27.10.2004

God's block vote

At the founding conference of Respect earlier this year, the Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform put forward an alternative republican strategy called ‘Britain at the crossroads’. This began by recognising that “mass opposition to the war in Iraq was a watershed in British politics. The Labour government took the country into an illegal war on false pretences ... one of the casualties of this war has been the credibility of parliament.”

The war destroyed the illusions that Britain has a democratic system of government. Hence “parliament failed to represent the majority opposed to war, and failed to expose Blair’s deception and manipulation of public opinion”. As a result there is “a crisis of representation at the heart of politics in Britain”, which “provides opportunities for the far right and brings the danger of a more authoritarian state and a threat to civil liberties”.

‘Britain at the crossroads’ put forward the demand for “a democratic, secular and republican system of government, in which power is in the hands of the people, and government is elected, accountable and subject to recall”. It proposed policies for equality, social justice and unity with the peoples of Europe in a fully democratic, federal state. It warned that the problems of war, poverty and injustice urgently require the abolition of global capitalism by socialism.

The Socialist Alliance (DP) then proposed that the ‘R’ in Respect should stand for ‘Republicanism’ and put forward a series of democratic demands, calling for open borders and MPs to be paid the average skilled wage. All these proposals were defeated by the votes of the Socialist Workers Party. This weekend history will repeat itself. Socialist Alliance supporters, both SADP and Socialist Unity Network, will put forward demands for a democratic secular republic, women’s rights, open borders, the right to form platforms and tendencies and for cooperation with other socialist forces in the general election.

The first full conference since the launch of Respect will finalise the policies on which to fight the general election likely to be held in 2005. One obvious gaping hole remains the question of democracy. Respect policies offer less than even her majesty’s Liberal Democrats! George Galloway made clear in his recent book that, unlike Respect, he is in favour of a democratic republic. In June at a Respect public meeting in Luton, he was asked about the crisis of democracy. In reply he confirmed his support for republicanism. He told us that the Respect programme was not set in stone and this issue would have to be reviewed at the next conference (Weekly Worker June 25). So this weekend we will see whether Galloway can deliver the SWP’s royal head on a silver platter. The signs are not good.

It is, therefore, the right time to reappraise Respect against the political crisis which is unfolding in Britain. Four factors stand out. First is the political crisis of the state. The parliamentary system (or constitutional monarchy) is now under severe strain. It has been undermined by economic and political changes reshaping the country. The integration of capital in the European Union has weakened national sovereignty. The pressure for democratic change in Ireland, Scotland and Wales has brought greater autonomy and the growth of parties such as Sinn Féin and the Scottish Socialist Party. At the same time the Blair government has concentrated and centralised more power into its own hands.

The ‘crisis of democracy’ is reflected in a growing sense of powerlessness and alienation amongst working people. Labour’s constitutional changes have made the system more unstable. The SWP’s John Rees points out that “in the 2004 European and council elections, alienation from the established parties saw a rise in turnout for those elections, but a massive erosion of support for Labour and the Tories” (‘Where now for Respect?’, www.respectcoalition.com).

He goes on to argue that “the stability of the British electoral system has depended on mass support for these two institutions since the World War II. When the base of these two parties crumbles, it does not do so in a night, or in a tidy fashion. The Labour Party has had the allegiance of millions of working people and their mass organisations for generations. The bitterness and disappointment with the establishment parties flows in many different directions when it breaks free from its traditional moorings.”

The war in Iraq has speeded up this meltdown. Any imperialist war means a crisis for bourgeois democracy. War grabs the attention of millions and reveals in new ways that ‘democracy’ is an empty shell. Only last week we saw the transfer of the Black Watch regiment from Basra to central Iraq - decided behind the scenes between her majesty’s government and Bush’s administration. The British parliament had no say whatsoever. No votes were taken. Parliament was irrelevant.

George Galloway writes: “We have a political system that is completely unresponsive in the face of public opinion on a whole range of issues, not simply on the war. Things happen now on the electoral level, on the civil liberties front, across a whole swathe of issues that would never have happened over most of the past 100 years” (Weekly Worker December 4 2003). He points out that “every MP who voted for the war did so knowing that their constituents were against it. And most did so knowing it was wrong. This is a crisis in bourgeois democracy. The mask has slipped”.

Galloway concludes that “we have a chance - if we properly grasp what democracy actually means - of being the movement for democracy in this country. And that’s an extremely powerful position to be in for a progressive left movement. Any new left movement has to prioritise the concept of democracy and live by it internally and insist on it externally. We need democratic control of the economy, of parliament, of society itself.” These are fine words, but they butter no SWP parsnips.

The second important factor has been a collapse of working class political representation. Traditionally the organised working class was represented through the Labour Party and the former Euro-Stalinist CPGB. The trade union bureaucracy supported Labour and working class militants backed the CPGB. Over the last 15 years this form of representation has collapsed. The ‘official’ CPGB was liquidated and the Labour Party moved to the right. There is now a political vacuum on the left.

Flaying about in the vacuum is a disorientated and fragmented socialist movement. In England this constitutes the third factor. Socialists in the Labour Party have been emasculated. The Marxist groups outside Labour have been unable to form a united party. The myriad of groups and parties is enough to boggle the mind - the SWP, International Socialist Group, Socialist Party, Workers Power, Communist Party of Britain, Independent Working Class Association, CPGB, Revolutionary Democratic Group, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, Alliance for Green Socialism, etc. The Socialist Alliance and Respect are two responses to this vacuum.

