02.06.2004

Vote Respect but fight for socialist politics

Nick Rogers analyses the forthcoming European and GLA elections - and says that those who do not advocate a vote for Respct are wrong.

In recent weeks both the CPGB and the Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform have conducted internal debates about how socialists should relate to Respect and what recommendations their organisations should make about the casting of votes on June 10.

A full range of options has been canvassed. The CPGB majority calls for the biggest possible vote for Respect. The CPGB Red Platform insists that Respect candidates should pass the triple test of backing a worker's wage for elected representatives, open borders and republicanism before earning the vote of socialists. The Revolutionary Democratic Group, which has initiated the launching of a Republican Socialist Tendency within the SADP, asks only that Respect candidates should commit to republicanism (see Dave Craig Weekly Worker May 27). Among those in the SADP who are wholly hostile to Respect, the Alliance for Workers' Liberty damns the whole initiative and calls for a vote for Labour where there is no socialist candidate.

Assessing Respect
Certainly, many socialists have good reason to feel a sense of grievance over the manner in which Respect was created. The moves towards its launch came after a long period in which the Socialist Workers Party had downgraded the work of the Socialist Alliance. This was particularly marked during the anti-war upsurge. Consistent agitation and propaganda by a coherent and united socialist movement might have won hundreds and thousands of recruits and placed the left in a position of unparalleled strength within a wider movement of protest against the imperialist aggression of the British and American states.

Abandoning the Socialist Alliance as the vehicle for building a united working class organisation of socialists intervening in the key struggles of the day also means that its programme, its comprehensive manifesto and its democratic structures are ditched.

Loose, amorphous front organisations suit the sectarian needs of the SWP very well. Nothing better allows the SWP to parade its revolutionary credentials and recruit to its own organisation than a coalition in which it is left to provide the socialist answers to the questions the front organisation tentatively raises. The Socialist Alliance, the closer it came to playing the role of a socialist party, threatened to make the SWP in its current form superfluous.

In place of the SA, Respect offers a far from comprehensive and sometimes vague founding declaration, an executive committee that is short of potential challengers to the hegemony of the SWP, and weak organisational structures that will struggle to hold to account any elected candidates.

The SWP has adopted a deliberate strategy of excluding, as far as it can, other left groups from the committees and organisational structures of Respect. Even Alan Thornett of the International Socialist Group, supporters throughout of the Respect initiative, was only added to the official slate for the Respect national executive at its founding convention as an apparently last-minute afterthought.

Yet from a position less politically and organisationally advanced than that achieved by the Socialist Alliance, Respect is giving political voice to the great social and political movement of our day - the opposition to imperialist war in Iraq - and, furthermore, doing so firmly from the left. It is Respect that opposes all imperialist wars. It is Respect that calls for an end to all privatisation and public ownership for the railways and other public services. It is Respect that defends the principle of free education and health services, publicly owned and funded, pensions linked to earnings, a minimum wage of £7.40 an hour and taxing the rich. It is Respect that calls for the repeal of Tory anti-union laws. It is Respect that defends the rights of refugees and asylum-seekers. And it is Respect that proclaims the vision of "a world based on need, not profit, a world where solidarity rather than self-interest is the spirit of the age" (all from the Respect founding declaration).

Respect's European and London manifestos continue much the same themes, although Lindsey German's material is weaker - as, consistently, is the bulk of her election literature.

Nevertheless, these are the planks of a formation based on working class politics. That is why Respect has garnered the open support of some trade union branches. We can argue about whether or not Respect is explicitly socialist. You will get a different line on this depending upon which Respect leader is addressing the issue and at what forum - at the Socialist Alliance conference in March, for instance, Nick Wrack was clear that he saw Respect as socialist. But only Respect is standing in every European region in England and across London on the sort of policies that have been common to all socialist electoral challenges in recent years.

Some of those involved in the evolution of the Respect coalition may have hankered after political alliances that effectively abandoned all real socialist politics, but the pressure of events (not least the campaigning of socialists inside and outside Respect) means that no section of the capitalist class is supporting Respect. Given the declared policy positions of Respect, there is no basis on which they could do so. What section of British business supports the repeal of the trade union laws or wholesale renationalisation? For that matter, what section of British business supports the unconditional withdrawal of British and American troops from Iraq?

