07.07.2004

Break the cycle of failure

Nick Rogers outlines the immediate tasks of the Respect unity coalition and calls on socialists to come together in order to achieve a positive outcome

In the last week Respect members have received a four-page, A4-sized brochure, in which national secretary John Rees, top Euro candidate in the West Midlands and one of the Socialist Workers Party’s principal leaders, analyses Respect’s performance on June 10 and sets out the central tasks facing the coalition. His analysis first appeared in Socialist Worker (June 26) and closely matches the conclusions reached in Lindsey German’s article on the elections in the July-August issue of Socialist Review.

Discussion of what Respect has achieved and what its future might be is to be welcomed. Respect, after all, is at the heart of the dilemma facing socialists over the coming months, as we struggle to avoid an outcome that leaves us more divided than ever.

In articles before June 10 (and despite serious reservations about Respect’s organisational and political shortcomings) I argued that socialists should vote for Respect and that good results for Respect would strengthen the position of the whole left.

What then was the significance of Respect’s electoral performance? And what future might Respect have?

June 10
Respect was forged by the SWP in close alliance with George Galloway to give political voice to the movement against the war in Iraq, which culminated with two million marching in London on February 15 2003. Respect was intended as a vehicle for a voter rebellion against New Labour that would shake the establishment. Even on the eve of polling day, there were confident predictions that Respect would elect up to three MEPs.

The reality is that Respect can boast no MEPs, no London assembly members, no new councillors. It garnered a quarter of a million votes rather than the one million George Galloway set as a target in January.

There was in fact a genuine electoral rebellion on June 10, albeit from the xenophobic right. The UK Independence Party polled 16% across Britain. Respect’s 1.7% palls into insignificance against this result. Another electoral rebellion is worth recalling - the 15% polled by the Greens in the European elections of 1989. At the time the Greens’ success was perceived in part to be a response to Labour’s abandonment of unilateral nuclear disarmament and Labour’s Neil Kinnock-inspired shift to the right - in other words, a protest against the birth of New Labour. So relatively new, previously insignificant parties can ride a populist electoral wave.

For Respect, however, 2004 was not to be the year it wrote a new page in Britain’s political history. Yet in a number of urban centres - Birmingham, Preston, Leicester, Luton and above all in London - Respect achieved decent results. In individual wards in these areas votes ranged from 5% to almost 40%. In London Respect failed by a whisker to elect Lindsey German to the London assembly and, by a only slightly larger margin, George Galloway to the European parliament (both with almost 5% of the vote across the capital). In Tower Hamlets Respect topped the European poll with 20% of the vote across the borough.

Given the predominance of first-past-the-post electoral systems in England, there is some political advantage in a concentrated, rather than an evenly spread, vote. This year Respect has failed to seize the opportunity presented by the mass opposition to the Iraq war and a set of PR elections. But patient grassroots campaigning over the next few years could sink genuine roots in working class communities and potentially could deliver a number of elected representatives - councillors across England’s urban centres and maybe even an MP or two. Hence George Galloway’s presumed intention to stand in a London seat in the general election, likely in just a year’s time.

Respect’s limited successes, therefore, provide a basis for building a left alternative to New Labour. But only if the leaders of Respect learn the lessons of the mistakes they have made.

John Rees makes no acknowledgement that Respect failed to achieve its pre-election ambitions. Now, it is not a crime to set challenging targets or even to talk up your political chances. But, remember, the SWP abandoned the Socialist Alliance, effectively sought to exclude a range of socialist forces and individuals, and refused to endorse a number of explicit and principled policy commitments at its January convention - all in the interests of building a broader political alliance that could appeal to a mass audience. George Galloway had even spoken about attracting liberals and conservatives who were outraged with the government over Iraq.

A year ago at the Marxism 2003 event, SWP comrades (including Chris Bambery at the session on Scotland) voiced criticisms of the Scottish Socialist Party’s handling of the anti-war movement. The SSP supposedly had failed to bring on board as broad and as dynamic an anti-war coalition as the SWP had managed in England. Furthermore, the SSP’s 7.7% in the Scottish parliamentary elections of May 2003, according to some, had failed to maximise the vote for a radical, left alternative based on the mass opposition to Blair’s war. According to this thesis, in 2004 the SWP and its anti-war coalition would provide the SSP with a master class in left electoral politics.

