03.03.2005

Where is the republican party?

The problems and difficulties of the monarchy points to a glaring absence on the left, argues Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group

Prince Charles now thinks that his marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles is so unpopular that it will damage his prospects of becoming king. He is facing trouble in the antipodes and fears he will never be king of Australia. The Daily Express reports that he told aides that his family's grip on the Commonwealth was being loosened by the uproar over his wedding (March 1). Membership of the Australian republican movement has soared. Opinion polls down under suggest a swing towards William as the next king of Oz. This dovetails neatly with the campaign being run by the rightwing Daily Mail. Why is this royalist rag so against Charles? Under the headline "Jump a generation", they want to boot him out in favour of King William. This idea was put to the queen in 1998. It has now re-emerged because the "Commonwealth will not tolerate Camilla in any shape or form, especially Canada, New Zealand and Australia" (February 27). A new, young prince charming might save the monarchy by appealing to young people. Over the last 20 years there has been a sea change in social attitudes to the monarchy. Now it is beset with problems and difficulties. The model family is seen as 'dysfunctional' - it needs to be changed. But how? This is a source of controversy and crisis, with two distinct aspects. The first is the failure of parliamentary democracy and the workings of the constitution. Second is the crisis within the royal family and the question of the royal succession. As a system of government, the constitutional or parliamentary monarchy is a strange amalgam of laws, customs and traditions in an 'unwritten' constitution. The British constitution leaves real power in the hands of the prime minister and the state bureaucracy, rendering parliament an impotent bystander. We have what has been called an 'elected dictatorship'. This relationship of bureaucracy to parliament was satirised so effectively in the 1980s by the TV comedy Yes, minister. And now the Blair government has concentrated and centralised even more power into its own hands. Clare Short MP, a cabinet minister at the start of the Iraq war, draws out some important political lessons. She says: "The mistakes on Iraq and support for the US war on terror are the most spectacular and serious manifestations of a deep malfunction in the British political system and in British constitutional arrangements. Under the Thatcher government but much more seriously under the Blair government, the checks and balances of the British government system have broken down" (C Short An honourable deception? London 2004, p277). Short goes on to claim that "the errors we are making over Iraq and other recent initiatives flow "¦ from the style and organisation of our government". In her resignation speech she explains that "the problem is the centralisation of power into the hands of the prime minister and an increasingly small number of advisors who make decisions in private without proper discussion" (ibid cover). "The consequence of this is that parliamentary majorities are taken for granted. Parliament is downgraded and ignored, the power of the prime minister is enhanced and the cabinet sidelined" (p278). She concludes that the system of government is seriously flawed, "leading to increasingly poor policy initiatives being rammed through parliament, which is straining and abusing party loyalty and undermining the people's respect for our political system" (cover). The Iraq war raised the question of the failure of democracy to new heights. The war did not cause this. But the question of war put the system of government under closer public scrutiny. When two million march in protest, the failure of democracy and manipulation of public opinion is brought under the spotlight. The government was caught out lying and 'spinning' the people. The long-term consequence of this is yet to fully unfold. Second, the crisis of parliamentary democracy does not leave the position of the queen untouched. On the contrary, the fish rots from the head. Just as the crisis of parliamentary democracy affects the monarchy, so the problems of the royals affect confidence in the system of government. The monarchy itself is under greater scrutiny and criticism. The institution is outdated. It needs some sort of Blairite 'modernisation'. It needs to invent a new purpose. Unfortunately nobody can think what it is. Doubts about the future of the monarchy continue to grow. The Windsor fire showed that public opinion had changed. It could no longer be taken for granted that grateful subjects would line up to pay the fire insurance. Then we had the scandals around the royal divorce and the death of Diana Spencer. Today we have the royal marriage fiasco. The queen has refused to attend the marriage ceremony in a registry office. The government, in the shape of the lord chancellor, pronounced that the marriage would be legal. Two acts of 1839 and 1949 cover civil marriage. Many lawyers claim that the royal marriage would be outside the scope of these acts. One solution would be a new law rushed through parliament. How annoying will that be? Then we have the little difficulty with the Church of England. Mrs Parker Bowles was married to a catholic brigadier of the same name. Since he is still alive, she is, according to church doctrine, still married to him. Consequently this may appear to breach the 18th century law that says that top royals cannot have a catholic spouse. One solution was to go to a Scottish presbyterian church, as princess Anne did in the 1990s, when she wanted to marry again. The moment Charles becomes king she will be Queen Camilla. The attempt to placate public opinion with the title 'Princess Consort' is a silly bit of cynical manipulation. In any case it sounds like the name you would give to a 1960s motor car. In short, we have monarchy, church and parliament - three pillars of the establishment - in a sorry mess. This is more than unfortunate PR. It reflects something deeper. The UK has changed and become less deferential. The contradiction between the lifestyles of wealthy aristocrat, privileged monarch and the mass of people has grown. The royal soap opera and media circus reaches breaking point. Will Charles become king and Camilla his queen or consort? Will it be legal? Will the queen turn up at the wedding? Will the Australians be fed up? It is an expensive farce. If the monarchy is not respected or revered, its usefulness to the bourgeoisie as a rallying point for national unity is called into question. Most anarchists are anti-monarchist. They are often more hostile and contemptuous of monarchy than many socialists. But they are not republicans. The roots of their extreme hostility to all things royal come from their opposition to the state as such. They want the immediate abolition not only of the monarchy, but the state as well. They certainly do not want a democratic republican 'stage'. Socialists and Marxists are republicans. We want to replace the constitutional monarchist state with a democratic secular republic. Marxists share with anarchists the aim of a stateless world. But we do not see the possibility of the state withering away until capitalism is abolished after many different stages of class struggle. This is why in State and