Just consider the position on the war adopted by the Liberal Democrats, a party that does seek the support of business and whose politics are firmly bourgeois. On Iraq, the Liberal Democrats call not for the withdrawal of troops and the end of the occupation, but the use of soldiers from muslim countries to fight the Iraqi insurgents. That is not opposition to imperialism, but a strategy of imposing the interests of western imperialism by proxy. The position of Respect could not be more different. Certainly, criticise the SWP for its craven attitude to Charles Kennedy on February 15 2003 - in giving the leader of the Liberal Democrats a powerful stage for asserting the anti-war credentials of his party. But in learning from the errors of the past, we must take decisions today based on the real balance of forces.

Respect and June 10
For the nub of the question whether or not to recommend a vote for Respect on June 10 boils down to an evaluation of the differing consequences of either a successful showing by Respect or an abject failure.

Success will undoubtedly be measured in whether Respect has representatives elected to the European parliament and Greater London Authority. Only then will we be able to announce the birth of a genuine leftwing challenge to New Labour.

Just as Tommy Sheridan's election to the Scottish parliament five years ago propelled the Scottish Socialist Party to prominence in Scotland and opened up new opportunities for socialist intervention in political debate in Scotland, electoral success for Respect will transform the opportunities for socialists in England. And it will place the left in a position of great strategic strength at the head of the anti-war movement. Every new development in Iraq, every imperialist outrage, will be an opportunity for Respect's representatives to make the anti-imperialist case and begin to set the terms of the debate about the war.

Of course much remains to be decided about what kind of formation Respect is to become. In election meetings many Respect speakers refer to Respect as a party. It is far from that at the moment. But electoral success will place the party question centre stage at the Respect conference promised for the autumn, even if we have to contest that question in the face of fierce opposition from the SWP. That conference will have to address key issues such as establishing democratic structures, holding elected representatives to account, taking decisions on a full range of policy areas, publishing a Respect newspaper and Respect literature. We can take Nick Wrack at his word and seek to build Respect on an explicitly socialist basis. The building of a socialist alternative to New Labour will be back on track - this time round, at the head of a powerful social movement.

In the event of electoral failure for Respect, some socialists may take delight in lambasting the SWP's shambolic antics over the last year or two (and indeed the SWP will have to take prime responsibility for the failure); others will dance gleefully on the political grave of George Galloway. But, while nursing their sore hung-over heads the morning after the declaration of the election results, the socialist opponents of Respect will have to face the cold reality that one of the best opportunities in a generation to establish a left presence in British politics will have been squandered.

It will be back to the drawing board for the left in England. Perhaps the SWP will try to relaunch Respect for the general election in 2005. A few desultory attempts may be made to put the slumped form of the Socialist Alliance back on its feet. The Merseyside initiative, the Campaign for a Mass Party of the Working Class, may well have some mileage in it. But the fact will remain that all the efforts of the last several years to bring socialists together in a single organisation will have come to nothing and the greatest mass movement in decades will have passed us by.

Republican and democratic politics
It is primarily because the choice before us on June 10 is so stark, that the positions of the Red Platform and the Revolutionary Democratic Group in equivocating over which Respect candidates to support and which to oppose (although on the basis of different criteria) are mistaken.

However, the issues raised now by the Red Platform and the RDG (as they were, at the Respect convention, by the whole SADP) could not be more significant.

The RDG's backing for republican socialism, goes to the heart of the kind of workers' party required by the left. For socialists cannot limit their campaigning to trade union-type issues (although these cannot be neglected), but have to challenge the ruling class on every aspect of political affairs - and, above all, challenge the basis on which the ruling class maintains its rule.

In this regard, the role of a hereditary head of state over the last 300 years in stabilising capitalist rule has been an immensely powerful weapon in the armoury of Britain's bourgeoisie. The monarchy has stood as a bulwark against revolutionary change, neutral in relation to party politics only as long as none of the protagonists represent a genuine threat to the rule of capital.

