WeeklyWorker

02.02.2006

Rein in Galloway

George Galloway might think that by paying back part of his parliamentary salary he can take some of the wind out of his enemy's sails - but his gesture exposes again the fact that his appearance on Celebrity big brother had everything to do with advancing his reputation as a media personality and very little with Respect or working class principles, says Tina Becker

One of the first acts of Bolivia's new president, Evo Morales, was to cut his own salary by 57% to $1,800 per month (just over £1,000). Morales announced that he "wants to share the burden of the poor" (BBC News online January 27). With the average wage in Bolivia just about $120 a month for a factory worker, he is a little way off experiencing the hardship of his electorate. Nevertheless, this move was a symbolic attempt to "break with the corrupt politicians that have ruled Bolivia for decades", as Socialist Worker noted approvingly (January 7).

The comrades in the Socialist Workers Party are a little more hesitant when it comes to George Galloway, however. At Respect's October 2004 conference, the SWP majority voted down the CPGB's motion to commit all elected representatives to receiving the equivalent of a skilled worker's wage - with the rest going back to Respect. Naturally, we argued, Galloway and other representatives would be able to claim back legitimate expenses.

Instead, through its silence, the SWP has given carte blanche to George Galloway's demand that he needs a minimum of £150,000, if he is "to function properly as a leading figure in a part of the British political system" (The Scotsman May 19 2003). And Yvonne Ridley, Respect's candidate in various elections, too, told the Weekly Worker that a wage of a 'mere' £61,000 would not be enough for her: "Give me three or four times as much," she said (July 1 2004).

The fight for representatives to only take an average skilled worker's wage is not an empty, moralistic slogan or designed by the CPGB to simply punish or humiliate Galloway and the SWP. Historically, this demand has been employed by our movement as "an effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism" (see below). It has gone hand in hand with the fight to make our representatives accountable, not least through the possibility of instant recall (obviously, today that means expulsion from the party - constitutionally MPs cannot at present be recalled by their electorate).

In fact, accountability and taking no more than an average skilled wage is an integral part of our movement's struggle to build a democratic party - a party that is part of the working class. On £150,000, you live a vastly different sort of life compared to the people who have elected you. There are enough examples in our history of 'socialist' parliamentarians getting used to the high life, mingling with the bourgeoisie and 'forgetting' about the poor and dispossessed. This is not an inevitable route, but one that has been trodden many times before by representatives of our movements.

Just after his eviction from Celebrity big brother, Galloway announced that all along he had had three aims in the house. Firstly, he wanted to raise money for the islamic charity, Interpal (which he did to the tune of £30,000 - his share of the revenue from phone and text votes). Secondly, that he was trying to "reach a wider political audience" (again, successful - though not in the way he had hoped). And, finally, that he was going to use his appearance fee of £150,000 to employ two more workers in his constituency office in Bethnal Green and Bow.

The last aim was certainly news to the members of Respect, including its national secretary, John Rees. Not only did he not know during the stunt how much money Galloway was to receive - he also said at various press appearances that he had "no idea" what Galloway would spend the money on. Certainly the Respect membership has yet to be informed properly about the plans and there have been no email newsletters since Galloway's exit.

Maybe the employment of two constituency workers is down to negotiations between the SWP and Galloway after his eviction - or maybe it is simply Galloway's own decision. Who will these two workers be accountable to? Who will they work for? We do not know - though we can take a good guess.

What we do know is that the Big brother affair has exacerbated tensions within Respect. Relations between Galloway and the SWP are becoming more strained by the day. In fact, the lack of accountability and democracy within Respect has been exposed to millions of people. But the most Galloway is prepared to do is express "regret" that his appearance on BB and the subsequent media coverage took us all unawares: "I regret that I didn't do more to prepare Respect supporters for that "¦ I understand the pressures they've faced and I'm extremely grateful that they have not buckled under them" (interview Socialist Worker February 4).

In a real democratic party, such a high-profile venture by the organisation's most well known figure would have been discussed and agreed beforehand - not sprung on Respect just 24 hours in advance. It would also be the leadership that discussed where the money would go - the appearance fee, Galloway's cut from the phone and text votes, as well as the surplus from his MP's salary over and above the wage of an average skilled worker. But in Respect, it is Galloway himself who takes such decisions and then announces them as a fait accompli.

And how about Galloway's statement that he will "pay back the percentage of his £61,000 parliamentary salary covering his stay in the house" (The Times January 30)? Again, it seems rather unlikely that this has been sanctioned by the rest of the Respect leadership. Maybe I am being too charitable to the leaders of the SWP, but surely they cannot have agreed to giving this money to the state? Rather than handing over about £3,800 to Tony Blair's war machine, Respect could surely make more appropriate use of this money.

But then, Galloway's stay in the house was never really about building Respect or the anti-war movement. It is part of Galloway's exit strategy from parliament and party politics - and the beginning of building Galloway, the independent media personality. Before the 2005 general election, he repeatedly said that he would not stand again in Bethnal Green and Bow - instead he thought there should be a Bengali candidate. Clearly, he would have very little chance of being elected anywhere else. Asked on Channel 4's Richard and Judy programme whether this was "the end of his political career", he confirmed that he had talked about his "retirement before the last election" (January 26).

Rather desperately, John Rees has tried to convince the world (including his own SWP members) that, in fact, Galloway was not retiring: "That's not the construction I would have put on his remarks, unless in the atmosphere of the Big brother house he has come to a different conclusion" (The Guardian January 27).

Comrade Rees's motives for bending the truth are obvious: without George Galloway as a figurehead, Respect is nothing. It has not recruited thousands from the anti-war movement. It has not grown any roots in society. And it certainly cannot boast lots of new members in the aftermath of Galloway's stunt (and who knows how many have resigned?) It is still nothing more than an alliance between Galloway and the SWP. And an increasingly uneasy one at that.

Galloway is not only Respect's biggest asset. Since day one he has also been its biggest problem - it is just more obvious now. By giving him a free hand on his conduct, his wages and, of course, in shaping the political programme of Respect, the SWP has only ensured Respect's inevitable self-destruction. Democracy, accountability and transparency are not just nice add-ons - they are absolutely vital for the success of any effective working class organisation.

Tradition of our class

For over 130 years, it has been a principle of the workers' movement to pay its elected representatives the equivalent of the average wage of a skilled worker