17.02.2011
Vote 'no' on March 3
Next month will see a referendum on proposals to give the Welsh assembly a limited number of law-making powers. Gareth Evans gives his opinion
Marxists always take the rights of nations and nationalities seriously. Issues relating to the question of self-determination in particular give us the opportunity to discuss concepts of democracy and their relevance and meaning in class society.
The 1990s saw important developments associated with Welsh self-determination. In 1997, New Labour’s constitutional arrangements for the UK managed to secure (by a whisker) a new settlement for Wales and in 1999 the national assembly was established in Cardiff Bay. Given its limit powers, it is unsurprising that discontent rumbled on and, thanks in part to the likes of the Richard Commission, the Government of Wales Act 2006 and the 2007 Labour/Plaid Cymru ‘One Wales’ coalition government, the question was still very much alive. Next month’s referendum represents an attempt to get more powers for the assembly.
What exactly is up for grabs when people in Wales go to the polls on March 3 is relatively straightforward. Currently, the Welsh assembly government has the responsibility for the management and ‘development’ of policy in 20 ‘subject areas’ devolved to it from the UK central government. These include, for example, issues relating to economic development, fire and rescue services and the promotion of fire safety, health, housing, tourism, social welfare and the Welsh language.1 But, whilst it can ‘develop’ current policy within these areas, it cannot propose primary legislation - that requires approval from the Westminster parliament. The referendum next month could change that. If people in Wales respond positively to the question - “Do you want the assembly now to be able to make laws on all matters in the 20 subject areas it has powers for?” - those limited powers will be increased.
Rival camps
Since the referendum was decided upon last year, two clear opposing camps have evolved. In the ‘yes’ camp are organisations such as Tomorrow’s Wales - a “cross-party, cross-sector, multi-faith body” supported by members of all four main parties.2 In January this year, the coalition government also launched the Yes for Wales! campaign. Dominating the ‘no’ camp is True Wales, which describes itself as a grassroots organisation containing within its ranks individuals from “all walks of life and from over the whole of Wales”.3
Yes for Wales! argues that a ‘yes’ vote would enhance the growth “in stature and confidence” of the Welsh assembly government and enable it to “make crucial decisions about life in Wales quickly and efficiently”.4 For its part, True Wales argues that a ‘no’ is necessary to prevent a “slippery slope to separation and independence” and an assembly “devoid of democratic scrutiny”.
Yes for Wales! bases its arguments on two factors. Firstly, it claims that a ‘yes’ will help the assembly to continue to defend people living in Wales from the central government’s economic cutbacks - an institution with law-making powers would be even better placed than the current Welsh assembly government, so the argument goes. True, the assembly has introduced a (limited) number of reforms within the fields of education and health, for example, and neither the introduction of free prescriptions nor the absence of school Sats or league tables in Wales are to be baulked at. But when the 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) ranked Wales the least efficient country within the UK - and its performance was actually worse compared to Pisa’s 2006 study - this argument is far from convincing.5 Indeed, the 2011-12 settlement imposed by Westminster is the equivalent of an £800 million reduction in real terms, so the idea that the Welsh assembly government would somehow be able to protect people in Wales from the cuts simply cannot be sustained.
Secondly, there is the efficiency argument. Clearly, not having to go to central government in order to implement legal change has its advantages. But the Yes for Wales! campaign has been at pains to suggest that next month’s vote is about little else - it is a “clean-up” exercise, Labour’s former first minister, Rhodri Morgan, has argued.6 It represents “nothing dramatic”, proclaimed the coalition’s current education minister, (Labour’s) Leighton Andrews.7 Given the limited choice facing voters come March 3, there is good deal of truth to these statements. This is not to say that the very fact of a referendum does not have important implications for democracy and self-determination (now or in the future).
