11.10.2006
Control-freakery and decline
The weekend of October 14-15 will see Respect's third annual conference. Doubtless it is set to feature plenty of platform speeches but precious little debate: there are fewer motions and fewer delegates. Emily Bransom and Tina Becker preview the weekend
Respect is politically bankrupt and rent with mounting contradictions. Controlled by the Socialist Workers Party machine, used as required by George Galloway and other careerists, it faces a future, not, as once promised, of leaping electoral successes, but of demoralising compromise, organisational sclerosis and, sooner rather than latter, disintegration.
Most branches hardly exist as independent entities and there is a total absence of anything resembling a democratic culture and debate. The SWP majority has continuously refused to allow Respect its own newspaper (although in 2004, the comrades voted for it - only to do nothing about it and then vote down a similar motion in 2005). Respect does not even have an internet forum where members could engage in discussion.
Despite the relatively successful showing at the May 4 elections, there have been failure, not least for the SWP's own plans. It did not get any of its own members directly elected in places like Tower Hamlets (though two later joined). There was an attempted coup against the SWP in Tower Hamlets by disgruntled careerists and in Birmingham a councillor joined and left within days; elsewhere candidates have defected to the Liberal Democrats. And let us not forget George Galloway's far from purrfect appearance on Celebrity big brother.
Official membership has more than halved since 2004 and now stands at 2,160, according to the annual report - down from 3,040 last year. Even a loyal Respect oppositionalist like Alan Thornett of the International Socialist Group cannot manage to put a positive spin on it and has chosen to criticise the SWP publicly. He identifies "the failure" of Respect "to build itself as a properly functioning national political organisation. Over the past year the problem has become more acute" (www.socialistresistance.net/respect1006.htm).
Even in a stronghold like Tower Hamlets, the picture is bleak. Local ISG member Liam Mac Uaid comments sarcastically: "Last year Tower Hamlets Respect was entitled to send 40 delegates. This year it is 17. I will have conference weekend free, having failed to get elected. Fortunately political pluralism and a diversity of socialist opinions will be guaranteed by the nine SWP members who were elected" (http://macuaid.blogspot.com, September 9).
The decision to transform the final Saturday afternoon session of conference into a rally against islamophobia will not just be an opportunity for Respect to show its opposition to Jack Straw's cynical remarks on the veil. It shows that Respect has been gutted of anything remotely resembling serious debate. Internally it is dead. In that sense the Respect conference more and more resembles those stage-managed affairs put on by the mainstream bourgeois parties.
Last year most branch motions were somewhat unimaginative - many were obviously written to order from above. Yet, compared to this year's offerings, they were verging on the inspirational. For example, the question of the religious hatred legislation and the SWP's support for formulations that even the House of Lords rejected led to critical motions and amendments and a degree of controversy among Respect delegates. There were also a number of significant motions on Respect's internal organisation.
This year, however, things will be kept to a bare minimum. The vast majority of motions - despite covering a wide range of issues (no doubt to prove how well equipped Respect really is) - are totally uncontroversial. In reality, they show that Respect is dying. Nineteen branches have submitted just 36 motions compared to last year's 68. There are also hardly any amendments, which again underlines not only the absence of functioning branches, but the lack of any genuine exchange of views.
Most of the motions have the same artificial feel as last year. They will allow the generation of a lot of hot air rather than an attempt at strategic thinking.
What really stands out this year is that most of the motions seem to have been drawn up in order to have Respect sign up to or support a number of campaigns that are either run by the SWP or have its stamp of approval: Stop the War Coalition, Keep Our NHS Public, Defend Council Housing, Campaign Against Climate Change and the campaign for equal treatment for black school students, Tell It Like It Is.
As can be expected, there is not a single mention of class struggle, capitalism or the need to put forward a vision for an alternative socialist society. But the Respect party is specifically non-socialist, as Lindsey German will tell you. It is about uniting 'the movement' around platitudes.
Particularly disheartening is the lack of opposition voices. There is one half-hearted constitutional amendment from the International Socialist Group (see below). And then there are two motions from the CPGB (one of them supported by Calderdale branch). That's about as interesting as it gets.
Respect is now even more than ever an SWP-dominated front. Many who thought, or hoped, that Respect would become a properly functioning party have given up the ghost and simply walked.
We will deal with the motions as they appear on the order sheet.
War
Submitted by the national council, the first motion is one of the longest and resolves to "continue campaigning for an end to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan". Just like last year, the Respect leadership fails to demand that imperialist forces be withdrawn now. Last year, Cambridge unsuccessfully demanded that the word 'immediate' be added. There is no such amendment this year.
One of the few amendments comes from West London, but it only addresses the motion's embarrassing failure to mention the role of British troops (the original only talks about US and Israeli forces).
Point 5 of the motion resolves to "seek to build links with the forces working for democracy". Sounds good. But let us not forget that last year's conference refused to support three groups working for the democratic rights of women, trade unionists and the unemployed, all of them connected with the Worker-communist Party of Iraq. Socialist Worker editor Chris Bambery rejected the motion on the ground that "the majority of the resistance are islamic" and that Respect should not make "our support conditional on those groups being secular" (Weekly Worker November 24 2005). So we are looking for forces that are "working for democracy", but are not specifically secular. As secularism and real democracy are intrinsically linked, that could prove tricky.
