26.02.2004

Moving to split away

SA Democracy Platform

On Saturday February 21, the Democracy Platform of the Socialist Alliance held its second full meeting in Birmingham. The DPSA was established in November last year in order to defend the socialist policies of the Socialist Alliance’s People before profit manifesto and, in the words of its website, “to uphold the principles of inclusivity, openness, tolerance, representation of minorities, transparency and accountability in decision-making contained in the SA constitution.”

The meeting, attended by 32 people, got off to a bad start. Tony Greenstein proposed that comrades like himself who are not members of the alliance should be able to become full voting members of the DPSA. This motion was opposed by the CPGB, the Revolutionary Democratic Group, Lesley Mahmood, Pete McLaren and John Pearson, but supported by the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and various independent SA members. Comrade Pearson argued that such a membership basis would undermine the importance of involvement in the SA itself. However, his correct analysis failed to convince most of those present and the resolution was passed by a two-thirds majority.

As the DPSA’s newly adopted membership criteria effectively ended the group’s status as a platform within the SA, the CPGB delegation declared that they could no longer support the DPSA and withdrew from the meeting. A number of comrades attempted to dissuade us from this action, including comrade Greenstein, who promised to rejoin the SA. Welcome though this commitment was, comrade Greenstein was confusing personalities with matters of principle and his pledge proved hollow when later in the meeting he said that he would be rejoining the SA only so that he could resign again after its special conference on March 13.

Moreover, some of the decisions taken later in the meeting were to push the DPSA even further away from its founding purpose of promoting SA democracy so that it became nothing more than a front for those who wish to campaign against the recently launched Respect unity coalition (and, in the case of the AWL, George Galloway).

Next on the agenda were debates about the DPSA’s intervention in the forthcoming SA conference and its attitude towards Respect. There was some disagreement about whether these items should be discussed separately or taken together, with John Pearson accusing the chair, Lesley Mahmood, of “bureaucratic manoeuvring” when she ruled that Stockport SA’s conference motion on Respect could not be considered during the conference discussion. The meeting overwhelmingly rejected his challenge to the chair’s authority, but narrowly voted in favour of merging the two agenda items.

The context for the debates that followed was the motion being recommended to conference by the national executive’s task group. If passed, this would mandate the SA to provide financial and practical support to Respect and back its candidates in June’s elections for the Greater London Authority and the European parliament. The task force motion also requires SA branches who wish to stand candidates in the local elections in May to seek the approval of Respect’s executive. Any such candidates would then have to seek election under Respect’s banner rather than the SA’s.

Stockport SA’s conference motion rejects and overturns the SA national executive’s endorsement of Respect, describing it as “not socialist and not a working class coalition”. Citing the threat posed by the British National Party, the motion calls on SA branches to consider mounting local election campaigns.

There was much opposition to the task force resolution in the meeting and a general air of pessimism about the future prospects of the SA. Speaking in support of the Stockport motion to the DPSA, Barry Biddulph claimed that the Socialist Workers Party was putting in place bureaucratic obstacles so that SA branches would “need approval from the queen and Prince Philip and to be sanctified by the spirit of Lady Di” in order to stand candidates in the local elections. He argued that Stockport’s motion would prevent the SWP from blocking local candidates. It proposed that the DPSA should itself register as a political party (the Democratic Socialist Alliance) with all that entails: eg, registering a leader and nominating officer. This is all to be ‘held in reserve’.

Steve Freeman (RDG) tabled a motion on Respect that would have enabled the DPSA to accommodate the different positions taken by its member groups. It endorsed a policy of “critical engagement” from the outside and proposed that the platform seek a meeting with George Galloway and negotiate with other non-Respect socialists such as the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain, the Socialist Party in England and Wales and the Alliance for Green Socialism. It sought “further clarification about what sort of organisation Respect is aiming to build” and did not rule out joining Respect or urging workers to vote for it in the future.

Pete McLaren was broadly supportive of the Freeman motion. He argued that, although it was set up in an undemocratic way and appeared to have few principles, it was still too early to assume that democratic socialists could not engage with it. Comrade McLaren pointed out that Respect might be the only alternative to New Labour in areas such as his (Rugby and Warwickshire) and that at least it was left of centre and opposed to the Nazis. He felt that he would not be able to continue as convenor of the DPSA if it voted to oppose Respect.

Barry Biddulph said it was a “sad motion” that took a deferential approach towards Galloway, politely requesting a meeting as if he were a working class hero. Tony Greenstein argued that further clarification about Respect was not needed, because it was already obvious that it was not a working class organisation and was extremely unlikely to develop into one: “Pigs tend not to fly,” he concluded.

Pete Radcliff (AWL) agreed with comrade Greenstein and proposed numerous amendments to delete the greater portion of the Freeman motion. Respect, he said, was “just a cynical ploy by the SWP to ditch the electoral strategy agreed by the SA”. The DPSA should be fighting for working class representation and working in the trade unions.

Garth from the AGS thought that the DPSA’s intervention at the SA conference should be aimed at SWP cadre rather than at the independents. He felt that the SWP was now reminiscent of the last days of the Workers Revolutionary Party - lots of big-name speakers but no debate. He reported that the AGS had already raised the money to fight the Euro elections and warned that the group was not going to disappear.