While it may be centuries since a monarch exercised his or her prerogative powers in person, these powers are exercised regularly by the prime minister of the day, particularly when conducting international affairs of the state. That is why Tony Blair was under no constitutional obligation to seek the sanction of the House of Commons for invading Iraq - the parliamentary debate was a response to the immense political pressure brought to bear by the anti-war movement.

With a hereditary head of state, an undemocratic upper chamber and a prime minister able to wield quasi-presidential powers that seriously circumscribe the sovereignty of the elected legislature, Britain is a sorry excuse for a democracy. As long as there is general social acceptance that one of Britain's wealthiest, most privileged families should be allowed to occupy the apex of both social and political power in Britain, socialists cannot even begin to win the ideological argument for social equality and genuine democracy.

It is precisely because republicanism plays such an inconsequential role in mainstream political debate that socialists must seek every opportunity to crack open the block that hereditary power in Britain represents to democratic advance.

But, while the argument for democracy - the argument that ultimately represents the only way of unlocking the road to a socialist society - must begin with Britain's monarchical constitution, it does not end there. Questions of democracy infuse every aspect of Britain's political and social life. And, as the creation of a European supranational state progresses, the demands for a democratic EU will take on ever more pressing urgency.

Furthermore, whenever the actions of the imperialist powers come to the fore, the question of global democratic accountability is thrown ever more insistently into the political debate. The democratic rights of the Iraqi people are a pressing issue for the British working class now that our military forces are instrumental in denying them. But the creation of global institutions such as the IMF, World Bank and WTO defending the interests of capital and the major capitalist powers (and the imperialist actions of those capitalist powers) makes global democracy a live issue.

For socialists the creation of a global working class movement is the only way to begin to address these issues. Immigration controls and the condemnation of hundreds of thousands of workers to illegal working ruthlessly divide the international working class. That is why socialist have to make the case for open borders.

Fighting within Respect
But how do we make the case for a socialist politics that attempts to make a serious challenge to the rule of capitalism in Britain and worldwide? The tactics of the Red Platform and the RDG are an inadequate response to this question, for they fail to engage with the very real processes taking place within Respect.

We all know where the members of socialist groups in Respect stand on the issues of republicanism, open borders and representatives on a worker's wage. Whether or not they are prepared to respond to questions from the CPGB or the SADP at public meetings, the positions of their organisations on these issues (ie, supportive) are well known. The string of SWP speakers who opposed the resolutions on these issues at the Respect convention made just that point. SWP comrades insisted that of course they supported abolishing the monarchy and immigration controls and taking a worker's wage, but they argued that inserting these points into the founding statement was ill-conceived. Some told us to wait for the Respect conference in the autumn to debate these issues.

Not so very different in practice from the many socialist candidates standing under the auspices of the Socialist Party, Campaign for a Mass Workers' Party and, possibly, even some SADP local authority candidates, who will not be explicitly backing either republicanism or open borders in their election literature. There is no suggestion from either the Red Platform or the RDG that we do not back these candidates, yet the fight for a socialist politics that takes democratic issues seriously is obviously not restricted to Respect.

So if there is no basis for distinguishing between many left candidates standing under one of several socialist labels and those standing as Respect on the basis of republicanism, open borders and a worker's wage, against whom are these tests promoted by the Red Platform and the RDG targeted?

Intentionally or otherwise, they will strike against Respect candidates who do not originate in an established socialist group. Precisely, those individuals, in other words, who are being exposed to socialist politics for the first time - mostly after involvement in the anti-war movement. That is not exactly an intelligent way to win them over to the politics we espouse.

Who are going to stand out as the sectarians? Not the SWP (whatever their record in the Socialist Alliance), who have encouraged them to participate and constantly tell them what a wonderful contribution they are making. It will be those of us who are argumentative at meetings, make all kinds of demands of Respect and then, to cap it all, announce that we are going to pick and choose which Respect candidates to support. Oh, and, by the way, add that it will generally be the hoary SWP activists, the ones we are always having verbal fisticuffs with, who we will recommend voting for. That is just not a credible position.

