26.05.2004

Vote republican socialist

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group calls on the CPGB to rejoin the Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform, and to vote for Respect (and other candidates) conditionally according to their support for republican and socialist demands.

On Saturday May 15 the Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform met in Birmingham to discuss the campaign for the June 10 council elections. As is usual at such events, there was much business to discuss on the nuts-and-bolts issues of running a campaign. We now have candidates in Merseyside, Manchester, Walsall, Stockport, Exeter and Sheffield. In Birmingham we are supporting an independent socialist.

We are also supporting candidates of the Alliance for Green Socialism (mainly concentrated in Yorkshire) and the Socialist Party. The good news is that we are beginning to make contact with SA members in new areas. Three comrades came from Glasgow, including Hillel Ticktin, a regular speaker at the CPGB's summer school. It was reported that a London Socialist Alliance (Democracy Platform) will be set up soon. We are hoping to set up other SADP groups.

The SADP secretary reported that he had had no reply to the open letter to the CPGB. We had written to urge the CPGB to rejoin the SADP so that we could work more closely together in building greater unity. Some of us read the reply in the Weekly Worker, but unfortunately the CPGB rejected our appeal for unity, whilst proclaiming their intention to "continue to fight for the unity of all socialists in a single working class party" (May 6). Theory and practice seem to diverge at this point.

The CPGB reply proclaims its fight for socialist unity as members of the Labour Party, Respect and the Socialist Alliance. But the latter is split into an active minority part around the Socialist Alliance (DP) and an inactive majority part, or a 'corpse' as some would say, led by the Socialist Workers Party and International Socialist Group. The SADP is not a party, as the CPGB claims. We are an alliance containing political groups and SA independents. Our programme is the SA's People before profit. We defend the same SA constitution based on democracy, openness and inclusivity.

The only difference is that the SADP is committed to campaigning for a workers' party. In terms of the CPGB's call for "the unity of all socialists in a single working class party", the SADP has the same policy. The SA does not. Therefore the CPGB's determination to remain in the dead part of the SA, whilst refusing to unite with the active part, is, to say the least, bizarre. Some comrades think it is a piece of CPGB cynicism, putting its own special interests first.

The CPGB's own Red Platform puts its finger on the nub of the matter when it says: "Ultimately, what it seems to boil down to is that the SADP is rather smaller than Respect, and simply not worth the trouble" (Letters Weekly Worker May 13). They could have pointed out that it boils down to the CPGB being members of the dead bit, whilst refusing to join the active part.

The SADP meeting formally recognised the Republican Socialist Tendency. A statement circulated by the tendency says: "The RST is part of the SADP and open to all SADP members. We recognise that the current leadership of the SA has ignored and neglected the democratic republican demands in our programme People before profit. Our aim is to ensure that the SADP recognises the importance of this part of our programme and develops a vigorous campaigning perspective around these demands as an integral part of the struggle for a republican socialist party, along the lines of the Scottish Socialist Party."

The Socialist Alliance (DP) began life in 2003 as more or less a single-issue campaign for democracy in the SA. It was the focal point for those opposing the direction the SWP was taking the SA. Now the crisis and collapse of the SA means that we are having to find our own way forward. We can no longer be a protest group following in the wake of the SWP. The setting up of a tendency marks a small step in the democratic evolution of the SADP. It implies that a minority of comrades are now proposing a definite direction for the SADP independently of the direction taken by the SWP.

The founding statement of the RST argues that Respect has been launched on a false perspective. It argues that there is a twofold crisis of parliamentary democracy and working class representation. The war in Iraq has brought these crises to the fore. The anti-war movement was in effect a mass pro-democracy movement. The left was presented with a golden opportunity to transform it into a democratic republican movement, and the Socialist Alliance into a republican socialist party like the SSP.