Palestine and Lebanon
Motion 3 (Camden) calls on Respect members to maximise "pressure on the British government to impose sanctions on Israel until it ends its occupation of Palestine", whilst motion 29 (West London) wants to break off "diplomatic relations between the UK and Israel" and calls for "the imposition of comprehensive sanctions" until Israel "becomes a force for peace in the region".
The movers of both motions are clearly deluded in their reliance on the British state to resolve this question. Imperialism can hardly solve a problem that it has created in the first place. What is needed is a programme of self-liberation for the working classes not only in Lebanon and Palestine - but also for the working people in Israel. Liberation can never be handed down from above.
At least Portsmouth's anti-Israel boycott (motion 16) is meant to be pursued by organisations like the new lecturers union, the UCU. They want a boycott of what it terms "anti-Palestinian" universities in Israel. As part of a working class-led series of actions, boycotts can, of course, be useful and supportable. In general, however, we favour international links rather than boycotts. For example, should we end all exchange arrangements with universities whose authorities are anti-Palestinian, even though students and staff may be radical and progressive?
Civil liberties
Predictably uncontroversial, most motions in this section outline Respect's "support for individuals and communities made vulnerable" and concentrate on the question of islamophobia. While the motions are somewhat repetitive, they nevertheless highlight the only thing that is real about Respect - ie, its muslim base in east London and the Midlands.
Motion 28 (Waltham Forest) is worth a comment. It wants conference to "reaffirm its recognition of the benefits to British society that migrants have brought and embraces a diverse, multicultural Britain as a better place to live". Communists should strive for positive and voluntary assimilation of peoples, not celebrate their continued existence as separate, often hostile communities. As a policy multiculturalism weakens and divides our forces.
Needless to say, while the motion praises the "benefits" brought about by migrants, they do not go so far as to actually fight for their right to become full citizens - or the right of their families to move to Britain. Open borders is still a no-no for Respect (see below).
Trade unions and workers' rights
The whole section is vacuous and makes very few concrete demands - apart from a commitment to building Respect's 'Organising for fighting unions' conference on November 11.
Point 3 of the national council's motion (No32) welcomes the disaffiliation of the Fire Brigades Union from the Labour Party and the affiliation of the RMT to the Scottish Socialist Party, to which the "successes of Respect and the SSP have contributed". Reality can be so cruel. The "success of the SSP" has now led to the RMT seriously questioning continued affiliation. Whilst the Labour Party remains a bourgeois workers' party (with its links to the trade unions), disaffiliation is clearly neither a worthwhile nor viable strategy.
There is an amendment to the motion from Oxford that wishes to "reopen a discussion on "¦ a regular, national publication". Presumably, this would help bring trade union affiliates and certainly throws down the gauntlet to the SWP once again. Do they really take Respect seriously, or are they going to dump the whole thing when conditions change and move forward, say on the industrial front?
Motion 30 stresses the need for "democracy in the workplace". It proposes "proper democratic involvement of the membership and accountability of their representatives". The movers are, of course, referring to trade unions, not parties, and this amendment will undoubtedly be passed - particularly as it fails to propose any concrete measures which might have invoked the possibility of parallel proposals for Respect itself.
The last motion in this section deals with migrant workers (motion 5, Enfield and Haringey). It calls for an "amnesty/regularisation" for illegals, "including undocumented workers and asylum-seekers who have been refused protection". Of course, this is wholly supportable. If voted through this would represent a significant step in the right direction. But what about all those migrant workers and asylum-seekers who have not yet made it into the country? Are we talking about a one-off measure here?
The logic of this motion ought to lead to a demand for the free movement for all - for the right of every human being to work and live where they choose. Current Respect policy skirts around the issue and merely "defends the rights of asylum-seekers and refugees to political asylum". Thus it implicitly sanctions the right of capital to pick and choose 'useful' migrants like nurses or IT workers. Meanwhile it ignores those who choose or are forced to flee the poverty and misery that capital has heaped upon them.
George Galloway has publicly voiced his support for a "points system" that panders to the need of capital for 'useful' immigration (see Weekly Worker February 23 2005). Though the SWP remains officially against immigration controls, it has not used its strength of numbers in Respect to oppose or at least criticise Galloway's position.
At last year's conference it used its majority to vote down two motions - from Milton Keynes and the CPGB - in favour of open borders. Without a position that tackles these questions squarely and honestly, Respect's policies on migration and migrant rights will remain eclectic and utterly inadequate.
Public services, pensions and privatisation
Strong language is used to condemn Labour's "onslaught" on the NHS. However, the three motions on privatisation are almost exact duplicates of each other and fail to develop Respect's position further than calling for everyone to join the campaign to "Defend the NHS".
As with other motions, there is no mention of capitalism or socialism. Instead we are encouraged to build "regional and national demonstrations" as part of the "angry mass campaign". A "publicly owned and publicly controlled health service" is part of an "efficient", "sensible" and "decent" society. It is a similar story for housing. The three motions presented concentrate on the Defend Council Housing Campaign (and the request for branches to buy 100 copies of its latest pamphlet).