It is true that on June 10 the SSP failed to match its own breakthrough of May 2003. The SSP’s relatively disappointing 5.2% across the whole of Scotland (10.5% in Glasgow) remains its second best ever electoral result and is three times the size of Respect’s percentage tally across England. It beats even Respect’s best result (in the London Euro region). The actual turn of events on June 10 begs the question of who needs to learn from whom.

John Rees’s analysis moves in the right direction when he affirms that Respect’s future lies in forming “a mass left alternative to New Labour”. Although he does not repeat Nick Wrack’s argument about Respect being socialist, John Rees does assert that “Respect rests on three foundation stones - the socialists, the left in the unions and muslims who have been radicalised by the wars in Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq.” An excellent aspiration, but hardly an accurate description of Respect’s current condition.

Respect has failed to attract many of the socialists who came together to build the Socialist Alliance. Outside the ranks of the SWP, certainly a majority of socialist organisations and, very likely, a majority of socialists have felt disenfranchised by Respect’s weak policy platform and lack of democratic structures.

As for the left in the unions, Mark Serwotka has given his support, but he is in no position to throw the massed ranks of the PCS behind Respect. The Scottish region of the RMT has directly affiliated to the SSP. In England, some RMT branches have supported Respect. RMT general secretary Bob Crow, however, voted for the Greens and Ken Livingstone on June 10.

Where John Rees’s “three foundation stones” formulation does match current realities is in its description of Respect’s support from muslims. All Respect’s high votes correspond to areas with large muslim communities. John Rees refers to and dismisses the accusation that Respect made a communalist appeal to muslims.

That criticism has certainly been overplayed. Muslim communities are amongst the poorest in Britain. Traditionally these communities have overwhelmingly supported the Labour Party. Every time New Labour has acted against the interests of its own core constituency, working class muslims would have been amongst the first to suffer the effects. With the launch of the ‘war on terrorism’ (only last week a 230% increase was reported in anti-terror searches of black people), disillusion with the economic and social policies of New Labour has been forged into a potent sense of political betrayal. That explains why these communities have been prepared to shift political allegiances.

Respect’s founding declaration espoused a range of policies that have formed the cornerstones of all left electoral challenges, such as an end to privatisation and bringing back into public ownership railways and other public services, a £7.40 minimum wage and the repeal of Tory anti-union laws. In the context of discussion about Respect’s approach to muslims, it is important to reiterate that the declaration opposed all forms of discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation and supported the right to self-determination of every individual in relation to sexual choices.

Respect’s was an essentially leftwing electoral campaign, yet one infected by opportunism. Some leaflets were bland to the point of meaninglessness. The identification of George Galloway as a teetotal, god-fearing opponent of abortion was a blatant attempt to appeal to muslims as muslims. And what does Yvonne Ridley’s selection as Respect candidate in Leicester South have to recommend it other than the candidate’s conversion to islam?

The support by many working class muslim communities for Respect is to be welcomed. No other challenge to New Labour has been able to relate successfully to an ethnic minority community that is part of Labour’s core constituency. The question facing Respect’s leaders - particularly the SWP - and all socialists in England, is how to develop a more mature political relationship with this community and how to extend Respect’s support in the working class generally. The success of both challenges will depend upon whether Respect is able to set in place the socialist and left union “foundation stones”.

Tasks facing Respect
John Rees sets Respect three central tasks: continued campaigning to solidify existing support; stalls and public meetings in new areas to build new bases of support; and leaping on a coach to participate in the July 15 Birmingham Hodge Hill and Leicester South by-elections. A pretty narrow focus on electoral activity then.

And the distinctly old left John Rees proposes meals, picnics and barbecues rather than the “regular branch meetings so beloved of the old left and trade unionists”. How, in that case, is the abandonment of branch meetings a method of building socialist and trade union support? Will the SWP be organising on this basis from now on? Or do the political grown-ups get to have branch meetings?

It is uncanny how easily SWP leaders fall into a New Labour mode of thinking. At Respect’s founding convention in January they advanced the proposition that we lefties could not be so self-indulgent as to tell “those outside the hall” what we actually thought about the monarchy or immigration controls. Now they mirror New Labour’s attempt to undermine constituency Labour Parties.

There are three broad strategic tasks that are essential if Respect is to be built as a socialist alternative to New Labour, based on the working class - and they are not the same as John Rees’s tasks.