The failure of the left and the tragedy of Respect is that it does not provide an answer either to the crisis of democracy or to working class representation. It is neither a democratic republican movement, nor is it seeking to build a republican socialist party. The major barrier to doing what is both necessary and possible is the SWP. Its economistic approach to politics is a road block on the way to a democratic republic and therefore socialism.

The major debate of the day was whether we should vote for Respect. The following motion was proposed:

"In the light of statements made by leading figures of Respect, the unity coalition, this meeting understands that Respect is not committed as a body to the defence of women's rights - we instance reproductive rights. This meeting further understands that Respect, the unity coalition, has forged links with an openly communalist and homophobic grouping, namely the People's Justice Party.

"This meeting believes that Respect, the unity coalition, is not a step forward towards a new workers' party, but is a step away from that goal. It is a populist project in which the class interests of the workers are submerged in the interests of a petty bourgeois programme.

"Therefore this meeting resolves that, given the above, it is impermissible for socialist organisations to vote for or work within it. The Democracy Platform of the Socialist Alliance will therefore advise workers not to vote for the candidates of Respect, the unity coalition. This meeting resolves to publicise this resolution as widely as possible within the workers' movement".

The motion was moved by Mike Pearn and supported by Alliance for Workers' Liberty comrades. The first two paragraphs deal with the latest allegations against Respect on the issue of abortion rights taken up by Weekly Worker and the links made in Birmingham with the Kashmiri People's Justice Party (PJP). Some comrades also blamed Respect for destroying the SA.

Members of Respect in the SADP felt the words "impermissible … to vote for or work within it" made their position difficult. A number of counter-arguments were put. First it was necessary to focus on the official programme and policies of Respect, not this or that 'latest allegation'. Respect's policy statement includes "an end to war and occupation of Iraq" and "an end to all privatisations and the bringing back into democratic public ownership of the railways and other public services", " the repeal of the Tory anti-union laws" and "tax the rich to fund welfare and close the growing gap between the poor and the wealthy few", etc.

In truth this is more or less the same programme - or rather the same priority policies - which the SA stood on in the 2001 election. It is the old Labour politics practised by the SWP-ISG. The fact that George Galloway, a Labour MP, has been added has made no difference. It is the same programme, written by the same people. It makes some concession to new muslim allies, but it comes from the same political stable.

As for whether Respect is 'socialist', we have to recognise that it is more socialist than New Labour, which got rid of clause four as part of the desocialisation of Labour. The coalition, on the other hand, states publicly that the 'S' in Respect stands for 'socialism'. Its programme says: "We want ... a world based on need, not profit; a world where solidarity rather than self-interest is the spirit of the age." When we add the fact that the overwhelming majority of its members (eg, SWP, ISG and CPGB) are socialist, then we should accept it has socialist credentials. None of this is to deny that Respect's idea of socialism is vague and questionable.

The AWL has made the focal point of its criticism of Respect not its programme, but the role or position of George Galloway. It has also claimed it is a "popular front". In the annals of Trotskyism this is nearly as bad as it gets, and, on the crime sheet, just below 'Stalinism'. Respect may be a front for the SWP, but it is not popular with either the masses or the bourgeoisie.

The key to the popular front is an alliance of the working class with the left wing of the bourgeoisie. If anything, the Labour Party is a popular front, because its policies are supported by the capitalist class and its leadership is wedded to business interests. Respect, on the other hand, is not backed by the multinationals. The best it gets is a good number of students, an MP and a few shopkeepers.

Furthermore it is wrong to consider our view of Respect in isolation from the bigger picture. In many places the battle is between Respect and the Labour Party, and it is here that the real AWL position comes to the fore - AWL comrades made it clear that they would be voting Labour against Respect. The hard leftist criticism of Respect went up in a puff off smoke. The issue was now Blair versus Galloway.