Portsmouth suggests conference adopts a pension policy of £130 per week - "the government's own figure for subsistence". This is at once pathetic and naive. Rather than simply borrowing the government's (or trade union bureaucracy's) latest figure, we should make what we need our starting point. How much do people, including pensioners, actually need to live a decent life and to reproduce themselves socially and culturally? More than double that figure, we would suggest.
Climate change
"Conference believes the 'individualisation' of actions to reduce carbon emissions deflects focus and blame from the large producers who are most interested in making their workers pay for the cost of reducing carbon emissions," says motion 14 (Plymouth). Quite right. However, Respect's answer is to concentrate on "protest action, demonstrations and industrial action" and a couple of motions predictably call on "all Respect members to build the climate march called by the Campaign Against Climate Change".
According to the various motions, climate change could either be "stopped" or "mitigated" within the capitalist system. The eccentric motion 31 (York), goes completely off the rails and places the responsibility for 'stopping' climate change firmly on the shoulders of individual citizens. Respect is called upon to support the coordination of "international trains", which are supposed to replace international air travel. As usual many of the ideas are nicked directly from various green organisations.
In the last analysis, the climate problem lies with the system of capital, where social needs - including those related to environmental sustainability - are subordinated to endless accumulation for the sake of accumulation. Because the climate by definition crosses national borders, only an internationalist perspective can hope to overcome the metabolic rift between humanity and the rest of nature. While we should, of course, fight for concrete demands in the here and now - eg, the introduction of draconian anti-capitalist measures, including democratic control over production, which would help relive the mounting crisis - we must also energetically raise the necessity of going towards socialism.
Other motions
Standing for "the scrapping of directly elected mayors", motion 12 from Newham puts an encouraging emphasis on accountability. It notes that mayors have "acted against the interests of democracy" and the motion's demand for "active scrutiny" is certainly supportable. But how does this apply to Respect's own elected councillors? Any chance of "scrutiny" and accountability here?
Motion 13 (North Manchester) is interesting in that it clearly tries to align Respect with Tommy Sheridan's party, Solidarity. The motion "notes with sadness the recent split within the Scottish Socialist Party" and, while it wants Respect to "work with all progressive movements", Solidarity is the only one actually named - the SSP is not.
Of course, the SWP has thrown in its lot with Solidarity. The ISG, however, has not - it is backing the McCombes-Fox SSP leadership (provoking a split with its Scottish members who opted for Solidarity). It will be interesting to see if the ISG decides to pick a fight over this issue at conference.
The CPGB's motion urging support for John McDonnell's campaign for leadership of the Labour Party has been tucked away at the end of this section. Judging by the reception it received in some Respect branches, many SWP activists do not like it. But what counts in the SWP is not the drones but the elite around John Rees and the central committee.
It is surely the duty of anybody on the left in Britain today to involve themselves in supporting the John for Leader campaign - albeit critically. The CPGB has done so, while arguing that the campaign would be immeasurably strengthened by adopting two key principles. First, the demand for a democratic republic. Second, the demand for education, health, welfare, the minimum wage, housing, etc, to be based on human need, not the market and profit.
Internal
Last year's conference saw some frustrated attempts to improve Respect's internal workings. Lewisham and Greenwich proposed that the minutes of NC meetings should be made available to all groups and requested "web-based discussion forums". SWP leaders opposed this, because it was too "inward-looking" and would entail "Respect members talking to Respect members". We wouldn't want that now, would we? Calderdale's proposal for a bulletin to inform members of NC decisions was also opposed. Oliur Rahman did not want to see "John Rees sitting behind a desk". It is worth noting however, that 'reports' of meetings of national council are now made available online, although they are pretty skeletal.
The ISG's only motion is the rather tame and in part bizarre amendment to current point 4 of the constitution. This is totally in line with the ineffective internal 'opposition' the comrades have tried to establish in Respect - with very limited success, we might add. Readers of the Weekly Worker might remember that the CPGB was not to be welcomed by the ISG's 'Party Platform'. It does not take a genius to work out what would happen to a pro-party and pro-democracy platform that starts off on the basis of exclusions.
The comrades suggest that the national council should not be elected by conference any more, but should be delegate-based (a minimum of two from each branch). The executive committee, on the other hand, should be elected by conference and not by the national council (though the comrades also somewhat contradictorily suggest that the NC should meet only three times a year instead of the current six).
However, such motions are hardly capable of breathing life into Respect. Political problems such as the SWP's control-freakery cannot be solved through technical fixes.
Conclusion
The motions reveal the true popular frontism of Respect. The SWP, by far the largest component, subordinates itself to the politics of the most conservative forces in the organisation. Instead of the Marxist programme there are platitudes aplenty and empty appeals for 'decency'.
Respect's programme remains one of left populism. It opposes cuts, privatisation and, most of all, the occupation of Iraq; but when it comes to what Respect is actually for, then things are totally vague. Concrete political demands are substituted by earnest calls to support the latest demonstration or next big conference.
The question all this poses is: how much longer can Respect survive?