18.05.2005

It's democracy, stupid

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group argues that the election shows once again the need for a republican socialist party

Bill Clinton famously said, "It's the economy, stupid", in reference to winning elections. This is as profound and true as it is simplistic and false. Certainly, as The Economist says, "Most elections are won and lost on the economy, wealth and jobs. Britain has enjoyed 13 years of uninterrupted, pretty steady economic growth, eight of them under this Labour government. Much of the credit due to Labour is for carrying on with the pro-market inheritance of Margaret Thatcher "¦ In which case Labour should be further ahead" (April 30). If the electorate perceived the government had mismanaged the economy, it would have gone badly for Blair. Despite the evidence from Rover, there was no agitation against Blair-Brown economic policies. The capitalists were safe. Their profits secure. There was no need to gamble on the Tories. Rupert Murdoch put his newspapers behind the government. Naturally Blair tried to capitalise on the economy. Gordon Brown was pushed to the fore. Like two peas in a pod, these happy chums sang the same song. Yet the country was interested in politics - who will govern the country and how will they do it? The war has given people more insight into how we are governed than ever before. It is not a pretty sight. However, the inner workings of the Tory state and constitution is not something the Tories want to focus on. So they played the race card instead. In August 2004 I argued that there were four important factors that should guide the thinking and activity of the left. First, the old system of constitutional democracy is bankrupt. Our so-called 'democracy' is sick and dying. We are living through a crisis of democracy which will come to dominate politics. The Iraq war has simply accelerated that crisis. Millions have lost trust and confidence in British parliamentary democracy. This is a breeding ground for racist and fascist ideas. Second, there has been a collapse of working class political representation. There is a real political vacuum on the left. Third, the experience of the Labour government since 1997 has convinced trade union activists that Labour is opposed to their collective interests. We are in a similar position to the end of the 19th century, when trade unions began to break from the Liberal Party and a new working class party was set up. Finally, the socialist movement is weak and fragmented (see Weekly Worker August 12 2004). The conclusion drawn from these four points was the need for a mass republican socialist party. This is a party which makes the fight for a democratic secular republic not only a political priority, but part and parcel of the struggle for socialism. The Scottish Socialist Party is an example we can learn from, even though its republicanism is a product of nationalism, not derivative from a commitment to democracy. The socialist movement will remain stuck in the past until it takes up the democratic deficit. Does the general election provide any real evidence to support this analysis? The answer has to be yes. Certainly the crisis of democracy is shown by the two issues that dominated the election - the question of war and the growth of racism and authoritarianism. The crisis of democracy is both an opportunity for the working class and a serious danger. The Tories got their campaign off to a good start because they played the race card and this made a connection. Immigration is referred to in Australian parlance as the 'dog whistle' - it is inaudible except to your own dog, which immediately comes back to its master. Howard blew the whistle and called back Tory voters who might otherwise have thought about voting for the BNP. Labour's response was to show how 'tough' it had been. Blunkett had himself warned about "swamping". But because the capitalists need cheap labour the door had to be kept open, even if strictly controlled. Labour's toughness does not contradict the need for 'flexible' labour markets. Had we forgotten the tragic deaths of the Chinese cockle-pickers drowned in Morecambe Bay? Immigration controls breed criminal gangs, racist ideas and opportunist politicians. The victims are always working class people. There is no doubt that this issue tapped into a mood of concern amongst voters. Yet it seemed a double-edged sword. It ran so far but no further. Howard is simply not trusted. Many people saw him as an opportunist politician and a cynical manipulator of people's fears. The 'dog whistle' raised the Tory vote, but in the current situation it could not win an election. No doubt it also helped the BNP, but not in Tory constituencies - the BNP's best result of 17% in Barking was in a traditional Labour seat. The BNP made no spectacular breakthrough, but is likely to be pleased with so many results of near 10%. The degeneration of democracy is ideal breeding ground. We have to expect further growth for them. However, in the middle of the election the main issue switched to Iraq. Iraq was not about the current involvement of