31.03.2004

Vote Respect

Marcus Ström explains why, despite all our criticisms of Respect, we advocate a vote for George Galloway, John Rees and Michael Lavalette in the European elections on June 10

George Galloway MP heads the Respect list in London for the European elections on June 10. John Rees, a central committee member of the Socialist Workers Party, is at the top of the coalition’s list for the West Midlands and Michael Lavalette, SWPer and Respect councillor in Preston, is number one for the unity coalition in the North West European parliamentary constituency. On June 11, would it be a positive or negative thing if these three were members of the European parliament? To ask the question is to answer it.

If any one of them won a seat it would be seen as a victory for the anti-war movement and the attempts to mould it into a leftwing political force. This much should be clear to anyone who views the situation objectively, taking as their starting point the balance of class forces within British society as a whole.

Is Respect the kind of organisation we have sought to create? Absolutely not. Has its Socialist Workers Party leadership compromised again and again on principle after principle? Most certainly. However, assuming the coalition remains broadly as it is now, there can be no doubt that we should vote Respect on June 10.

It is puzzling to find some comrades discovering a hitherto unknown principle of only supporting candidates that agree with or accept either the full communist programme or a part of it. Our attitude towards particular elections is determined tactically, but guided by our strategy of overcoming disunity and political incoherence in the struggle for a Communist Party.

There is much angst about Respect, and understandably so. Comrades Galloway, Rees and Lavalette are not standing on a programme for working class liberation; neither is the Respect declaration socialist. Indeed, the working class does not even rate a mention. The declaration is leftwing: anti-imperialist, anti-war and anti-privatisation, and in favour of abolishing the anti-union laws. While it claims to offer a solution to the problems afflicting British society, it does no such thing. It is populist. It only gives platitudes where concrete answers and concrete plans are needed.

The formation of Respect and the demise of the Socialist Alliance have opened up a new political situation for the left. New situations require new strategies, new tactics. Naturally there will be differences, some nuanced, some more pronounced. It is essential that communists and partisans of the working class hammer out those differences, but then act unitedly after decisions are made.

The Socialist Alliance, slowly strangled by the SWP’s sect-like inability to grasp the importance of socialist unity, has reached the end of its effective life. The SWP treated the SA as an on-off appendage for affecting the appearance of old Labour in elections. All attempts to transform the alliance into a vehicle for deeper left unity foundered for this reason.

It was quite correct for communists and other partisans of the Socialist Alliance to try to take key elements of People before profit, our common manifesto, into Respect. If we could uphold republicanism, open borders and the commitment of representatives to accept only an average worker’s wage within the SA, why not within Respect too? As a result of our tactic comrades such as John Rees, who refuses to give a straight answer to the question of whether he will accept a worker’s wage as MEP for West Midlands, have been put on the spot. As a result of our tactic many comrades, not least from within the SWP itself, are uneasy at the shift to the right. It is excellent that they have started to question their leadership’s twists and turns.

Comrades who recoil in horror at supporting George Galloway or John Rees on June 10 because they refuse to support our trinity of demands are mistaken. Yes, we should expose their reluctance and refusal to act as principled socialists. But this does not automatically mean we should not vote for them.

If we were to follow this line of reasoning, communists would only ever vote for themselves. We must have been wrong to call for a vote for Lesley Mahmood in the 1991 by-election when she stood as Real Labour against Peter Kilfoyle. Yes, the comrade stood on a platform which included a worker’s wage, but she did not call for the free movement of people and the ending of all immigration controls. Neither do Dave Nellist and Ian Page to this day. Comrade Page, socialist councillor in Lewisham, will stand for the Socialist Party in the Greater London constituency of Greenwich and Lewisham. He will not call for open borders and I am sure republicanism will not even feature in his campaign. Should we withhold our vote from him too?

Our support for the Socialist Labour Party must also have been wrong. The SLP rejected open borders at its founding conference and never adopted the principle of a worker’s wage. Likewise, our call to vote for Ken Livingstone as mayor of London. ‘Red’ Ken on a workers’ wage? Not likely. Open borders for him? I don’t think so. What about republicanism? Well, didn’t he look nice standing next to the queen?

