29.01.2009

Trials of Tommy Sheridan

He recklessly disregarded his responsibility, writes Sarah McDonald

Last weekend’s finale of Celebrity Big Brother, which could best be characterised by its seemingly interminable dullness, was swiftly followed by the confirmation that Tommy Sheridan, one of the participants, is to be tried for perjury. So comrade Sheridan is to be thrust into the limelight once again - though perhaps not in a way he will relish.

A significant number of comrades no doubt took a look at CBB from time to time to see how Sheridan handled being in the house. Many will have feared (and sadly many others may have hoped) that he might have been humiliated. In fact he conducted himself fairly well, avoiding any serious embarrassment either to himself as an individual or to his organisation, Solidarity. All in all, it was a much less cringe-worthy affair than George Galloway’s appearance on the show three years ago. But was Tommy Sheridan’s decision to go into the Big brother house the right one?

No. Not according to the Committee for a Workers’ International, which issued a statement on the day of the Celebrity big brother launch (January 2) voicing disappointment. It suggested that by taking part in the programme he might undermine his standing on the left and lose credibility within the wider working class (arguably he seemed to be making a pretty good job of that already). The CWI also, quite correctly, criticised his motive in taking part - money (though not in so many words). While apparently sympathising with his financial situation, the comrades suggested a more class-orientated solution based on solidarity within the workers’ movement stating:

“It proved impossible to find paid work and undoubtedly these difficulties and other associated financial pressures have played a key role in his decision to take part in CBB. We understand these pressures, but it would have been better, via the large support that exists in the socialist and trade union movement for him, to find an alternative solution. When the Liverpool 47 councillors were surcharged and banned from office for the ‘crime’ of standing up for the people of Liverpool in the1980s, an appeal to the Labour movement raised more than £100,000" (www.socialistparty.org.uk/latest/6726).

The CWI, despite its criticism of comrade Sheridan, seemingly does not intend to split with him over this issue. Its statement is explicit that it intends to continue to cooperate with him in “vital campaigning work” and in taking “a broader left initiative in 2009, involving leading figures in the trade union movement in Scotland, as part of the urgent task to strengthen the voice of the working class and socialism”. Presumably this means within Solidarity - or does it?

So what of the other major component of Solidarity, the Socialist Workers Party? Given that the SWP has retrospectively revealed in internal debate that it had actually considered breaking with Galloway over his appearance on CBB and the ensuing cat antics in 2006, one might have thought that the SWP would have had something to say regarding Tommy Sheridan’s decision to enter the house. Yet it remained remarkably silent, presumably waiting to see how it all panned out - certainly, the organisation published nothing on the subject that I know of. A comrade who answered the phone in the SWP office said he was unable to answer my query, as he had not been a member that long, then promptly hung up.

True, Galloway’s CBB performance was not one of the left’s finest moments, but perhaps the SWP should reflect on its own tactics when working with the likes of him. The cult of the individual is an endemic problem with the left. That is not to say that there is not a role for individuals who possess both charisma and a talent for rhetoric. In truth, the left could probably do with cultivating many more such people from its ranks. However, the sad reality is that the precious few individuals who fit this description are often held up as gods and their egos and whims are pandered to at the expense of serious political endeavours or fundamental principles. The most obvious example of late is, of course, the experience of the Scottish Socialist Party and Tommy Sheridan.

Groomed by Ted Grant and Peter Taaffe when they led Militant Tendency, Sheridan became a prominent political figure in the anti-poll tax struggle and, despite being no theoretician, developed as a leader and an excellent platform speaker who could inspire crowds at rallies and demonstrations. As his public persona developed over the years, his comrades capitalised upon his increasing media/public recognition. By the time the SSP came into being in the late 1990s its leadership not only allowed, but actively encouraged, the identification of the party with Sheridan. To the media and the majority of working class people Tommy Sheridan was the SSP.

So when the shit hit the fan and comrade Sheridan decided to put his own ego before the interests of his party in his 2006 defamation case against the News of the World, it would have been difficult to have simply gotten rid of him. Difficult, but all in all a damned better idea than turning on him in the bourgeois media, as, of course, the SSP leadership did. This even went to the lengths of demanding his prosecution and, in the form of George McNeilage, selling for £20,000 secretly filmed tapes to the NOTW. Here is not the place to get bogged down in the bizarre yet oddly almost inevitable farce that was the demise of the SSP. Suffice it to say that the SSP is not much of a force in Scottish politics these days.

Since the man the organisation was built around left, it has almost no presence in Glasgow other than having stood in the Glasgow East by-election last summer and doing very badly. On top of which its politics are appalling. Take a look at Scottish Socialist Voice or the SSP’s website and you will note that the most militant aspect is its nationalism, which comes across as very hard-line. Its socialism was always Labourite and economistic, and even in the days before the split the SSP was a left nationalist organisation - in my view it is more so now than ever.

