04.11.2004

Overstretched canvas

Kath Owen, Respect candidate in Yorkshire and Humber for the June 10 EU elections, responded to events at conference by submitting this letter of resignation

It is with sadness that I find myself writing this. I have come to the decision that I can no longer remain within the Respect coalition in its current form. I have had some doubts about the politics and leadership of Respect for some time, but this weekend’s first national conference has confirmed for me that I can no longer continue.

I held out great hopes for the conference, it being the first opportunity members had had to democratically decide the politics and direction of the coalition. At the time of the founding declaration in January 2004 there were, for me, question marks over internal democracy and policy positions. However, with the European elections looming, there did seem a necessity to get on with the massive task of building an electoral campaign. Without an operational Socialist Alliance, the prospect of mounting a national, socialist, anti-war challenge in the June elections would only be possible through Respect.

The all-up elections for Leeds city council and other councils also presented an opportunity to stand socialist candidates who would oppose privatisation and speak out about other issues, including racism and war. I felt it was the right decision to stand as a Respect candidate in the Leeds and Euro elections. I have always tried to make decisions following my socialist principles in a pragmatic way: I don’t regret standing in those elections. But Respect has not developed in a way I feel comfortable with and the conference was the nail in the coffin.

Firstly, there was very little room in the agenda to have real debate about policy issues. True, there were workshop sessions, but the resolutions that were passed were only considered for a few minutes. Debate brings clarity to politics and we must not shy away from having the difficult arguments, as this brings out the best ideas. Many controversial/complicated motions were remitted - often this seemed to be under pressure from executive members. Since the national executive will not be publishing and circulating minutes of its meetings, delegates were expected to trust that the myriad of issues passed to the executive would all be considered in full and acted upon, as conference would wish. Frankly, I doubt that this will happen.

Secondly, there was a series of really controversial motions, which for me flagged up key issues that the coalition has to have a position on. These included: abortion rights, representatives taking a worker’s wage, political plurality within the coalition, republicanism and secularism, and our relationship with other organisations on the left. I regard all these issues as worth consideration for an electoral organisation and approach them from a socialist feminist perspective.

I was therefore disappointed that conference chose not to:
(a) defend a woman’s right to choose and commit itself to campaigning for free abortion on demand, full reproductive rights and access to childcare for all;

(b) commit its elected representatives to taking the wage of the ordinary people whom they represent (as the Scottish Socialist Party does);

(c) recognise different political tendencies within the Coalition and set out their rights and responsibilities;

(d) take a republican and secular stance (which opposes all religious discrimination) as part of a democratic state;

(e) accept the fact there are other socialist and left organisations and individuals with different programmes, who Respect could benefit from working with rather than denounce.

It is not the fact that these motions, which I supported, did not pass. I am not so childish as to expect that everyone in an organisation of which I am a member will agree with me on every issue. How boring that would be. However, it was the way these motions were opposed by leading members and how the movers were denounced that I found to be undemocratic and disturbing. Executive members put arguments that forming policies from the controversial motions would “put people off Respect”. It was stated that there was a “dishonesty” in the way the motions had been put forward and they were “divisive” proposals. The movers were described as people who had “done nothing to build the anti-war movement” and if they don’t like it they can “go off and form their own organisation”. I felt this was not the way to conduct a democratic conference, where open debate would result in delegates forming their opinion and voting accordingly.

I also believe that the big-tent idea is limited. Of course Respect can operate as a broad coalition - most other political parties are broad churches. But how big should the tent be? The canvas cannot be stretched indefinitely. Of course, the controversial motions did not pass. Time and time again, conference voted against resolutions that would determine Respect as a democratically orientated, socialist organisation committed to equal rights and liberation. This brings me to my third problem.
The Socialist Workers Party dominates the leadership of Respect. It seemed that the conference followed the direction that key SWP members wished it to go. I can’t reconcile the fact that a supposedly socialist organisation can operate in such a manner, directing anti-socialist votes. Whilst I have a lot of time for individuals in the SWP, what the party leadership has done to Respect I cannot tolerate. This, added to the contempt with which the Socialist Alliance membership has been treated and the way the London European Social Forum was organised, has used up the last bits of trust I had for the organisation.

I still remain hopeful that a broad, democratic, socialist alliance can work together in campaigning and elections in England and Wales. The Respect coalition would have been one way to achieve this. But until I am convinced that it is operating in a principled manner I cannot support it. I will not be renewing my membership for the foreseeable future.