29.07.2009

BNP 2, Republic 0

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group looks at the meaning of 'Yes to Democracy'

Iran and the UK make interesting comparisons. Both countries have their own forms of monarchical democracy, if we use this term broadly for regimes with unelected heads of state. Their constitutions are based on power-sharing between the elected and monarchical or religious institutions. In the UK the division is between the crown and the ï¿½republicï¿½ (ie, the people). In Iran it is between the ï¿½Islamic familyï¿½ and the ï¿½republicï¿½. This arrangement provides the state apparatus with a greater degree of autonomy.

Both regimes are the product of revolution followed by counterrevolution. Mehdi Kia explains: ï¿½The regime that arose out of the revolution of 1979, after bloody suppression of any democratic content, was essentially a government by a particular section of the Shia clergyï¿½ (Weekly Worker June 18). But he says: ï¿½It must be remembered, however, that the regime rose out of a revolution which indisputably incorporated virtually the entire population of the country.ï¿½

The counterrevolution must be able to claim it is the heir of the peopleï¿½s revolution. Stalinism had the same problem to overcome. In Iran the 1979 revolution remains alive in mass consciousness.

As for the UK, the present state traces its lineage to the democratic revolution that overthrew the Stuart monarchy, Cromwellï¿½s puritan counterrevolution, the Stuart restoration and the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688. The revolution is forgotten - buried under centuries of imperialism and conservatism.

It becomes apparent when a ï¿½crisis of democracyï¿½ reaches a certain level. First there is a serious division within the regime, whether crown or ï¿½Islamic familyï¿½. Mir-Hossein Moussavi, the leading presidential candidate, describes the crisis in Iran as a falling out ï¿½within the Islamic familyï¿½ (Yassamine Mather Weekly Worker July 9). It was in effect a coup by Ahmadinejadï¿½s faction, according to Mehdi Kia (Weekly Worker June 25). There is a certain truth in the observation by another liberal candidate, Mehdi Karroubi, that ï¿½this week the ï¿½republicï¿½ was taken out of the Islamic regimeï¿½ (Weekly Worker June 18). It reappeared as the republic versus the Islamic regime in the shape of millions on the streets.

A second aspect of the crisis draws the ï¿½monarchï¿½ into politics. In this type of constitution, the head of state cannot be overtly political. The ï¿½monarchï¿½ must profess to stand above the class struggles of mere mortals. ï¿½Monarchsï¿½ merely concern themselves with the moral and spiritual well-being of the people. A huge amount of propaganda is invested to reinforce this myth, but the democratic revolution destroys it: ï¿½The strident call of supreme leader Ali Khamenei for suppression of the demonstrationsï¿½ means ï¿½the road is now open for the entire structure to be challenged from belowï¿½ (Mehdi Kia Weekly Worker June 18).

Y2D Iran

Iran and the UK are both undergoing a ï¿½crisis of democracyï¿½. In Iran millions do not believe the recent election result. In the UK millions do not trust MPs or their expenses claims. In one country there is a hope for democratic reform and in the other the prospect of democratic revolution. In both a ï¿½Yes to Democracyï¿½ ï¿½partyï¿½ has arrived. Here comparison ends and contrast begins.

In Iran the Y2D party is the democratic masses themselves, mobilising on the streets - two to three million took part in the demonstrations on June 15. They included ï¿½students and activists of the leftï¿½, ï¿½demonstrators from the working class districts of Tehranï¿½, ï¿½car workers and bus workersï¿½ and sections of the middle classes and unemployed youth (Weekly Worker June 25 and July 9).

There are within the Y2D ï¿½partyï¿½ two emerging programmes: liberal (reformist) and republican (or people power). The conservative ruling class is divided between reactionaries and liberals. The latter do not want to overthrow the Islamic constitution. They want new elections and a bigger share of power. The Economist supports the liberal programme, saying: ï¿½A new president and a kinder regime in Iran would be a valuable prizeï¿½ (June 20). Yassamine Mather explains that a liberal victory ï¿½would undoubtedly have lengthened the life of the Islamic regime for a few yearsï¿½ (Weekly Worker July 9).

