27.10.2004

Platitudes, exclusions and gerrymandering

Respect's conference is based on sham democracy, writes Peter Manson

Can Respect become an inclusive and democratic coalition, a site for struggle for the building of a party of the working class? That is the key question for delegates gathering in London for this weekend’s first annual conference.

The signs are not good. Respect’s numerically dominant force, the Socialist Workers Party, has done all in its power to exclude dissident voices - not least the CPGB - and others considered not ‘on message’. As we have been reporting over recent weeks from meetings up and down the country, the SWP went to enormous lengths to ensure that CPGB comrades were not elected as delegates.

Indeed the insistence on a delegate conference, as opposed to a more fitting and at this stage more desirable all-members gathering, was driven solely by the need to keep out anybody with a different viewpoint on the kind of organisation Respect ought to be. For example, Dave Landau, a non-aligned comrade who has drafted a thoughtful and valuable motion on secularism, was voted down as a delegate by SWP members in Islington, despite the pleas of other ‘independents’ and comrades from the International Socialist Group.

The reason for their determination to keep him out is that his motion, like those proposed by ourselves, is embarrassing. The SWP is formally in favour of secularism, of course - how is it possible for any revolutionary to oppose such a basic democratic demand for the equality of believers and non-believers? Yet oppose it the SWP does - at least when it comes to Respect. Apparently some muslim leaders may - quite mistakenly, of course - equate secularism with opposition to religion itself.

So it is with the motions originally sponsored by the CPGB - on a worker’s wage, democracy, open borders and a woman’s right to choose. The first two were actually passed by York branch and therefore might possibly be heard. The others were voted down everywhere and had to be proposed by 20 individual members (as has happened with comrade Landau’s motion). Outrageously, while any 20 members have the right to put forward resolutions, it seems they will be unable to move them at conference if they are not delegates. So much for minority rights and the lip service paid to inclusivity in the NEC’s draft constitution.

Hypocritically, the SWP claims to be in favour of the substance of what we are arguing, but states it must vote against our motions for the sake of broadness. Broadness with whom exactly? With Respect’s almost non-existent right wing - in reality it consists of a handful of bourgeois socialists, a couple of muslim grandees and one or two oddball localists. Respect’s membership is in fact far to the left of its programme and stated policies, but the SWP leadership is moving to the right … and then further to the right. Respect’s phantom right wing provides the cover, and even in the imagination acts as the absent stimulus.

Hence the rights of migrants to freely move from one country to another or of a woman to choose to have a late abortion are to be quietly put to one side in the desperate search for electoral success and respectability in the eyes of potential partners in the trade union bureaucracy and, more importantly nowadays, in the mosques. SWP strategy and tactics are in fact designed for the consumption of imams. It is they who set the limits of the SWP’s broadness.

The so-called muslim ‘community’ is being approached by the SWP through its morally highly conservative, often reactionary traditional intellectuals … and therefore top-down. Hence the SWP’s socialism is no longer, if it ever was, bottom-up, nor is it working class. No wonder the SWP would rather we were not there at all - it is not even prepared to let us act as the voice of its own conscience.
However, I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies. After protests not only from ourselves, but from members and several branches, the time set aside for discussing motions has been increased from a mere 60 minutes to three whole hours.

This is as far as the leadership is prepared to go in the direction of genuine debate. There are 89 motions on the order paper and, taking into account the fact that many of them are identical or very similar and that, after compositing, the number could well be reduced by half, we will be left with an average of a paltry four minutes per motion. Frankly, that is farcical.

The extra time has been found by eating into the Saturday morning workshops and afternoon plenary and by extending the first day by an hour. In other words most of the conference - six and a half hours out of less than 12 over the two days - will still be a combination of weekend school and rally.
This all smacks of a US-style political convention, and in the case of Respect is designed to substitute for democratic debate. Platitudes and posturing there will be. In abundance. But the purpose of a genuine conference is to seriously consider and vote upon political positions. That will be impossible over this weekend.

The latest recommendation of the standing orders committee is therefore a pathetic gesture, a nod, in the direction of democracy. It is, though, not the real thing - especially when you consider that some of the most contentious motions may fall if nobody is prepared to move them from among the delegates (as opposed to the signatories, who may be observers: the latter only have the right to speak during the Saturday one-hour workshops).