revolution Lenin takes care to distinguish Marxism from anarchism, including through his positive attitude to the democratic republic. The democratic secular republic is not a constitutional monarchy without a monarch - the latter having just abdicated and fled the country. There is much more fundamental change required than simply getting rid of the crown. Democratic republicanism is about the transfer of power to the people. This is not handed down from above. It must be taken from below. The people become the republic through struggle, mobilisation and self-organisation. It means in effect a popular democratic revolution. In a developed capitalist economy where the working class is a majority, a democratic republic won by the people means nothing less than the transfer of power to the working class. The democratic republic is the process by which the working class wins power. Therefore the abdication of the monarch or the abolition of the monarchy does not 'satisfy' working class republicanism. At best it is a provisional republic, with the forms of political power and new constitutional arrangements still to be worked out. The abolition of monarchy is therefore no more than the first step in the struggle for a real democratic republic. This is not the end of the struggle. It is merely the beginning. Far from ending the 'republican question', the abolition of the monarchy begins a new and more intense period of the struggle for the kind of democratic republic we are aiming for. The historical experience of the working class has shown this clearly. The abolition of the July monarchy (France 1848), the tsar (February 1917) and the kaiser (November 1918) marked the beginning of a process. The abolition of the monarchy is not therefore simply the same as winning the democratic republic. Abolition is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The republic is consummated not by dispensing with royalty, but by the process of winning democratic political power. The conclusion that flows from this is that the abolition of the monarchy is more important and urgent, not less. The opposite conclusion is drawn by many on the left. If the abolition of the monarchy is neither the same as a democratic republic nor the same as socialism then it is of little importance. It can be set aside whilst we concentrate on social reform. This is the essence of Labourism - a form of republicanism that is liberal and moderate. Since the abolition of the monarchy is not the same as working class political power, nor the same as socialism, then it is worthless. This single act, taken in isolation from class struggle, means nothing (as if it could be taken in isolation). Capitalism will still exist, so what is the point? The abolition of the monarchy is therefore a 'diversion'. Since the monarchy has little power, the people gain nothing from overthrowing it. Labour and the Socialist Workers Party come to the same conclusion that the abolition of the monarchy is not the responsibility for the working class, but should be left to the bourgeoisie. Naturally the latter will consult the queen before doing anything precipitate. The Socialist Alliance, in which the SWP dressed up in the politics of old Labourism, had no time for any kind of republicanism. But where is the party? No matter how deep the crisis nor how much the house of Windsor is divided, the monarchy is safe unless there is a republican party. It is classes that decide the fate of political systems. But it is parties that represent their intentions. A republican party is the means by which the progressive class settles the matter. To call for a republic without a republican party is like calling for the ends without the means of achieving it. It does not constitute serious republicanism. In the 1640s the 'Leveller Party' had a major role in bringing about the first republic in England. It was the republican party of the most radical wing of the revolution. The Leveller programme, Agreement of the people, was famously debated by the New Model Army at Putney. It organised the masses in London and rank and file soldiers. Cromwell was reluctant to get rid of Charles Stewart. He sought compromise through a constitutional monarch. But Cromwell was forced to act when the king began a new royalist rebellion. Despite the defeat of the Leveller Party, its ideas exercised real influence over the fate of the king. In modern Britain a republican party must be based on the working class. There will be no democratic republic without the organisation of a working class republican party. The working class is the only democratic class, whose interests lie in the extension of democracy throughout society. Without a republican party, republicanism will remain the gossip of the chattering classes. The lack of a republican party indicates that no social class in England is ready to fight for a republic. We must seek to rectify this and begin to organise a republican party of the working class. A republican party of the working class is a party which emphasises the political struggle for a democratic republic. It is a party in which the republic is part of the minimum programme as an immediate demand. It is a question of programme and strategy. The old CPGB was not a republican communist party on this definition. The British road to socialism placed the abolition of the monarchy in its maximum programme. The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party was a republican socialist party, as was James Connolly's Irish Socialist Republican Party. Connolly sought to implement the minimum programme with the declaration of the Irish republic in the 1916 Easter uprising. By contrast the German Social Democratic Party did not have a republican minimum programme. The Erfurt programme was criticised by Engels on this point. The British Labour Party has no republicanism in either its minimum or maximum programme. The current state of class consciousness, the level of class struggle, the political vacuum to the left of Labour - all this indicates the need for a party of the left rather than a pure revolutionary party. In a period in which the employers are on the attack, we need a high level of left unity. At present we need one party for the socialist movement, not two. We are encouraged in this view by the relative success of the Scottish Socialist Party. The Scottish Socialist Party has shown that it is possible in the current period to begin building a republican socialist party that can unite the left. There is little doubt that the SSP is a socialist, not a revolutionary communist, party. The word 'Scottish' in the party name refers either to Scottish independence or a Scottish republic. There has been an ideological shift in the SSP towards republicanism now seen as a more central plank of party policy. The SSP can be seen as an example of a republican socialist party in the making. In England there is no republican socialist party. The main socialist parties (SP and SWP) are economistic. They focus on social reform, not democratic political change. In England conservative and monarchist ideas have the deepest roots, alongside the aristocratic class system and a very traditional English monarchy. Yet the mobilisation of the Countryside Alliance testifies to a social class under pressure. The time is right or ripe for a mass working class republican party. We cannot create such a party simply by declaration. What we can do is begin a campaign for it.