Last, but by no means least, the fourth factor is the experience of the Labour government since 1997. This has convinced trade union activists that Labour is opposed to their interests. The RMT and FBU are no longer affiliated and other unions are reducing their financial support. The movement was in a similar position at the end of the 19th century, when trade unions began breaking from the Liberal Party. We can only expect the ferment in the trade unions to grow when Labour steps up its attack on public sector workers.

Taken together these factors point in one definite direction. We desperately need a republican socialist party - a mass party of the working class. Such a party recognises the ‘crisis of democracy’ and boldly proposes political struggle for democratic demands as a lever for social change. The advanced part of the working class, the only genuinely democratic class in society, will be drawn to such a programme. Those who think we should champion socialism and not democracy reveal their ignorance of the relationship between the two. The struggle for democracy prepares the way for socialism.

A republican socialist party is a party for all socialists. It is a party that can unite socialists from the Labour left with revolutionary Marxists. It is not like the Labour Party based on an alliance of liberals and socialists. Neither is it a revolutionary Trotskyist or Stalinist Party. It is a party on similar lines to the Scottish Socialist Party. Given the current state of political consciousness and working class organisation, this would be a major step forward.

If this sounds like pie in the sky, we should remember that in Scotland the socialists have already got their act together and organised themselves into a republican socialist party. I have argued many times to a sceptical audience that the SSP is just such a party. The recent ‘Declaration of Calton Hill’ nails republicanism firmly to the SSP mast. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the ‘crisis of democracy’ takes the form of the national question. It is only in England that the English question goes unrecognised.

Rees discusses the SSP model in debate with Murray Smith (‘Socialism in the 21st century’ International Socialism August 2004). He compares the SSP, as a “broad socialist party”, with the SWP, a “revolutionary party”. The latter wins in theory if not in practice. Rees praises the SSP, but as an example to be avoided unless there is no choice. The SWP would not aim to build a “broad socialist party”, although they would join one if, as in Scotland, it was set up and proved successful. This is the same view as the CPGB. In Scotland this leftwing-sounding economism meant the SWP was the rearguard or laggard of the republican socialist party.

Rees is of course making the wrong comparison. The SSP should be measured against Respect. Here a workers’ party is the alternative to a united front ‘party’ of a strange kind. But could Respect be seen as a peculiarly eccentric English version of a republican socialist party? Certainly it is not republican. It is hardly socialist and is not a party. Yet if we listen to George Galloway on republicanism he urges patience. The coalition is just being set up. The programme is not set in stone and republicanism may be adopted at this conference. So the jury is still out. It will be delivering its verdict on Sunday! But don’t hold your breath. Eighty-nine motions in three hours is two minutes each. Can the fate of the nation and its crown be decided with such speed?

Let me turn now to the thorny question of muslims. Respect should be congratulated for winning the support of working class muslims. Any republican socialist party would certainly seek the same support. Neither should we have any problem with winning the support of muslim people, not just workers. It is no different from seeking the support of gay people or women. Communists champion the liberation of all oppressed people, not simply workers. If our enemies choose to call us a ‘muslim party’ or a ‘gay party’ or ‘party for women’, then so much the better for us. The only question is, what price has to be paid? The interests of the working class are sacrificed if such support comes from adopting opportunist policies and reactionary ideas.

Does Respect pass this test? Rees explains that “Respect rests on three foundation stones - the socialists, the left in the unions, and muslims who have become radicalised by the wars in Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq” (‘Where now for Respect?’, www.respectcoalit-ion.com). Here we have the idea of the Respect party as a coalition of special interests. Who represents the socialists? It is obviously the SWP that will speak for them and wield their block vote over the weekend. Who represents the trade union interest? As yet a few branches, but no national unions or general secretaries with a million votes in their back pocket. If we look at the proposed national council slate, we can see those who might represent these two parts of the tripartite system: comrades such as Chris Bambery (SWP) and Linda Smith (FBU).

Who then represents the muslim interest? Not the Muslim Association of Britain, which, while a popular target for socialists, has not joined Respect. We can point Dr Naseem, chair of the Birmingham Central Mosque, Abdurahman Jafar of the Muslim Council of Britain (in a personal capacity) or the journalist Yvonne Ridley. Surely these people will not outvote the SWP?

Except of course they have a secret and powerful weapon in god himself. We know that god does not like gays or women’s rights or abortion. He is bound to make his influence felt on these matters. We have recently seen the hand of god raising the arms of SWP members against the extension of abortion rights up and down the country. Lindsey German gained the remarkable power to speak in tongues, when notoriously declaring that women’s and gay rights were not “shibboleths” at Marxism 2003. So there may not be a majority of muslims in Respect, but god’s block vote has power beyond all mortal reasoning.

In February this year I argued: “When we look at the broader picture in the socialist movement, the organisations who are unlikely to join Respect include the Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform (SADP), the Communist Party of Britain (CPB), the Socialist Party, Workers Power and the Alliance for Green Socialism. The SADP should seek to open a dialogue with these organisations to see if a common approach is possible. If the SADP rejects Respect as currently constituted, we are not alone. Will the non-Respect forces be prepared to work together? If so we have the possibility of a viable political strategy outside Respect. Much will depend on the politics of the SADP” (Weekly Worker February 17).