29.09.2004

Democratic debate, not a safe rally

Peter Manson takes a look at Respect's propsed constitution and the agenda of the conference - which both seem design to silence minority and dissenting views

The first annual conference of Respect, to be held in Camden town hall over the weekend of October 30-31, will, if the Socialist Workers Party and its allies get their way, take the form of a stage-managed rally.

That is the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the agenda that is being proposed. Although the conference starts at 10.30am on Saturday morning, its actual business is not scheduled to take place until 1pm on Sunday - just as delegates from far-flung corners of England and Wales are preparing to begin their journeys home!

In a piece of control-freakery to make the most shamefaced Blairite blush, discussion and voting for all the motions - which may be proposed by the executive, executive members, local meetings or any group of 20 paid-up members - is to be restricted to precisely one hour. That will be followed by a generous 90 minutes’ debate on the proposed constitution, and 45 minutes for the election of a national council.

The first day and a half, it seems, is to consist of a glorified talking shop, when delegates and observers will be able to hear any number of platform speeches from the great and the good, to be followed by members sounding off about anything and everything from the floor.

The main sessions are to be ‘War and imperialism’, ‘Defend our communities’ (with the sub-heading, ‘Asylum, housing, anti-racism and crime’) and ‘Electoral strategy’, while a Saturday morning slot has also been put aside for workshops - “to include Iraq, Kashmir, Kurdistan and civil liberties”.

The exchange of information and views is, of course, a positive thing. But for us debate must have a purpose - it must be designed to inform our activity. That is why the moving of resolutions is crucial: they give debate a structure, concentrate minds and allow decisions to be taken.

But the SWP leadership sees things differently. The job of the ordinary punters is to hand out leaflets, staff a stall or go out on the knocker - political debate and decision-making are for the leaders only, who then hand down instructions to the members. After all, motions, amendments and constitutions - they are the stuff of the boring old “traditional left”, aren’t they? Much better to listen to ‘inspiring’ rallying calls from the ‘big name’ speakers.

And what of the so-called ‘workshops’? What ‘work’ is supposed to be carried out in the sessions on, for example, Kashmir and Kurdistan? Those countries are, of course, the site of important struggles, but are they really considered questions of immediate priority at the founding of a new political party in Britain? No, they are not. Presumably the idea is to flatter leaders of particular ‘community groups’ - giving them a platform in order to draw them, and their followers, into Respect.

Another question members might well ask is, why does this 1960s-style teach-in require a delegate structure? Instead of throwing the ‘conference’ open to all members, the executive has decided that only those elected by their local organisations (one delegate for every 10 members) may speak or vote. Other members may attend as observers, “subject to space and on a ‘first come, first served’ basis”.
The answer to these questions lies in the fact that genuine debate is the last thing the SWP leadership wants. In particular it does not want a repeat of the January 25 founding convention, when the SWP members were ordered to vote down - many with a heavy heart - cherished principles: open borders, workers’ representatives on a worker’s wage, republicanism.

Because of the intervention of the CPGB and our comrades in the Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform the SWP was forced to concoct embarrassing excuses for its dismal opportunism. Leaders like John Rees tried to tell us it was the job of disciplined revolutionaries to raise their hands in favour of backward views, since we need to represent the masses as they are now. And if socialist principle has to be sacrificed in the process, so be it. Understandably the SWP leaders would rather those liable to point out these home truths are unable to do so at the conference.

However, in the attempt to sideline and marginalise the CPGB, the rights of all are being attacked. It is not just our critical voice that is being silenced, but that of any independent-minded Respect member. In the pre-conference branch meetings that have already begun up and down the country, lists of ‘safe’ delegates have been and are being drawn up in order to ensure a ‘positive’ conference where everybody agrees with the leadership. If you are not amongst the circle of trusted comrades, you will have no chance of going to Camden town hall as a delegate - for all the lip service paid to inclusivity in the draft constitution.

In Hackney, for example, it seems that delegates are to be elected via a slate system. It is being proposed that only lists of names, not individuals, may be put forward. In fact this seems to be at odds with the standing orders issued by Respect’s NEC, which states: “Delegates should be elected by calling for nominations and holding an exhaustive vote where the number of nominations exceed the number of delegates allowed.”

In order to highlight what we consider to be profound democratic failings the CPGB has sent this open letter to the Respect leadership. We are asking, even at this late stage, for arrangements for the conference to be changed along the following lines:

- All paid-up members should be able to attend with equal speaking and voting rights.
- The event should be a genuine conference, not a combination of weekend school and rally. The bulk of conference should be devoted to the discussion of motions, with plenty of time for a variety of views to be heard.