Many of the candidates the Red Platform and RDG would effectively be refusing to back will be muslims. The so-called approach to the mosque by the SWP has provoked the most anguish in socialist circles. Deep misgivings are expressed about opening the door to petty bourgeois elements.

There are certainly dangers in any electoralism that focuses on maximising votes at the expense of principle. The question is not, however, whether socialists hand out leaflets outside mosques. We should be appealing to a section of the working class that has had the most direct experience of the repressive nature of the state during the current 'war on terrorism' (and the muslim working class will form the majority attending mosques). Consider the number of muslims subjected to police stop-and-search powers, or the hundreds who have been detained in high-profile raids and then quietly released without charge. Consider the high levels of unemployment and poverty among muslim communities. This is a section of the working class that should be supporting socialists against New Labour and should be well represented amongst candidates of left formations such as Respect.

Nor for that matter should we reject the support of small business people. Did we complain when Asian shopkeepers provided financial support during the miners' strike? The question is what politics we stand on and whether it is the interests of the working class as a whole that informs all our activities. If a small businessperson is prepared to support the repeal of anti-union laws, a minimum wage of £7.40 an hour, well and good.

At Marxism 2003, Lindsey German did appear to be prepared to soft-pedal on the issue of women's and gay rights in pursuit of the support of the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB). Six months later the Respect founding declaration opposed discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation and asserted the right of self-determination of every individual in relation to sexual choices. It appears that MAB was unable to affiliate to Respect because of these commitments. But, having won Respect to these principles, it would be particularly perverse to withhold support from muslim candidates who are prepared to stand on a platform that backs them.

The struggle within Respect on core issues is far from over. There is the example of the temporary link-up between Respect in Birmingham and Kashmiri People's Justice Movement. The PJP urged support for Respect in the European elections on the basis of a comparison with the Liberal Democrats on the question of gay rights (the Lib Dems were deemed far too progressive on the issue for the PJP). The Respect leaflet that urged a reciprocal vote for the PJP in the local elections has now been withdrawn.

George Galloway in his Independent on Sunday interview makes a blatant appeal to the muslim vote on the basis of his religious convictions and his opposition to abortion - positions he has always held and which have not hurt him when appealing to the catholic vote in Glasgow. We should allow individuals to exercise their right to individual conscience on these issues, even when publicly expressing their point of view. The question is how they behave as candidates and representatives of a wider movement or party. George Galloway as the elected MEP for Respect will be expected to vote for Respect's positions on women's rights in the European parliament, just as much as on workers' rights.

So the process of struggle to turn Respect into the kind of socialist organisation that can serve as a useful vehicle for the working class continues. The point is that we should engage with this struggle, and that we should bring to it a fully rounded analysis, rather than a simplistic check-list approach.

After June 10
But Respect is not the only arena for socialist politics. Socialist candidates are standing in these elections under a variety of labels. The SADP registered 'Democratic Socialist Alliance - People Before Profit' with the electoral commission, not in order to launch a new party, but to allow Socialist Alliance branches to stand in local elections that would otherwise provide working class communities with no socialist alternative. Only in this way, could the roots in working class communities sunk by the best Socialist Alliance branches be sustained. All these candidates deserve the backing of socialists.

The International Socialist League, in alliance with the Liverpool dockers and the Campaign for a Mass Working Class Party, has produced an excellent issue of Unite. This takes up the issues of the war, the need for a new working class party, the democratic issue in relation to local government, and the scapegoating of asylum-seekers (incidentally it does not mention the monarchy or open borders). SADP candidates are using this newspaper as a key part of their election campaigns.

Left Labour candidates should also be supported. Graham Bash makes a strong case for supporting Ken Livingstone, given his anti-war and anti-Blairite credentials, at least with the second mayoral vote (Weekly Worker May 20).

The SADP represents an important forum of socialist politics. Some of its members are also in Respect. If Respect survives the June 10 elections as an effective force, the SADP should make a collective intervention in Respect, just as it did at the Respect convention in January. If Respect disappears from the political stage, the SADP has the potential to play an important role in bringing together all those socialists committed to building a working class socialist party in order to discuss a way forward from the impasse in which we will find ourselves. In either event, the CPGB majority should commit to rejoining the SADP.