The republican programme takes inspiration from the 1979 overthrow of the shah. The first step is overthrowing the Islamic regime. Democratic republican demands include those for a secular republic, a provisional republican government, a constituent assembly, rights for women and national minorities and the arming of the people. Now, ï¿½The current conflict will not end until the regime is overthrown. It has made too many enemies, especially among the youth and the poor, for anyone to be able to contemplate its survivalï¿½ (Yassamine Mather Weekly Worker July 9).

The violence meted out to the demonstrators is a recruiting sergeant for the new republic. The process of permanent revolution is set in motion. Initially the liberals are leaders of the Y2D ï¿½partyï¿½. Soon they are being left behind by the unfolding of the struggle. Yassamine says: ï¿½Every day that goes by, their support continues to drop. They are caught in a corner, trying to save an Islamic order that is not prepared to compromise even with them.ï¿½ The time is ripe for the ï¿½republican partyï¿½ to put forward a clear alternative to the liberals.

A new republic needs elections for a constituent assembly. This idea must be popularised. Yet calling for such an assembly is utopian. There must be a provisional republican government to organise the defence of the people and call elections. This is the theory. What do we see in practice?

The people have been attacked by armed reactionaries. Some protesters have been killed. Street battles with the bassij Islamic militia forced them to retreat, Yassamine Mather reports (Weekly Worker July 9). Yassamine refers to a Workers Committee in Defence of Mass Protests, which is organising security and advice on self-defence. Is this a provisional government or the beginnings of one?

The question of arms is a practical, not theoretical, issue. The masses understand the need for the movement to be armed. In 1979 the republican insurrection had access to weapons and this helped ï¿½persuadeï¿½ some elements in the armed forces to change sides. It is one thing to shoot down unarmed masses. It is something else when they start shooting back. Hence the taunting of the security forces with the chant, ï¿½Be scared of the day we are armedï¿½ (Weekly Worker June 25).

It is not a matter of demanding the Islamic republic concede the right to carry arms. This would be laughable. The right is won by the victorious revolution. Arms are needed to win the right to carry them. Having taken power, the new republican democracy needs this right to defend itself.

Y2D UK

The UK is a ï¿½degenerate constitutional monarchyï¿½ facing the combined assault of economic recession and a crisis of democracy. There is mass alienation from MPs and parliament. But there is no democratic movement or democratic revolution. Here Y2D was no more than a temporary alliance unknown to the masses.

The liberal (reformist) MPs have apologised. Some have handed back some of their ill-gotten gains. Some waived their cheques. A few sacrificial lambs fell on their swords. The liberals took it all very seriously and promised democratic reforms. When the dust has settled, the radical talk will be binned. It will be business as usual. Parliament cannot reform itself. Democratic change will only come from the outside.

Both fascism and the republic are born out of a ï¿½degenerate constitutional monarchyï¿½ - a regime towards the end of its life. The British National Party is positioning itself ï¿½outsideï¿½ the old liberal establishment and beyond the reach of its corruption. Is the BNP a neo-fascist party? Or is it merely a vat for the fermentation of fascism? Let us not waste too much time debating that. The fact remains, in the Euro elections the BNP won two seats and 6.4% of the vote.

The republic stands in the same relationship to the old regime, but to the left. Militant trade unionists and socialists led by the RMT launched their own campaign under the banner, ï¿½No to the EU, Yes to Democracyï¿½. They took up cudgels against Labour, the Tories and the BNP. So is ï¿½Yes to Democracyï¿½ the beginning of a republican party? Or is it merely a vat for the fermentation of republicanism? Or is it none of the above?

Some saw Y2D as liberal nostalgia for a mythical democratic past. Or was it the rallying call for the new republican democracy of the future? The question was posed, but not answered. The very nature of the alliance prevented an answer. Yet republicanism was drawn to it like a magnet. It then buzzed around like a stinging bee.