Steve Freeman was strongly opposed to the Stockport motion because it sought to create an alternative SA (which comrade Pearson denied). He warned that he would find it hard to stay on board if this was passed.

Dave Landau opposed both the Stockport and Freeman motions, saying that they were both sectarian. In many parts of the country Respect would be the only party standing on a platform even remotely close to People before profit. He advocated support for Respect candidates except where they stood against SPEW and argued that attempting to engage with Respect from the outside was unrealistic. We could only get across our message by joining.

Chris Jones (RDG) spoke against the Stockport motion and claimed that the Freeman motion did not debar anyone from joining Respect. He suggested that local SA branches could follow the example of dissident Labour Party members in Liverpool who stood for election as ‘Ward Labour’ by seeking election under the name of their SA branch if the national executive attempted to prevent them being nominated.

Sue Blackwell supported the Stockport motion, believing it to be an attempt at self-defence rather than a move towards a breakaway group. She felt that DPSA members needed to compromise if the group was to make progress. Comrade Blackwell said that she would vote for Respect if there was no alternative in her area, but she would do so with a peg on her nose.

John Pearson said that his motion was a “fall-back position” in case local SAs were blocked from standing. He supported all the AWL amendments to the Freeman motion because they would establish an “absolutely correct position”. Respect, he claimed, was “dragging back the working class with a millstone around our necks”.

Lesley Mahmood advised the group to consider the possibility that Respect might do much better than many anticipated and receive a good vote, especially in London. She argued that individuals in the DPSA ought to be able to hold different views on Respect. However, she declared that she would certainly be standing in the local elections, whatever the Respect executive had to say about the matter. Even if she had to be nominated under a different banner, comrade Mahmood felt it was important to stand against the BNP.

When it came to the vote, the Stockport motion was approved by 17 votes to four with three abstentions. As Chris Jones subsequently pointed out, “It is clear the direction this leads towards: a new organisation, not the Socialist Alliance as was”. This adds weight to the CPGB argument against remaining in the SADP. The Democratic Socialist Alliance will be registering as a political party even if it decides not act upon that registration.

The meeting then moved to a vote on the Freeman motion. Amendments from Barry Biddulph and Tony Greenstein were passed, but these were superseded when Pete Radcliff’s proposal to delete five of the original eight paragraphs was supported by 14 votes to eight (four abstentions).

The amended motion was supported by 19 votes to five (two abstentions), but the deletions so changed its character that the original proponent, Steve Freeman and fellow RDGer Chris Jones, felt unable to support the final version.

The final version approved by the DPSA was as follows:

1. This meeting recognises that there are a variety of views on Respect amongst individuals and groups which make up the Democracy Platform.
2. We recognise that the DPSA should take an official (majority) view on Respect which can be represented in our leaflets, etc. Individuals and groups will retain the right to act autonomously.
3. The Respect conference did not resolve any issues the DPSA raised. Therefore the DPSA resolves not to join or support Respect.”

The discussion then moved to the DPSA’s intervention at the SA conference. Dot Gibson argued that the DPSA should organise a response to the likely defeats on Respect at the conference. She favoured staging a walkout protest by DPSA supporters.

There was much support for comrade Gibson’s idea, with Bill Hunter saying that a conference recess should be requested, Chris Jones advocating disruption of the meeting to prevent business from proceeding and Sue Blackwell suggesting that the protest be made more visual by carrying posters, giving out leaflets and wearing black armbands to symbolise the death of the SA.

Lesley Mahmood proposed that the DPSA should book a meeting room in which the group could assemble to discuss the future of the SA after leaving the conference. She thought it best to book one in the same building, as this would make it more likely that others would join them as they walked out of the main hall.

Tony Greenstein went further, arguing that a walkout of the conference was not enough. If the taskforce motion was passed, it would effectively wind up the SA. In that event, the DPSA should “seize the moment and make a stand” by establishing itself as the new Socialist Alliance. Despite having promised to rejoin the SA a few hours previously, Tony Greenstein said that he was only doing so in order to resign at the conference.

Only David Landau and John Pearson spoke against the walkout strategy. Comrade Landau argued that the group needed to remain at the conference even if it was defeated on the task force resolution because that was the only way it would be able to put forward the platform’s ideas to the SWP rank and file. Comrade Pearson said that a fringe meeting at the end would suffice, whereas a walkout would be “pathetic”, a “bit of mischief” and an “inconsequential ejaculation”.

When it came to the vote, the fringe meeting proposal was rejected, whilst the demand for a recess and a walkout to hold a meeting were backed overwhelmingly.

Lesley Mahmood and Pete McLaren were concerned that forewarning of the DPSA’s plans might enable the SWP to limit their impact, so they requested that the Weekly Worker not report this decision.

Before the meeting closed it was agreed that the DPSA’s existing committee continue in office until the next full meeting on April 3. However, Martin Ralph (International Socialist League) was elected to replace the CPGB’s Marcus Ström and Barry Biddulph was co-opted onto the committee to act as its nominating officer, a role required by the passing of the Stockport motion.