09.03.2006

For a parliament with full powers

The people of Wales must have the right to self-determination, argues Bob Davies, and calls for that right to be exercised in favour of unity within a federal republic of Wales, Scotland and England

Owain Glyndwr - the last Prince of Wales was a fitting documentary to be screened here in Wales on Wednesday March 1. After all, we are currently being led to believe that this latest St David's day was one of the most important in the country's recent history. Glyndwr, the BBC's Huw Edwards confidently assures us, is one of the main reasons why a strong Welsh identity has remained over many centuries, so his vision of a 'free' Wales and the vile pomp and ceremony that went with the opening of the country's newest debating chamber - y Senedd ('The Parliament') - blended well with the establishment's vacuous claims about a modern Wales having a modern parliament fit for a modern nation.

You could anticipate the rhetoric that was to take place at the opening ceremony even before the day began. In one of her usual bland speeches, the unelected head of state herself spoke of the building "showing pride and confidence in the future of Wales, in the future of democracy", whilst Wales's largest daily newspaper, the Western Mail, also spoke of the "time to embrace the new debating chamber in Cardiff Bay as a symbol of the kind of democracy we want 21st century Wales to be" (March 2). To cap it all, the contents of the poem read by the National Poet, Gwyneth Lewis, Horizon with the people, pandered to a mythical, preconceived idea of y Senedd, as currently constituted, finally realising the will of the people of Wales. It was all pretty sickening.

Leaving aside the £67 million that it cost to erect, the idea that this lavish new building would somehow automatically bring with it full democracy is absurd. It was, of course, timely that its opening coincided with the passing of the Government of Wales Bill in the House of Commons the previous day - a piece of legislation described by Welsh secretary Peter Hain, in December last year, as a "red letter day for devolution [which] will put to bed the constitutional question in Wales for a generation".

Although the bill still needs to go through the House of Lords, it is expected to become law after next year's assembly elections.

As I pointed out in this paper at the time of its launch (Letters, January 5), the changes this bill will introduce are hardly likely to re-invigorate the Welsh assembly (however slick and modern it may be). The bill was based on the findings of the two-year commission under former leader of the House of Lords, Lord Richard, who once famously dubbed the assembly a "glorified county council". But debate about the kind of real powers a Welsh parliament ought to have has been largely, but not unsurprisingly, ignored by the Labour Party hierarchy.

Of course, communists do not need an establishment figure - particularly one from an unelected, undemocratic institution - claiming the democratic mantle and telling us about the distinct lack of real powers the Welsh assembly has and will continue to have. Yet since the introduction of the white paper, Wales has been inundated with claims from Labour stalwarts (including Hain and first minister Rhodri Morgan in particular) about the bill's powers to answer criticisms about the democratic deficit within Wales. So the assertion, made once again at the opening of y Senedd by Hain, that the new powers will put to rest once and for all the question of Welsh devolution is yet a further dogged attempt to convince us that there is no need for, and no right to, self-determination for Wales.

Hain is fooling himself if he thinks the new powers will satisfy many people in the long term - I use the word 'powers' advisedly, because a closer look at the way decisions may be made in future reveals something quite farcical.

At the moment, the assembly has the power only to develop and implement policy within such areas as, for example, education, health and the Welsh language. As currently constituted, it also has to seek approval from Westminster for any legislative changes it would like to initiate in these limited fields. In other words, 'democracy' for Wales lies ultimately with London and the Westminster parliament of the House of Commons and House of Lords and not Cardiff. Of course, we are led to believe that the new bill will change that situation. If the assembly wants to initiate its own decisions, apparently the new law would act as a lever that would enable it to do that - to seek approval from Westminster and then get on with the job itself, so to speak.

But the assembly would still only be able to legislate in areas it already has responsibility for. Any move to give it primary powers of legislation would have to be agreed in a referendum amongst the people of Wales and - surprise, surprise - there are no current plans to hold one.

Although Hain claims that the bill and y Senedd are "in tune with current public opinion", a recent poll suggests that a substantial minority (39%) of people living in Wales now favour full law-making powers (Western Mail March 1). In my opinion this figure looks set to rise rapidly - nobody will be fooled by something that still has the powers of a "glorified county council" calling itself a parliament

Fundamentally then, nothing much will have changed. Indeed, the notion that the Welsh assembly mark two comes anywhere near meeting Welsh national aspirations is ludicrous. That point was not lost on the 250 or so demonstrators who gathered opposite the new building on March 1. Cardiff Social Forum had been one of the main bodies to organise the event and they were joined by a rather eclectic mix of socialists, republicans and nationalists. Indeed, the motley gathering personified the problem of the left in Wales (and Britain generally) at this time - namely, splintered groupings and a lack of organisational strength and consistent, principled oppositional politics.

While, for example, the Cymdeithas yr Iaith Cymraeg (Welsh Language Society) chant of the morning was "twll dyn i'r queen" ("arseholes to the queen"), a young representative from the same organisation found himself on TV exposing the "sham" of the current "English" monarch and extolling the ideas of a certain Welsh prince as a genuine leader for Wales. He was talking about Owain Glyndwr, of course, the self-proclaimed 15th century prince of Wales!

The small group of Respect/Socialist Workers Party comrades, while occasionally revelling in the chant of "No king, no queen, bring back the guillotine", appeared more concerned to use the occasion to push for the removal of troops from Iraq and build for the March 18 demonstration. Not surprisingly, there was no Respect or SWP leaflet on the constitutional question - not even one that questions the 'democracy' of a system that allows Blair to go to war using the royal prerogative if he wishes, and unaccountable MPs to flout the wishes of their constituents and vote for war. Socialist Worker's report of the event managed a little over 50 words and restricted itself to listing the protestors without commenting at all on the occasion (March 11).

While Imagine, the newsletter of Republic - the Campaign for an Elected Head of State, speaks of the need to attract people from the "right, centre and left of British politics" in order to achieve an elected president while leaving a range of other constitutional arrangements in place (November 2005), it was the Cardiff Social Forum that put forward the most progressive demands. These included "the right of the national assembly to decide for itself which powers it has and to determine its relationship with Britain and the rest of Europe" and "the abolition of the expensive monarchy" (although the latter's negation of democracy concerns us more than its expense).

For communists and revolutionary democrats, the issue of Welsh self-determination and, consequently, the politics behind the assembly/y Senedd must be taken seriously. Raising the question of self-determination for us also raises republicanism and the question of the British constitution - its thoroughly anti-democratic institutions, the nature of the state and the way we are ruled. In this way, we are also exposing the exploitative and undemocratic system of capital that lies behind the constitutional monarchy. We need to reveal British democracy, as currently constituted under the crown, for the sham it is.

At the very centre of our revolutionary communist minimum programme are demands designed to challenge the rule of the bourgeois state in the struggle for extreme democracy. When it comes to Wales, it must have a parliament with full law-making powers, including, as the Cardiff Social Forum comrades state, "the power to determine its relationship with Britain and the rest of Europe". That means having the right to secede.

Yet we do not argue for that right of secession to be exercised. We demand the abolition of the constitutional monarchy system and a voluntary federal republic of Wales, Scotland and England, which would allow the unity of the British working class to be deepened.

This differs greatly from the programme of the petty bourgeois nationalists, who stand for separation, and thus the automatic weakening of workers' unity, as a matter of principle.