Yet the AWL felt it was not fair to focus on the crimes of Blair in the way they had focused on the crimes of Galloway. The Labour Party, we were assured, was more than just one person. But the words 'sauce', 'goose' and 'gander' sprung into my mind. I was surprised to hear that Mike Pearn also commended Labour to us. The AWL at least has the excuse that it had been embedded in Labourism and was merely reverting, in time of crisis, to the old, familiar territory. But, whatever the reasons, it felt like the hot air was draining out of the militant anti-Respect balloon. The motion was taken in parts and the last paragraph was defeated.

None of this means we should either join Respect or even vote for it. The question is, on what basis should we decide what to do? We need our own independent criterion. This is where our own programme People before profit comes in. Certainly it is not a matter of either withholding votes or handing them to Respect. It will make virtually no difference to the total votes cast whether a tiny group like the Revolutionary Democratic Group or even the SADP says vote or don't vote Respect.

Standing in elections is about testing or assessing our base in the working class. It enables us to measure the relationship we have built or not built with the class. The aim of an election campaign is to strengthen the political consciousness and organisation of the class. If a campaign does that, then the day after the election the working class will be in a better position than before.

In People before profit the Socialist Alliance (DP) has a republican socialist programme. It sets out its aim of replacing capitalism with a socialist society. It makes a series of democratic demands which, taken together, would establish a democratic republic, based on the sovereignty of the people. There is no other road to socialism except the fight for and extension of democracy. Hence the SADP programme calls for:

♦ Abolish the monarchy, the House of Lords, the privy council and crown powers.

♦ Establish fixed-term democratic elections, based on proportional representation and accountability of all elected officials and all MPs to their constituents.

♦ Disestablish the churches of England and Scotland - for the complete separation of church and state, and the freedom to worship, or not, as we choose.

♦ Self-determination for Scotland and Wales.

♦ Self-determination for the people of Ireland.

♦ Abolish the lord chancellor's office - all judges to be elected and accountable. For a free national legal service to ensure equal and effective access to justice for everyone. Establish the right to sue any official before a jury.

♦ Disband special branch, the secret services, and all surveillance agencies and operations.

Republican socialism must be the starting point for our intervention, whether we are standing candidates or not. We can support AGS and SP candidates on this basis. In London there are no SADP candidates, so if we are to support other candidates it should be on the basis that they are republican socialists.

Many workers will say, 'Why socialism?' and most socialists will say, 'Why republicanism?' Giving prominence to republicanism is not because we do not like the queen or simply because we are working class democrats. It is also because we recognise that there is a growing crisis of parliamentary democracy in Britain. This shows itself in the poor turnouts and alienation of the voters. It shows itself in the rise of the BNP. It can be seen in the failure of parliament to hold the government to account. The so-called war on terrorism is adding a new dimension - attacking democratic rights and civil liberties and fermenting racism. This situation is creating new opportunities for the far right, and brings the threat of a more authoritarian state. A rotten, corrupt and failed parliamentary system provides no defence.

Socialists cannot continue to ignore the crisis of democracy. It is vital that we put forward democratic and republican demands and make them a key element in our agitation. Disillusion with democracy is a fuel that can power the growth of fascism. We must agitate for a democratic alternative and mobilise the working class for this aim. Republican socialists are those who are serious about democracy and recognise the danger that our movement faces if we do not begin to take up the struggle for democracy.

New Labour is neither republican nor socialist. The Green Party is republican but not socialist. Respect is socialist but not republican. We should not call on workers to vote for any of these parties. However, we can and should vote for individual candidates, provided they are republican socialist candidates. On the Labour left, in Respect and even in the Green Party we may find some candidates who would openly support republicanism and socialism.

It seems to me that the CPGB is giving unconditional, but critical support to Respect. Our position is conditional and therefore seems close to the CPGB's Red Platform. The Respect statement says: "There is a crisis of representation, a democratic deficit, at the heart of politics in Britain." Unless Respect can show it has some understanding of democracy and some respect for, and serious commitment to, the sovereignty of the people, we should not support it or vote for it.