12.05.2004

Strengths, flaws, contradictions

George Galloway I'm not the only one Penguin Books, 2004, pp185, £10

George Galloway's book is somewhat unusual. Part autobiography, part political exposition, its title is based on a line from John Lennon's Imagine, which of course was also the inspiration for (and title of) Tommy Sheridan's and Alan McCombes's credo promoting their Scottish Socialist Party version of nationalist socialism

Galloway's work, despite its title, does not really make for the wilder reaches of utopian rhetoric, though such rhetoric is not entirely absent, as you would expect. But for the most part the book is an explanation of his own rather unusual political career as a left-reformist Labour politician whose main activity has been - unlike many of his contemporaries, who have focused more on domestic matters - the raising of opposition to some of the most oppressive manifestations of imperialist rule in the Middle East.

The book has been released as the campaign for the Euro elections really gets underway - obviously it is intended to be a major contribution in getting Respect's name known and the last two chapters are devoted to the unity coalition and its political rationale in Galloway's eyes. Indeed it might sell well: comrade Galloway is a figure of notoriety in some circles and, as many have observed, shares with Arthur Scargill the knack of polarising opinion about himself - there are those who loathe him and those who admire him; but there are not that many in no-man's land.

As someone who does not wholly trust any left reformist, I would personally observe that Galloway is as principled, in his own terms, as any of them, and is someone who has been demonised not only by the bourgeoisie and the tabloid press, but also by sections of the left. While he has on occasion been taken to task deservedly, such as for his unreconstructed catholic opposition to abortion, some of the most bitter attacks on him have been for his strengths, not his weaknesses. In particular, his evident gut-level opposition to imperialism in the Middle East - something that comes with a passion that is quite unusual for a social-democratic career politician.

Galloway is evidently strongly influenced by a Stalinised form of Marxism, even though his entire career has been spent in Labour. In fact, at times his framework of analysis goes beyond social democratic reformism; he occasionally appears to distance himself programmatically from social democracy entirely, defining it as a means of staving off socialism, particularly in the aftermath of World War II. He also narrates at length his development as something that sounds rather like a far-left radical in the late 60s and early 70s - he boasts of friendly relations with Fidel Castro.

Galloway talks up a sentimental 'left' British patriotism of a kind associated with both left reformism and 'official communism', lamenting Britain's and Europe's subordination to the United States in the international order, and there are numerous other things that mark out the fact that, despite occasional flashes of neo-Marxist insight, Galloway remains firmly in the mould of a very left form of social democracy. Indeed, this is shown by his espousal of republicanism - a not insignificant inclusion in the book, given the voting down of our call for the 'R' in Respect to stand for 'republicanism' at its founding convention by the assembled SWP ranks.

Galloway is certainly a republican, albeit a liberal one, as evidenced by his rather tepid form of exposition: "The queen will not be with us forever and even if she lives as long as her mother we should make plans now for a referendum on her successor as the British head of state. Democrats should begin to make the case for a republican future" (p23). This only begs the question: why wait? Surely the case for democracy has more urgency than that, and cannot depend on the rhythms of generational succession, when one of the most blatantly undemocratic features of the monarchical system is precisely the issue of generational succession to the office of head of state. While he mentions the royal prerogative, with its powers to "declare the country to be at war, to command the House of Commons …, to create general elections or deny them to the government of the day", he does not appear to see the ending of this situation as particularly urgent either.

Galloway's view of democracy oscillates between the vague and the technocratic: he lays out a whole programme for the democratisation of the United Nations, election of a reformed security council, etc, as a dubious alternative to the current "den of thieves and beggars". His recipe for democracy in Britain involves abolishing the monarchy and the House of Lords, but also much fewer, more highly paid MPs - presumably with the model of himself in mind, having the means to travel round the world campaigning against imperialism to one's heart's content.

There is not really much of a hint of any real understanding of the need for democracy from below - that is, substantive democracy, which obviously includes the payment of those elected no more than the average of a skilled worker, and the power of those below to recall their representatives. Instead, we get a conception of democracy that appears somewhat elitist, and no doubt owes much both to 'official communist' and Labourite bureaucratic practice. It is a bad conception, and a bad practice.

