30.06.2004

Assessing the new and burying the past

Marcus Strom calls on all supporters of the CPGB to campaign for Respect in the forthcoming by-elections in Leicester South and Birmingham Hodge Hill - while still raising criticisms of its minimal and populist platform

The government has announced the shortest possible campaigning period for the by-elections in Leicester South and Birmingham Hodge Hill. They will take place on July 15. Stung by its drubbing in the European elections, New Labour wants these battles over and done with. In both seats they face a repeat of the upset they encountered in last year’s Brent East by-election, where the Liberal Democrats took the previously safe seat with a 28% swing.

Respect has announced it will contest both constituencies, building on impressive results in the inner cities of Birmingham and Leicester. In Leicester, Respect got 9% in the European elections and claims 20% in the area constituting Leicester South. Socialists and communists should campaign for Respect and - for all the failings and weaknesses of the candidates - fight for the largest possible vote for Yvonne Ridley in Leicester South and John Rees in Hodge Hill. At the Socialist Alliance executive meeting on June 26, the eight members present unanimously endorsed a motion from the CPGB calling on Socialist Alliance members to back Respect in the by-elections.

The leadership of Respect, however, seems to have learnt little from the European Union elections, focusing almost exclusively on what were some undoubtedly good pockets. The question of whether it remains part of the solution or becomes a barrier is an open one and could be decided one way or the other at the next Respect conference, to be held at the end of October or beginning of November. The Respect executive, which meets on July 17, will fix the date.

Worrying for the future democracy of the organisation is the manner in which George Galloway has announced his prospective candidacy for Bethnal Green and Bow in the general election. It seems the diary page of the Evening Standard is the preferred forum. Given Respect’s excellent result in City and East in the Greater London Assembly election, it makes sense to stand there in the general election. However, I know of no branch meeting called to endorse comrade Galloway as the candidate. There has been no circular to members and there is not even any mention of his candidacy on the Respect website. This top-down approach which eschews democratic involvement will, if it continues, kill the project.

Galloway will not contest in Glasgow again. His seat of Glasgow Kelvin is being abolished in the redrawing of boundaries and he has decided not to challenge Mohammed Sarwar as the Labour candidate for Glasgow Central. Quoted in Glasgow’s Evening Times, comrade Galloway said: “I was faced with the dilemma that, having worked hard to make him the first muslim MP, by standing against him in the next election I would become the person asking people to throw him out.”

At the Socialist Alliance executive, Alan Thornett claimed that Respect was now hegemonic on the left. This is highly doubtful. Yes, it is the main site of struggle for a partyist project, but it has not even been able to carry with it most of the non-SWP SA membership.

What is more, Respect was formed with the explicit purpose of getting people elected to the European parliament and the Greater London Assembly. On that account, it failed. Playing down socialism and ditching republicanism, open borders and working class representatives on a worker’s wages were all justified on the basis that this time we would “make a difference” and get people elected.
At the founding convention of Respect on January 25, John Rees, leading member of the Socialist Workers Party, said: “We fought for the declaration and voted against the things we believed in, because, while the people here are important, they are not as important as the millions out there. We are reaching to the people locked out of politics. We voted for what they want.” But, unfortunately for comrade Rees, they did not vote for Respect in their millions … not even one million of them.

At least he did not blame the Socialist Alliance left for this failure. At the special SA conference on March 13 his SWP comrade, Chris Bambery, said: “If we fail to win we will say, who stood other candidates? Who didn’t pitch in? Anyone who is giving us ‘conditional’ support - if we lose, you are the people to blame.” Given that Respect failed to win a seat, I am glad he is not coming out with this idiotic finger-pointing now.

Yet the results in some areas were impressive. John Rees says: “The 250,000 votes for Respect add up to just short of two percent across the country. But it is not evenly distributed and when you look at the concentrations of the Respect vote it reveals some very impressive bases from which we can build.” (Socialist Worker June 26) But build on what basis?

Respect rests on an unsustainable, totally opportunist and populist basis. If it is to provide a political voice for the working class, its declaration must be considerably strengthened: indeed we require a full-blown programme. The coming conference will be a watershed. George Galloway has said that the founding declaration was just a starting point, while Nick Wrack, Respect’s national chair, has said that, come the conference, he would back the adoption of principled positions such as open borders, republicanism and a worker’s wage.
However, the signs are not good. In his Socialist Worker article John Rees says that Respect needs “local newspapers, bulletins and free sheets distributed door to door. We need film shows in community centres and cafes. Fundraising meals, picnics and barbecues are great ways of inviting whole communities into Respect. Cultural/political events are far more attractive than ‘regular branch meetings’ so beloved of the old left and trade unionists.”

This deeply patronising and philistine approach is worrying. Although at the SA executive comrade Rees seemed to contradict himself (“We would be mad not to have branch meetings”), the direction is clear: the “old left” likes structures, votes, accountability, meetings, but success is to be found through a further demotion of politics.

Of course, community involvement is essential. Lindsey German points to the social activities of the CPGB in the 1950s and the role played by Turkish groups such as Day-Mer. But unless you are a mass party or an isolated migrant community relying on mutual aid for housing, welfare and residency advice, you will not have the glue to hold such an approach together. To attempt to organise socially without establishing a firm political framework is to put the cart before the horse.

