we are refuseniks because Respect is neither a genuine democratic and social movement nor a working class party.

If the ‘R’ in Respect is not for republicanism, then the coalition is not even a democratic alliance, never mind a socialist one.