Of the 89 motions which at this stage remain on the agenda, almost all are broadly supportable. However, many are very long indeed. Yet the short time allowed will mean that the care with which they have been drafted will count for nothing: in most cases delegates will be left with little option but to vote for or against, without being able to explore the details (at the time of writing, it is not known how many amendments have been submitted).

The NEC itself is proposing three keynote resolutions - on electoral strategy; war and imperialism; and asylum-seekers and refugees. The motion on elections is particularly disappointing, calling for “the need to limit the number of seats we intend to stand in” in the general election to those that are “targeted carefully”. Similarly, clearly drawing lessons from the poor showing in Hartlepool, the NEC wants to avoid by-election contests in constituencies where we cannot “mount a very good campaign”.

So Respect represents not only a political but also an organisational retreat, compared to the Socialist Alliance, which contested 98 seats in England and Wales in 2001. While the motion does not put a figure on it, it seems that the NEC is thinking about a couple of dozen campaigns at the very most. What is more, the motion bars local branches from themselves deciding to stand in parliamentary seats without the approval of the new national council, which is due to be elected at conference.

The NEC motion on ‘War and imperialism’ is one of the most militant on the agenda pad. It calls for the “defeat of the US-led occupation of Iraq”, notes that the Iraqi national liberation movement is “composed of elements which are islamic, nationalist and socialist”, demands that “the troops should be brought home immediately” and believes that “the Iraqi resistance deserves the support of the international anti-war movement”.

This motion is clearly in need of amendment: eg, there is no differentiation between reactionary islamists and working class secularists - all strands of the resistance are equally worthy of support, it seems. Nor is it suggested what form that support should take or who should organise it. There is no mention of the role of the working class either in Iraq or, crucially, in Britain. We certainly favour the trade union movement in Britain actively working to force the withdrawal of UK troops. Undoubtedly, this might help islamist reactionaries, but if so this would be purely coincidental. Our main enemy is at home, but - let us not kid ourselves, or anyone else for that matter - islamist reactionaries are not our friends.

The third NEC motion, on ‘Asylum-seekers and refugees’, correctly attacks every reactionary government measure against these two categories, but is silent on migrants who do not fall into either - not least illegal immigrants. As far as those who announce their arrival and say they are fleeing oppression or war are concerned, Respect will fight to defend and extend their rights. Close detention centres, end dispersal, stop deportations, reinstate the right to work.

But what about the thousands of ‘illegals’ who remain underground, knowing that to give themselves up is to risk detention, poverty and eventual deportation? Why should they have to pretend to be fleeing oppression when mostly they have come for work and a better life? They should not have to do so, but unless they play by SWP rules, just don’t expect any support from Respect.

There is no exaggeration here. The SWP has mobilised its cadre to vote down open borders and keep immigration controls in place. The time is not yet ‘right’ to defend those like the Chinese cockle-pickers who died in Morecambe Bay last year.

Apart from the NEC, branches based in 10 London boroughs or areas, 13 towns and cities and four regions have put in motions. There are several major urban centres that have not done so and some of these may in fact be unrepresented at conference.

By comparison to the time allotted for motions, the 90 minutes given over for the adoption of a constitution is generous in the extreme. Though still totally inadequate, of course. There are no alternatives to the NEC draft, but five sets of amendments. The six simple changes proposed by the CPGB have received the support of the requisite 20 members, but, once again, may not be heard if no delegate is prepared to propose them.

Our amendments seek, firstly, to change the draft’s classless, sentimental socialism and give it a definite content. Respect should commit itself to fighting for “a socialist society where the working class is the ruling class”. No doubt the SWP will be hoping this will fall so they do not have to vote against socialism. But it only takes one comrade to agree to move it, if only formally …

We also call for changes to the constitution to be agreed by a “simple majority”; for members to be required merely to “accept” rather than “support” or “agree with” Respect’s aims and policies; and for the setting up of an email discussion forum.

The constitutional amendment proposed by Swindon and NEC member John Nicholson calling for platforms to be recognised and granted the right of representation should also be supported.