British forces or any demand for troops out now. For most people the war has ended and Britain is involved in 'peacekeeping'. There are not sufficient troops being killed to make it a popular concern. The issue was whether people trust Tony Blair. There is no doubt that Blair deliberately misled the country over the war. In some ways whether he actually lied misses the point. If he did not, it would have been because he had so much power he did not need to. He could carry out his criminal policy in any case. The point is that the war was decided in Washington. It was not decided in Britain. It was not decided by the cabinet. It was not decided by parliament. It was not decided by the people. A majority of the people opposed the war and millions demonstrated on the streets against it. Blair and a small group of political advisers and officials decided to back Bush's plan for 'regime change' in Iraq. The plan was illegal under the UN charter. It was therefore necessary to manage the media and parliament. From that flowed all the spin and dodgy dossiers, for which Alistair Campbell is past master. Blair set out to take Britain into Bush's war, mislead and manoeuvre the opposition in parliament, and use this against the will of the people. Gordon Brown came to Blair's rescue and advanced his own programme and ambitions in an interview in The Daily Telegraph. The issue should not be limited to Blair's integrity. It was about the use of political power. It was a matter of the constitution. He pointed to the prime minister being able to use the royal prerogative to launch military action without the approval of parliament. He says that "changes in the constitution are needed to restore trust in politics among an increasingly sceptical public". 'Trust' is thus posed in constitutional-democratic, not personal terms. Brown says: "Trust is not about Iraq; it is about the future of politics generally" (April 30). On democracy we must go "forward, not back"! Lack of trust and loss of confidence therefore runs much deeper than disillusion with 'Bliar'. Can we trust any government operating under the present constitution? Andreas Whittam Smith, writing in The Independent, recognises the fact that we are badly governed. He quotes a new book by Sir Christopher Foster (British government in crisis), who argues that no part of our constitution is performing effectively: not parliament, not cabinet, not ministers, not the civil service, not local authorities, not other parts of the public sector. Blair has hollowed out Britain's 'democracy'. Smith notes: "The forms are the same. But the reality is that the prime minister and the state are steadily gaining arbitrary powers, while our freedoms as citizens diminish" (The Independent April 18). At the 2001 election over 40% of the electorate did not vote. This is an indication that many people are alienated from the political system, its parties and politicians. Voting seems to make little or no difference to their lives. People have no trust or confidence in the system. The war in Iraq shed new light on this. The people are excluded from power. It is concentrated and centralised into the hands of the prime minister and a small clique of ministers, civil servants and security chiefs. This time Labour won 35.2% of the vote. This was the lowest share for a government since 1832, according to The Economist (May 14). The number voting Labour fell from 10.7 million to 9.4 million. But the Tories only won 32.3%. This was the lowest combined vote for the two ruling parties since the 1920s. In what has been a two-party system, this indicates a real loss of support. The Tories gained 33 seats, but only succeeded in raising their vote by less than one percent. The biggest winners were the Lib Dems who won over a million extra votes. But this resulted in only a small increase in parliamentary seats. The translation of votes into seats now makes a mockery out of the system. As Steve Cooke pointed out last week, Labour's 35.2% of the votes translates into 55.1% of the seats (Weekly Worker May 12). Most people's votes count for little when they pile up in constituencies dominated by one party. The election is decided by a few voters in the key marginal seats. The election has shown that the issue of democracy is bubbling below the surface. It is not directly addressed by any of the parties, including the socialists. It was the dog that didn't bark. Yet it is real enough in people's minds. This has been shown after the election by the response to the 'Campaign for democracy' launched by The Independent. The second issue is the crisis of working class political representation. Brian Sedgemore MP spoke for many in his harsh condemnation of Blair. It was not just socialists who are disillusioned with Labour. Now a mass of Labour voters have sped away. But instead of having the option of a credible party of the left they went to the Liberal Democrats. It was quite clear that the Lib Dems gained from Labour where they presented themselves as a left alternative. In Tory seats the Lib Dems made little, if any, progress. The vacuum on the left was shown up in these