The real meat of the book, of course, is the material about his involvement in the Middle East, and Iraq in particular. Galloway tells the story of how, after meeting a Palestinian exile militant in his days as a youthful Labour Party member, he was converted to being a lifelong advocate of the Palestinian cause. He was instrumental in the 'twinning' of Dundee with Nablus in the 1970s, a gesture that became legion in the heyday of the Labour left in the 1980s. At the time, however, being seen to ally with the PLO brought almost as much opprobrium as if today links with al Qa'eda were being promoted.

Galloway then gives a prolonged account of the various phases of his relations with movements and regimes in the Middle East, and in particular the focus of his activities since 1991, Iraq. He is able to point convincingly to his own role as a vocal public opponent of Saddam Hussein's regime right from the very beginning. His account of demonstrators, himself among them, being denounced by Tory Douglas Hurd as "communist troublemakers" for getting in the way while the Tories were parleying with Saddam's regime in the 1980s is certainly worth remembering.

He makes an important point about an event that may come to be seen as a turning point by historians, in explaining the sudden shift of Iraq from favoured ally of imperialism in the 1980s (against the Iranian revolution) to pariah status in a relatively short period of time. He quotes a speech by Saddam Hussein at an Arab League summit in 1989, where the latter warned that "if Israel attacks any Arab country ... we have the means to burn half of Israel" (p41). Despite the usefulness of Saddam's regime to imperialism in the war with Iran, Iraq was becoming just too developed, too close to parity with US imperialism's most trusted regional gendarme for comfort, and had to be cut down to size.

There is some evidence that Hussein was encouraged to invade Kuwait in 1990 by the United States, which then, once the deed was done, emulated perfidious Albion of old in seizing on the event to justify what in effect became a prolonged war of destruction against Iraq - both its regime and people. Galloway points also to the gross manipulation of the issue of the gassing of the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1988. At the time, the imperialists tried to blame Iran for this atrocity; it was only later, after they had decided to make Iraq the next target, that the story was changed and history was rewritten. Of course, the culprit was indeed the Iraqi regime, but as long as Saddam was a US ally a whole different story was told.

Two of the three major issues that have been used to demonise Galloway over recent years, accompanying his expulsion from Labour, obviously constitute major themes. The first is his famous speech in front of Saddam Hussein in 1994 and the second is the Mariam Hamza campaign in 1998, which was at the time a major political blow against the murderous sanctions regime imposed by the US and the UN against the Iraqi people. Galloway is still being witch-hunted for this successful campaign, described at some length here, both of aid to a sick child who would otherwise have certainly died, and equally importantly publicising what was happening to many more in Iraq due to the sanctions. The third issue - the planting of forged documents in Iraq in 2003, purporting to show that Galloway was in the pay of Saddam Hussein - is not dealt with, probably for legal reasons (the libel case against The Daily Telegraph is due to come to court in November this year).

"Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability," he concluded his televised speech in Saddam's presence in 1994. How does Galloway explain this apparently incongruous and sycophantic turn of phrase? "The 'your' in question in those remarks is not a singular possessive pronoun, but a plural. Those being praised for their courage, strength and indefatigability … are the 23 million Iraqis, not their president …if I'd used the good old Scottish word 'youse' instead of 'your', the ruthlessly exploited misinterpretation of my comments would have been disabled."

Whatever you think of this explanation, it is beyond doubt that without the albatross of that speech hanging round his neck he would be a good deal more effective today. It has indeed been "ruthlessly exploited" - not only as a weapon with which to beat the man who uttered the words, but as a means of undermining the anti-war movement itself.

However, the demonisation of George Galloway - unfortunately echoed by politically disarmed sections of the left - is part and parcel of the wave of chauvinist hysteria currently being directed against Arabs and those with an islamic culture. They are being used as a substitute 'enemy' for the now vanished Soviet bloc in order to justify the militarism that imperialism - particularly in its most powerful US manifestation - needs in order to hold its system together politically and economically. In that sense, the attacks on Galloway recall the similar treatment of the pro-Soviet Labour MP, Konni Zilliacus, in the early phases of the cold war in the 1940s and 50s.

All in all, I'm not the only one is an interesting, illuminating and at times surprising read. Some of the material within it will be of considerable importance when historians come to write the history of the Iraq debacle - for that is what it is turning into, in some ways considerably more quickly than Vietnam did. It reveals much about the strengths, flaws and contradictions of its author, and provides important documentation on recent events that are still shaking the world.