Such a dilemma points to the partial concretisation of the party question within Respect. To deepen, broaden and politicise the organisation of Respect through branches, district meetings and a national newspaper would immediately challenge the role of the SWP as the dominant sect. The SWP refused to go in this direction with the Socialist Alliance and now it is encountering the same partyist logic in Respect. It tries to resolve the contradiction by a side-step into ‘the community’.

Throughout the European election campaign, Respect suffered from at times embarrassing hyperbole. From George Galloway’s “million pounds and a million votes” prediction on January 25, through to internal SWP emails just days before the poll that there would be people elected, the hubris at the top of the coalition must have caused widespread demoralisation (although of course SWP old-timers are used to such wild remarks).

For example, the Respect website on June 4 declared: “Labour and the Lib Dems are seriously worried by the dramatic inroads we are making into their vote.” In response to attacks by Nick Cohen and David Aaronovitch, George Galloway said: “Ignore them - take strength from it, because on June 10 we will send a massive shockwave through the political system.”

Then there is the question of membership. After a no-holds-barred election campaign across the length and breadth of England and Wales, Respect has 3,209 members; just over 1,000 greater than the Socialist Alliance at its height. We are told there are around 8,000 on the Respect database. Not bad for a small organisation, but if Respect is posing as the political manifestation of the anti-war movement, where are the millions?

Of course Respect did better than the Socialist Alliance in the GLA elections. But there is a difference: February 15 2003; two million people on the streets; Blair trapped in an unpopular war. Respect has tapped into this discontent, but it has in no way achieved representation of the anti-imperialist and anti-war sentiment throughout Britain. If the SWP had taken a mature approach to the Socialist Alliance, it could have started to build similar bases in working class inner-city communities.

John Rees’s flatly denies that Respect gained from any kind of muslim communalist vote. He rightly notes that muslims voted for Respect in equal numbers, whether our candidate was a “white socialist, an Asian trade unionist, a Jewish radical, an Afro-Caribbean campaigner or a white or Asian muslim.”

Muslims are politically divided and most voted either Labour or Liberal Democrat on June 10. And yet the fact of the matter is that Respect does hanker after appealing to muslims to vote as muslims. This was clearly the case in the pitch for George Galloway. He is teetotal, he is married to a Palestinian, he believes in god, is opposed to abortion. It seems also to be the case in Leicester South.
Unless Respect can develop strategies to build roots amongst the whole working class, it cannot develop. And to do that, it needs an explicitly revolutionary programme.

SA death
There were only eight of us at the SA executive: John Rees, Rob Hoveman, Alan Thornett, Nick Wrack, Sue Wild, Heather Cox, Will McMahon and yours truly. The clear intent is to wind the Socialist Alliance up as a political entity at the annual conference, called for December 4. In discussion about whether to hold a constitutionally necessary national council (they are meant to be quarterly), Nick Wrack, SA and Respect chair, said that a democratic NC would not be viable. Most branches are dead and do not meet, so the council would not be representative.

So there will be no NC. The September executive meeting will instead invite elected observers from any branches that are still functioning. This in effect recognises the end of the Socialist Alliance. Similarly, the short discussion on finance concentrated on winding down the organisation and paying off remaining debts.

John Rees gave the report on Respect. He claimed an “enormous success” with a quarter of a million votes and £500,000 raised. He pointed to the obvious unevenness, but claimed the coalition “demonstrably encompasses broader social forces”. He pointed to the disaffiliation of the Fire Brigades Union from Labour as the beginning of the future for Respect and the need to engage in the trade unions as crucial.

Comrade Alan Thornett of the International Socialist Group called for “active organisation” and functioning branches - perhaps the price he is demanding for his uncritical support for the SWP leadership’s every opportunist turn. He pointed to the role of unnamed “scurrilous websites”, which provided ammunition to the Nick Cohens and David Aaronovitchs of this world. Of course, it was George Galloway himself, not the Weekly Worker, who first opened up on abortion, one of the more controversial issues to emerge from the Respect campaign. Quite rightly we criticised his reactionary position - one that could only discredit the coalition. Comrade Thornett thought the issue would go away if he maintained a diplomatic silence.

Nick Wrack said that Lindsey German was only 6,126 votes short of winning a GLA seat; while George Galloway was 26,000 shy of becoming an MEP. Yet he warned that the general election may not be as rich a vein for Respect, as people may vote “for Liberal Democrats against Labour”. I was surprised that he should consider this to be a more likely trend than people staying with Labour to prevent the Tories making headway. Yet another indication of the absence of any class compass at the top of Respect.

A report was taken on the dispute in North Birmingham Socialist Alliance. The executive backed Will McMahon’s actions in keeping NBSA funds in trust after a dispute over their proposed use. ISG member Stuart Richardson, the NSBA treasurer, had refused to pay out 80% of the branch funds to Steve Godward’s election campaign for the Birmingham city council, as agreed by an NBSA meeting. 
There will be a recall meeting of the NBSA to finally decide on distribution of the funds. Mine was the only dissenting voice. I argued that comrade Richardson should not have worried and just carried out the democratic decision to give 80% to comrade Godward’s campaign, 10% to Respect and keep 10% in hand.

Finally, the executive fixed deadlines for the December 4 annual conference - October 22 for motions and November 19 for amendments.