11.03.2004

Democracy and two minorities

Socialist Alliance

The question of democracy in the Socialist Alliance will be posed sharply at the SA conference on Saturday. The focus will on the democratic rights of majorities and minorities. Democracy is in danger when the majority loses patience with the minority and resorts to bureaucratic measures to crush them.

In the Socialist Alliance the majority are represented by the Socialist Workers Party, backed up as usual by the International Socialist Group. Now - sad to say - the CPGB has aligned itself with them in supporting the Respect unity coalition and agreeing that the SA is dead. Just to be sure, the SWP is determined to destroy any sign of life. Yet there are still minorities who oppose them.

The first issue where a minority will be seen is the liquidation of the SA programme People before profit, which is highlighted by the republican motion ruled out of order. Then there are those trying to stop the liquidation of SA election work, including opponents of Respect. It is these rebellions that show that something is still alive in the SA and still fighting back.

The SA has had a militant republican minority in evidence at previous conferences, going back to the debates over the SA programme in 2001. The SA adopted a republican programme in People before profit due in some small measure to the agitation carried on by the Revolutionary Democratic Group and CPGB, with support from the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty. At that conference we secured over 70 votes around the demand for a federal republic of England, Scotland and Wales and a united Ireland.

We know the SWP fears republicanism like the plague. It thinks it will turn us into France or America. It voted for republicanism at the 2001 conference, but it contrived to bypass that vote through a second motion. This ensured that the SA would only promote certain ‘priority’ issues. Not surprisingly the republic was not one of them. Since then the SA leadership has been inflicted with a bout of collective amnesia, causing it to forget completely the last 300 years of constitutional monarchy.

The SWP discovered a form of diplomatic republicanism. It did not want to look like soft royalists inside the SA nor like serious republicans outside it. So the ideal solution was to vote for republicanism at conference and ignore it in the real world. Yet the issue caught up with them again at the launch of Respect. At such a public event the SWP had to show its moderate side by opposing the motion for a democratic republic.

Look, George - see how reasonable the SWP leaders can be. They were ready to damage the reputation of their own party by showing no respect for democratic principles whatsoever. It could almost make you think they were fit for government! The Socialist Alliance executive did not come out of this shameful episode any better.

Despite the fact that the SA has a democratically decided programme which calls for a democratic republic, not one single word did the executive utter in support of it. On this issue the SA executive showed itself to be thoroughly untrustworthy. When executive members behave like opportunist bourgeois politicians, the SA has suffered a serious, self-inflicted wound. No wonder the organisation is nearly dead.

Militant republicans would surely challenge this at SA conference. As the highest democratic forum of the alliance, the conference is where all our interventions and tactics must be critically assessed. The leadership must be called to account for its actions by the members. Hence the following motion was submitted by the RDG:

“1. Republicanism means the sovereignty of the people in all matters, and the election of all representatives (eg, head of state or members of the second chamber). It is a fundamental democratic principle upheld by every genuine socialist, particularly in a society with royal and hereditary institutions.

2. The failure of Respect to support and uphold democratic and republican principles at its founding conference is a serious setback to the coalition. It indicates that the coalition is contemptuous of democratic culture and has no respect for the democratic rights of the people.

3. The responsibility for this shameful episode must be laid squarely at the door of the SA executive for failing to support its own programme and the Socialist Workers Party, whose speaker opposed republicanism and whose members ensured the republican motion was defeated.

4. The SWP’s opposition to republicanism provides evidence that:

(i) the SWP is motivated by petty sectarianism; and/or

(ii) the SWP opposes democratic principles and the rights of the people.

5. The behaviour of the SWP in opposing democratic principles at the Respect conference must be condemned by all socialists. It damages the credibility of the SWP in the eyes of the working class, who are likely to conclude that the SWP cannot be trusted. Furthermore it has undermined the democratic credentials of Respect. The SA resolves to campaign for Respect to reverse its anti-democratic decision and uphold democratic principles against all hereditary institutions.”

It should come as no surprise to find that the SA conference arrangements committee is recommending that this motion is ruled out of order. The reason given was that it is sectarian to criticise the SWP and this was in violation of the SA constitution.