First, Respect has to move from being an electoral front to a fully-fledged campaigning organisation. When workers are on strike, when schools or community centres are closed, when protests against imperialist wars are organised, when fascists are opposed, Respect needs to play a central role. Members of Respect should identify themselves as such on public platforms, Respect placards should be printed, Respect should be represented on organising committees.

In those areas where Respect has its strongest support, Respect should seek to develop its relationship with muslims as members of the working class. That means campaigning on issues such as police stop and search powers, but also taking up cases of the most exploited members of the community. In Tower Hamlets local sweatshops, conditions of restaurant workers, home working, which particularly affects women, are a scandal and involve Bangladeshi businessmen exploiting Bangladeshi workers. This is an obvious target for Respect campaigning in the area, alongside issues that affect the whole working class.

Second, Respect members have the right to be involved in making decisions about the full range of Respect’s activities. In other words, Respect needs to develop democratic and accountable structures, and fast. Nothing for it but regular branch meetings. How else are Respect’s campaigning and political priorities, nationally and in the localities, to be determined? By the Respect executive? By all those local steering committees elected maybe once a year by slate?
John Rees and the rest of the Respect leadership will soon find themselves with an inactive shell of an organisation if they expect Respect’s activists - although well-fed - to obey orders from on high with no right to propose or question.

What is more, Respect’s branches should not only meet regularly, but also should discuss politics and organise public meetings on a range of campaigning and political issues. The SWP’s leaders should not be allowed to get away with the idea that their Marxist Forums have cornered the left market in serious political discussion. Only in this way can Respect begin to take on a vibrant political life of its own.

Third, Respect’s political identity needs to be strengthened. Respect will prosper only by giving honest answers to the major political questions of the day. As Tony Benn has said for the last 20 years and more, and George Galloway has been known to echo, we must “say what we mean and mean what we say”. That means full debates at Respect’s autumn conference. It means addressing the question of our monarchical system of government, if we are serious about tackling the crisis of democracy in Britain. It means giving a straight answer to the question of open borders.

Women’s rights, including the right to choose when it comes to abortion (George Galloway has indicated that he has no wish to impose his personal beliefs on others), are critical. As are gay rights. Whatever the nature of Birmingham’s Peoples Justice Party (as debated in the letters column of the Weekly Worker), its members and supporters should be left in no doubt about where Respect stands on these issues.

It is a fallacy to believe that socialists have to temper their positions on issues of gender and sexual orientation to placate the religious sensibilities of most working class muslims. In Tower Hamlets in the 1980s the local Bangladeshi community were the bedrock of Labour’s support (and were well represented in the membership of the local Labour Party) at a time when the Liberals controlled the council on a racist programme. Yet, as you would expect, the local Labour Party, which was fairly leftwing, discussed whatever issues it wanted and certainly never wavered on abortion or gay rights.

It also means debating the issue of an elected representative on a worker’s wage. Both George Galloway and Yvonne Ridley have alluded to the need for MPs to have resources for research and campaign activities if they are to be effective. Agreed. But in a democratic left/socialist party should each elected representative control their own political fiefdom, or should the allocation of research and campaign resources be a collective decision? In the SSP, for instance, these resources are centrally controlled and supervised by an elected standing committee and the executive committee. It is understandable that George Galloway might be reluctant to agree to this arrangement while the internal structures of Respect remain essentially ad hoc and are in practice under the control of the SWP. Yet another reason why Respect needs a properly democratic and accountable internal regime. Will George Galloway support moves in this direction? Will a proper selection meeting be held before George Galloway’s candidature in, say, Bethnal Green and Bow is endorsed?

Of course the logic of these processes is that Respect will develop into a political party with a full range of policies and a national newspaper. The fate of the Socialist Alliance serves as a warning - placing artificial restrictions on the evolution of any project of left unity ultimately kills it.

The rest of the left
The partial nature of Respect’s successes means that Respect has failed to establish hegemony over the left. The Socialist Party returned two councillors. The 23 council candidates of the Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform achieved good results. The Independent Working Class Association won two seats in Oxford. Plans are afoot to hold a socialist unity conference in the autumn. The Liverpool-based Campaign for a Mass Party of the Working Class will probably be involved.

Yet only Respect was able to mount a national challenge that gave every member of the electorate the chance to vote for a left alternative. Only Respect has been able to establish linkages with one section of the working class. The history of the SWP’s involvement in the Socialist Alliance does not augur well for the future progress of Respect, but at least in the run-up to Respect’s autumn conference, as wide a range of socialists as possible should come together to attempt to break the cycle of failure.