Of course, the largest sections of the organised left in Scotland and, indeed, Britain as a whole - the SWP and the CWI - followed Sheridan out of the SSP into Solidarity. Once more, they proceeded to build an organisation around the cult of Tommy Sheridan. Undoubtedly these comrades genuinely feel that the SSP leadership behaved despicably and crossed class lines by their actions during the court case, but forming another organisation with Sheridan unregulated and at the helm was surely another example of both groups’ opportunism.

Comrade Sheridan recklessly disregarded his responsibility to the SSP by pursuing that legal action, going against the advice of - well, pretty much everyone. Of course, once he was in court it was right to defend him. Just as he should be defended in the upcoming perjury case. However, his lack of accountability cannot be defended. Just like Galloway, it seems, he entered the Big brother house without consulting his organisation. But, then, Sheridan sees Solidarity as Solidartomsc - in other words, almost as his own private property - perhaps justifiably so, given that it is built around his personality.

Of course, the political significance of Tommy Sheridan or George Galloway’s appearance on CBB goes beyond their personal ambitions, as well as the ambitions different political groups had on their behalf.

Once his absurd antics receded into memory, Galloway’s appearance on the show was simply the most perfect, public example possible of the relationship he enjoyed with his party, Respect. He was built up as the great white hope, the voice and the face of the anti-war movement, scourge of the US Senate. He would give Respect something approaching a serious public profile; in return, he was to be allowed to do exactly what he wanted.

The most enthusiastic participants in that deal were the SWP, whose comrades voted down various basic measures of accountability - notably the principle of a worker’s wage for a workers’ representative - often explicitly on the basis that Respect could not afford to alienate Galloway. He, for his part, claimed he needed his full parliamentary salary plus a lot more to cover his expenses, to build the profile of the organisation and so on. Keeping personal control over the money, rather than giving it to Respect and claiming it back as accounted-for expenses, removed yet one more check on his activities.

So when it came to a divisive political question - abortion, for instance - Galloway felt perfectly free to ‘follow his conscience’ and vote in complete disregard for party policy (where policy had not been fudged to appease him, in any case).

It is this that is the real danger in the cult of personality - and in the opportunism that tries to ride it to easy political gains.

Comrade Sheridan, to be sure, was not quite so loose a cannon as Galloway. As part of his political inheritance from Militant, he stuck to a worker’s wage. The left-nationalist positions he articulated were largely cooked up by then allies such as Alan McCombes. The background to the split, however, was an aspect of SSP policy - the organisation took the stance that prostitution should be illegal, with punishment falling on the punters. Sheridan did not raise a murmur of protest.

The ‘crimes’ of which Sheridan was accused by the News of the World precisely included paying for sex - thus, to simply declare (as we said he should) that it was none of the Murdoch press’s business with whom he enjoyed sexual congress would mean daring supporters of this policy to break with him. Hence the court case which, though he won, was basically farcical.

Now, after a long period of uncertainty, Sheridan and his wife have been formally indicted on perjury charges relating to the trial. The whole sorry spectacle will begin again with a hearing on February 26 - and the ruling class will not miss a second opportunity to silence a prominent socialist.

If the SSP’s ruling faction was able to exercise some minimal control over Sheridan on the level of politics, Solidarity certainly cannot do so. It really is simply ‘the Tommy party’, sticking to his left-nationalist positions, with the two principal supporting groups prepared to go along with Scottish independence for opportunistic reasons. Sheridan is no longer even an MSP, after the dismal wipe-out of the 2007 Scottish elections - yet still he has his fan club. The silence of the SWP on Big brother is extremely telling - even after the debacle of Galloway, it lacks the backbone to criticise him. Should the perjury trial go convincingly against Sheridan, a lot of Solidarity members will look very stupid indeed.

Accountability is fundamental to the ethics of the workers’ movement. Like all such ethics, it is there because it enables us to do what we must do and be what we must be in order to achieve our aims. The subordination of representatives to the party is a powerful, if not impregnable, defence against careerism, which is a significant vulnerability in the workers’ movement to bourgeois influence.

Above all, however, accountability is a basic requirement of democracy - there are no ‘matters of conscience’ in a democratic party. The job of representatives is to carry out policy, not exempt themselves from it at a whim. Power is on this level a zero-sum game - to concentrate it at the top is to take it away from the bottom, and thus reduce any debates and decisions taken by the membership to a dull parlour game. Party discipline, furthermore, can be defied in ways other than voting against its policy - through absenting yourself from party work, for example (perhaps by squirreling yourself away in the Big brother house) - such decisions should also be vetted by the membership.

The left must get away from looking for solutions in the form of charismatic leaders whose political and media careers take over from principled politics. It must seek to develop leadership skills within its own cadre through encouraging comrades to engage with ideas, think critically and be prepared to defend, develop and even change positions through robust debate. At the end of the day, rhetoric can only get you so far. It is party and programme that count.