We do not vote for candidates or parties merely for the platform on which they stand, but also in order to intersect with and develop the movement of which they are a part. Hence the vote for Livingstone was an endorsement of the burgeoning rebellion of the London Labour Party against Blairite control-freakery. And our vote for Respect signals that it is correct to form a leftwing political movement out of the anti-war protests. Criticise, yes. Oppose, no.

There are countless examples of where communists have endorsed candidates who have not stood on a consistent working class platform (not that the acceptance of our three principles would in themselves transform the Respect declaration into that). What of Lenin’s call to vote Labour in 1920? Opportunist nonsense, obviously. Macdonald did not stand as a workers’ MP on a worker’s wage nor for open borders and republicanism.

There are those, such as the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, so shrill in their denunciation of Respect, who called for a Labour government when Blair stood on an openly pro-imperialist platform. Yes, they were wrong to do so in 1997, but it does make their refusal to give critical backing to Respect’s anti-imperialist platform look rather strange.

It is correct for us to keep up the pressure on Respect candidates on questions of principle. Which SWP candidate will argue for open borders? Who will duck for cover? The working class must be informed. But this does not detract from the fact that having Rees, Galloway and Lavalette elected would be a good thing: for the anti-war movement, for left unity and for resolving the heightening contradictions within the SWP.

Those who oppose our straightforward ‘vote Respect’ call are turning the tactic of challenging candidates to accept a minimum platform into a principle. In elections, communists have a range of options open to us. Standing ourselves, coalitions with others, critical support for reformists and populists, conditional support, boycotts, spoiled ballot papers and so on. We adopt the tactic that is best suited to get our communist message out in a given case.

Communists have consistently argued that the anti-war and pro-democracy sentiment thrown up by Blair’s headlong rush to back the invasion of Iraq needs to be channelled in the direction of a working class party. The expulsion of George Galloway from the Labour Party and the desire of the SWP to reproduce the Stop the War Coalition on the electoral plane led indirectly to the birth to Respect.

This development arising from the anti-war movement should be welcomed - despite the SWP’s opportunistic junking of People before profit and the Socialist Alliance. A good vote for Respect and the election of comrades Rees, Lavalette or Galloway on June 10 would force Respect to take on a more serious organisational form. A Respect party would be forced to substitute hard policies for the current platitudes. It would provide a site for the struggle to forge a Communist Party. It would also test the SWP at a much higher level than the Socialist Alliance ever did.

At our March members’ aggregate, the CPGB overwhelmingly passed the following motion: “Recognising the need for the anti-war, pro-working class opposition to Blair to take on partyist form, the CPGB will work to ensure the biggest possible vote for Respect on June 10.”

This is a correct resolution. It is a call for communists to mobilise anti-war and pro-working class forces into Respect, to build its vote and fight for it to take the direction of a political party of the working class. Our members, no matter what our differences, must now commit themselves to fight for this perspective.

Does this approach cut us off from other developments in the workers’ movement? No, it does not. While the European lists for New Labour are Blairite, not all candidates for the constituencies of the Greater London Assembly are cut from such cloth. In Camden and Barnet, Lucy Anderson has committed herself to the RMT’s electoral pledges, including renationalisation of the railways, against privatisation of the tube and opposition to Blair’s anti-union laws. There are good grounds for giving her support. We should call for hustings to allow the chosen Respect candidate, Liz Wheatley, to debate with Lucy Anderson. Perhaps comrade Wheatley, convenor of Camden STWC, should stand down in favour of the Labour candidate.

There may be other exceptions. However, despite its crippled and inadequate political foundations, an electoral success for Respect would be a positive blow for the anti-war movement and for the attempt to give it political expression. If successful, Respect would take on a partyist logic. Even in the event that there is no electoral breakthrough, communists will be well placed to argue for what is actually necessary - not short cuts and populism, but consistent, working class socialism.