There is no question that this motion is a direct criticism of the SWP and the SA executive. The whole socialist movement - never mind the SA membership - is entitled to call the SWP to account for its actions. The motion suggests that the SWP may have been motivated by sectarianism. One explanation is that the SWP voted against republicanism because the motion was put forward by the SA Democracy Platform and moved by the CPGB. Perhaps the SWP did not want to be seen supporting a proposal from rival organisations, even though they agreed with it. That would be sectarian.

But this is not the only explanation for their behaviour at the Respect conference. The alternative suggestion is that the SWP does not uphold basic democratic principles. It should go without saying that socialists oppose hereditary institutions. The monarchy is the most obvious national symbol of a corruption of democratic values. So perhaps the SWP voted it down because it is, at best, lukewarm about democratic principles.

There are other explanations. Perhaps it was George Galloway’s fault. Maybe this was the price the SWP had to pay to keep George Galloway on board? We would all like to know if that is the case. Or was it simply electoral considerations? Are Londoners so wedded to the monarchy that they would give a republican Respect short shrift at the ballot box? I think not.

The point is that the SA conference is the place where the SA leadership - not only the official leadership, but its unofficial SWP leadership - can explain exactly what the hell they are doing. Let the SA membership, including rank and file members of the SWP, see if SWP politics stack up. Let the Weekly Worker report their answers to the working class movement and let the working class decide what they think about SWP methods and tactics.

All of this tells us why this motion was ruled out of order. It is the only way the SWP and the SA executive can avoid having to account for their actions. It is the same when the SWP central committee expels SWP members unjustifiably. It is telling us that it is a law unto itself. It needs to account to nobody except itself. Here unfortunately are the seeds of Stalinist bureaucracy. The SWP will never become the party of the advanced sections of the class, while it holds this arrogant attitude. Our experience as militant workers teaches us to smell a rat from many miles’ distance.

The SWP’s voting down of the republican motion in Respect stinks to high heaven. Ironically the only way it could deal with this is to go the conference rostrum and either apologise for its mistake or give a credible explanation for its actions. By trying to rule this motion out of order, it is preventing the matter from being brought to a close. Whilst MPs are asking Tony Blair to publish the legal advice on the Iraq war, we could ask the central committee of the SWP to publish the section of its minutes dealing with this matter.

The second minority are those who are opposed to joining Respect and who are in favour of continuing to build the Socialist Alliance. The existence of this grouping, organised around the Democracy Platform of the SA (DPSA), makes it impossible for the pro-Respect bloc of the SWP-ISG-CPGB simply to close down the SA. There are still SA branches, which want to stand SA candidates.

The SA executive through the task group is putting forward a motion that would make it impossible for these SA branches to stand local candidates without the permission of Respect. In terms of the SA this would be totally undemocratic and, I think, unconstitutional. It would end one of the basic rights of local alliances to select and stand their own candidates. It would place the SA under the control of another, separate organisation.

For the DPSA the key question is defending the rights of local SA branches. If they lose their right to stand local candidates, this will cause a split or series of splits, as local branches declare UDI. This will be damaging for the SA and everybody involved in it. If the task group motion is passed, then the SA is more or less closed down and the rights of the minorities are trampled underfoot. The DPSA has already said that its supporters will walk out of the conference in protest if the motion is passed without amendment.

There are, though, a number of amendments to the task force motion - from Will McMahon et al, the CPGB and the DPSA. The key question is whether these amendments enable local SAs to decide for themselves to stand candidates. On balance I take the view that all the amendments would in theory permit local SAs to do so. But it will depend on how it works out in practice. It will depend on the actions of the executive. Clearly we cannot trust them.

We are therefore faced with two scenarios. First, the task group motion is passed unamended. We should walk out as a protest action. But we will not be leaving the SA. We will stay to fight on. If the amendment from Will McMahon carries, I think a protest walkout would be wrong. But it would present us with a different situation. The McMahon amendment carries a price tag which says: “Any SA candidates standing before or on June 10 will make it clear in their election literature that they call for a vote for Respect.” Despite the fact that I am not in favour of joining Respect, I think we could consider paying the price if it would ensure that there are official SA candidates. However, the DPSA needs to look at the situation carefully before deciding what to do. Whether we should wait until the end of conference to hold our own meeting, or have an adjournment during the conference itself to discuss the next steps, remains to be decided.

I am pleased to report that the RDG is part of both minorities - with the CPGB in the militant republican minority, and with the AWL in not joining Respect. We are surely the moderate wing of the lunatic fringe!