First up was the Socialist Alliance, giving unconditional support to No2EU, with the slogan ï¿½No2EU-UK, Yes to a European republicï¿½. The SA highlighted the adverse effect of the democratic deficit on the working class in both the EU and UK. The call for a European republic is an internationalist version of the ï¿½Yes to Democracyï¿½ slogan. It demands the international cooperation of people across Europe and the abolition of all constitutional monarchies throughout Europe.

Next was Robert Griffiths, general secretary of the Communist Party of Britain, speaking on a No2EU platform about ï¿½Yes to Democracyï¿½. He pointed to the CPB programme Britainï¿½s road to socialism, which stood for a range of democratic demands, including the abolition of the Lords, proportional representation, a parliament for England and a federal republic for England, Scotland and Wales.

Peter Taaffe, Socialist Party general secretary, called ï¿½For an extension of genuine democracyï¿½ (The Socialist May 27). The answer to the massive disillusionment in parliament ï¿½is not to do away with representative institutions like parliament, but to introduce a more generous democracyï¿½, says comrade Taaffe. He outlines a republican programme, which includes:

abolition of the monarchy and the Lords;
a single-chamber assembly;
elections every to two years by proportional representation;
votes at 16;
right of recall of MPs.

Last but not least, the CPGB called on No2EU to adopt republican and internationalist demands. In particular it called for ï¿½the abolition of the monarchy and the second chamber; yes to annual parliaments with recallable MPs on a workerï¿½s wage; yes to an end to the secret state; yes to a popular militia and the constitutional right to bear armsï¿½ (Weekly Worker May 28).

Anarcho-republicanism

A republican programme is little use without a republican party, especially one based in the working class. Without a party the republic is disconnected from the class which has the means to achieve it. The assumption is that a party and class struggle might be necessary to bring socialism, but not a republic. The latter will arise from spontaneity, not party struggle. Anarcho-republicanism is the theory that a republic can be achieved without a republican party and class struggle.

The massive weakness of republicanism in England leads to frustration. This gives rise to an ultra-left brand of sectarian republicanism. Republicanism is no longer about the people, but becomes badge of distinction for this or that group. This has been called ï¿½catwalk republicanismï¿½. It is parading up and down, showing off your republican credentials to the amazed audience. The whole farrago over the right to carry arms looks like an unfortunate example of this.

Of course, every republican should recognise the need for a republican party and a peopleï¿½s militia. The right to bear arms will be won by the democratic revolution. However, if this makes sense in Iran, it has no meaning for people in England. If the CPGB had run a republican election campaign, or called for the organisation of a republican party, the fight for a republic could be advanced. Instead the CPGB made the right to bear arms the acid test of whether to support No2EU.

It looked as if the CPGB was engaged in left posturing. CPGB comrades Lee Rock and Bob Davis seemed to think so. They say: ï¿½It was not the key principle upon which our intervention could best have been made.ï¿½ It risked ï¿½developing a sectarian attitude ... towards organisations outside the ranks of the CPGB which include militant revolutionariesï¿½. They argue, quite rightly, that this element of the republican programme ï¿½should not have been posed as a conditionï¿½ (Weekly Worker June11). Perhaps these comrades are ï¿½Walter softiesï¿½ compared to hard Bolsheviks?

It seems unfair to suggest the CPGB were posing as left sectarian republicans. In fact the party supported her majestyï¿½s capitalist Labour government responsible for the queenï¿½s armed forces in Afghanistan. No leftism there then. The ultimatum to Bob Crowï¿½s No2EU campaign turned out to be: ï¿½If you donï¿½t support an armed militia, we are voting for a standing army.ï¿½Republicans in the UK can learn much from the struggle in Iran. In England the struggle for democracy is at a low level. The ï¿½crisis of democracyï¿½ and the Y2D campaign drew out the republican programmes of the socialist left. These programmes have much in common and some differences to be debated. A republican united front is possible if the political will exists.

However a workersï¿½ party needs the support of militant trade unions. These remain attached to Labourism, not republicanism. The RMT has no democratic republican policy. Y2D is about as far as trade unions can currently go. If republicanism in England is serious it must challenge the Labour Party by organising a republican party and a republican election campaign.

Let us start to organise a ï¿½Yes to Democracyï¿½ party for the forthcoming general election.