results. Third, we had some indirect evidence of the alienation of the trade union movement in the election of Matt Wrack as general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union and the defeat of Andy Gilchrist. Matt Wrack secured 63.9% of the vote in a 40% turnout. This turn to the left confirms that a trade union break with Labour is supported by rank and file firefighters. This will not be the end of a process which is highly significant in terms of the case for a new mass party. Finally, we have the crisis in the socialist movement. In 2001 the left stood 303 candidates, including 98 for the Socialist Alliance. This time the number fell to 187. Even if we leave aside Respect, there was a huge array of candidates competing for the left vote. These include the Scottish Socialist Party (average vote: 2.01%), Socialist Labour Party (1.15%) Socialist Party (1.57%), Alliance for Green Socialism (1.02%) Democratic SA (0.64%), Socialist Unity (1.01%), Communist Party of Britain (0.55%) and the Workers Revolutionary Party (0.35%). The Independent Working Class Association (2.13%) and the Walsall DLP (2.3%) stood one candidate each. Nobody can disagree with Peter Manson's comments that "what is striking is the decrease in support for the left" (Weekly Worker May 12). The one set of results that stands out against abject failure are those scored by Respect. With one MP elected and eight votes above 5%, including 27%, 20%, 19% and 17%, Respect has something to crow about. The Socialist Workers Party's Party notes argues that the main lesson is that Respect is now in a completely different league from anything else the left has produced in this country for 60 years. The party is following this up with 'Winning is just the beginning' branch meetings. However, as has been noted, 17 Respect candidates got below 5%, including 12 below 2%. This unevenness is quite startling. In these areas Respect is doing no better and sometimes worse that the Socialist Alliance scored in 2001. The factor that seems to explain this result is the concentration of muslim voters in certain constituencies. Bethnal Green and Bow provides an obvious example. Janet Alder's 6.4% in Tottenham was the exception because it did not rely on a muslim vote. "We haven't understood the country we aspire to govern. We have to change." This was the conclusion made by Tory MP Alan Duncan in response to the third election defeat in a row. It is a conclusion that the socialist movement could also draw. We have not understood either the country or the class we aspire to lead. With the exception of Respect, whose results need to be handled with care, the socialist movement has produced even worse results than 2001. Nowhere was this clearer than the dimming of our hitherto brightest star, the SSP. It would be too complacent to put these very poor results simply down to division and fragmentation amongst these 10 organisations. Despite the apparent success of Respect it cannot succeed as a longer-term project. It is not a project for uniting the left into one republican socialist party. It does not meet the real needs of the situation facing the working class. As currently constituted, it is a castle built on sand - and possibly quicksand. It remains wedded to the ideas of Labourism. This means that Galloway has not burnt his ideological bridges to the Labour Party. The possibility of Galloway 'doing a Livingstone' and settling up with the Labour leaders cannot be ruled out. This is much more likely now that Blair's days as Labour leaders are numbered. The conclusion from this is that socialists should not put all their eggs in the Respect basket. Socialists must organise independently of Respect. But at the same time Respect cannot be ignored, nor should socialists fall back on a sectarian attitude of dismissing it. Nothing could be more blinkered. Respect has established itself and will no doubt gain credibility from its undoubted achievements. It is not a matter of making nit-picking criticism. We have to develop a criticism of Respect's overall strategy. The left is now divided into a Respect and a non-Respect left. This is how the Weekly Worker presents its analysis in speaking of the "dismal results of the non-Respect left" (May 12). What should the non-Respect left do? The first thing is to unite in creating a socialist alternative to Respect. The SWP views the non-Respect left as hopeless, inveterate sectarians who are incapable of unity. In so far as that is true, the non-Respect left might as well give up and close down. Certainly the non-Respect left is not in a position to launch a new mass workers' party. But it is in a position to build a pro-party alliance. There is only one candidate for this and that is the Socialist Alliance. This can become the vehicle for uniting the non-Respect left. The SA still represents the most advanced socialist unity initiative over the last decade. We need a new Socialist Alliance, not a repeat of the old SA, closed on February 5. We need to learn lessons from the failure of the SA. We need a republican SA which is capable of relating its politics to the crisis of democracy.