It is this aspect that the ‘no’ campaign has latched onto. True Wales has spent an inordinate amount of time (correctly) highlighting that the referendum represents something more than a mere tidying-up exercise. Leave aside the argument that a ‘yes’ vote would place Wales on a “slippery slope to separation”: it points to the expense of the Welsh assembly government (assembly members’ salaries are currently over £50,000) and its failure to “deliver for Wales”. However, the main thrust of the ‘no’ campaign relates to the question of democracy and how, according to one of its leading lights, Rachael Banner (a Labour Party member herself) this issue has been sidelined, given that next month’s vote represents a “huge constitutional change”.8
But therein lies a problem for True Wales. Its Devolution charter proclaims the need for a “root and branch change to Britain’s political system” and outlines a whole raft of reforms which it argues would give people in Wales (and in the UK generally) the opportunity to have a meaningful input about important democratic questions, but True Wales’s agenda for change is one that is far from adequate.9 For example, it claims that the democratic scrutiny of the Welsh assembly should be undertaken by Westminster and the House of Lords! It goes so far as to suggest that Welsh elections are not genuinely democratic ... because they are conducted under proportional representation: “... some AMs represent no constituency and earn the same as those with a constituency.” Interestingly the charter refers to the merits of annual parliaments, yet rejects them in the here and now as “impractical” and “costly”. For True Wales “root and branch” democratic change depends on Wales having “a safe future as part of the UK” and its anti-democratic constitutional-monarchical system.
Workers’ perspective
How should Marxists respond to all of this? For those operating in Wales in particular, having a perspective on the referendum that places the interests of the working class (and thus the majority of people generally) at its centre must be paramount. With this in mind, whilst addressing the arguments that the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaigns have promoted, Marxists should strive for a position that is independent of both these camps. Unfortunately, this has not been done - at least not in any serious or consistent manner.
Of the three most prominent left organisations operating in Wales - the Socialist Workers Party, the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain and the Socialist Party in England and Wales - as I write, only the latter has commented on March 3. Although not supporting Yes for Wales!, SPEW takes up some of its arguments in calling for a critical ‘yes’ vote. Claiming that “further powers to the assembly would prevent the Westminster government and Whitehall from obstructing or delaying assembly discussions and thus enable the assembly to pass laws in Wales”, its position also taps into the notion of ‘progressive’ changes implemented by the Welsh assembly government. It claims, as no doubt the CPB will too, that a Welsh assembly with enhanced powers - under pressure from the working class, of course - would be in a position “not to pass on the Con-Dem cuts, but to fight the cuts”.10
As has been noted, leaving aside the argument that the current Welsh assembly government has produced a budget that drastically threatens jobs and services in Wales, this stance hardly gives radical politics here a much needed cutting edge. The proposed change represents nothing more than a minor tinkering with the current constitutional arrangement. Indeed, all four assembly parties support a ‘yes’ and have done so since Yes for Wales! was first launched.
A ‘no’ vote at least has the potential to take the debate to a much deeper level. Although there is an argument that a call for an active boycott of the referendum would also achieve that objective, the effects of this approach would be limited. Granted, calling for the spoiling of the ballot paper with, for example, appropriate slogans that highlight other options would decrease the ‘yes’ return. However, given that the reasons for spoilt ballot papers are not recorded, this stance would be unlikely to produce the desired result.
This is why agitating for a ‘no’ is tactically important. Essentially, the consequences of such a result would create opportunities for Marxists to place the whole question of the assembly in perspective. A ‘no’ campaign should emphasise the importance of republican democracy, specifically advocating the case for proportional representation, fixed (one-year) parliaments, party-list recallability and for political representatives to be paid no more than the average skilled worker’s wage. It would also, however, enable us to raise other matters of equal importance. As well as defending the right of nations to self-determination, up to and including the right of secession, Marxists would be able to highlight the potential divisive outcome of this right, should it be chosen, whilst arguing for the maximum unity of people in Britain, around the demand for a federal republic.
Militantly agitating for the abolition of the crown and the royal prerogative, the House of Lords, the privy council and the presidential prime minister, as well as the replacement of the standing army with a people’s militia, would provide a vision that goes beyond that advanced by many within the ‘no’ campaign and would challenge, rather than maintain, the whole basis upon which the British union is maintained. This reason alone is good enough for voting ‘no’ on March 3. Combined with the other arguments I have outlined, however, it makes such an option a necessity.
Notes
1. For the full list of subject areas, see www.wales.gov.uk.
5. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11930257.
6. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12330435.
7. Westminster hour BBC Radio 4, January 23.
8. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12330435.