A unity coalition
John Nicholson, RESPECT national executive (pc)
The forthcoming timetable of events for
left politics in this country now seems clearer. There will be a
Conference of "Respect - the Unity Coalition" on October 30th/31st.
There will be a Conference of the Socialist Alliance sometime in
December, to be held in London. There will be a Westminster General
Election, some time between late this year and early 2006.
The first of the Conferences will not be
open to anyone to turn up and attend (even if they join on the day),
but will be for delegates (to be elected - one for every ten members -
on an "area" basis). Given the absence of any constitution for Respect
(not even the circulation of a draft, which would have to be approved
at this Conference in any case), it is difficult to see how these
"areas" can be defined. Outside of London, where the membership is
spread out more unevenly, the "area" is likely to mean the town in
which the meeting is held. With a stated membership of 3000, this
still gives an absolute maximum of only 300 at what should have been
expected to be a major event on the left.
The organising of the second of these
conferences must be still uncertain, partly because it depends on the
outcome of the first. Traditionally Socialist Alliance conferences
have been open to supporters to turn up, pay their subscriptions on
the day, and participate in full. Given that many (most?) SA members
may no longer be paid up, and given that much (most?) of the
leadership of the SA will be aiming effectively to close the
organisation down, there must be some doubt as to what to do. Will the
Executive insist on inviting paid-up members only - hardly capable of
being managed, locally, on even the same delegate basis as the Respect
Conference, as most branches no longer function, and hardly likely to
deliver enough paid-up members to vote the "right" way? Or will former
members be pressed into paying their subs in order to turn up and vote
for the organisation to be wound up - hardly appealing, even to the
most committed of organisationally-challenged of supporters?
Meanwhile the fuse may already have been
lit by the Government for the next General Election, and most of the
socialist left will not have agreed how or where to contest it, let
alone have any candidates agreed and in place to build a campaign.
This is despite a growth of anti-Labour sentiment since 2001,
including a massive anti-war movement and some significant left
election results, in recent local, European, London and by-election
contests.
Respect - Neither a Coalition,
Nor Unity:
Respect claims to be a "unity coalition".
The idea of further development of such a coalition was initiated by
the Socialist Alliance and in practice taken forward through various
components of the Stop the War Coalition. But the current reality is
that it is a coalition of the Socialist Workers Party (certainly not
convincing all its own members) and sections of the "Muslim Community"
(some excellent local anti-war campaigners and some significant
members of the Muslim Association of Britain), together with one
individual, George Galloway MP. This coalition has not included most
of the traditional peace movement (such as CND), most of the trade
union movement (except for some individuals, often with SWP links),
nor most of the socialists involved in the Socialist Alliance (nor
outside of this, such as the Communist Party of Britain; while recent
ex-Labour members have been as likely to defect to the Liberal
Democrats or the Greens, if anywhere at all). Even George Monbiot,
widely heralded as a mover of this direction, left almost before he
joined.
Politically it may be argued that this
sort of a post-anti-war coalition was not a good idea in the first
place. Turning a broad (and often libertarian) anti-war movement into
an electioneering organisation may not have been the right thing for
socialists to be involved with. But the point is that it has not even
worked, in its own terms, in producing any more significant unity
among the left (in its broadest sense).
Electorally the argument may be more
mixed. The particular local and European elections held this summer
produced mixed results and conflicting analysis. Respect did very well
in London. It has also been lucky (up to now) with the calling of
by-elections in the Midlands and particularly Tower Hamlets, where its
victory has to be seen as significant. On the other hand, the results
were poor in almost all the south of the country, and underwhelming in
the north. Exceptions were in those areas where people organised
locally and built upon solid hard work (such as in Preston, where the
elected Socialist Alliance councillor has creditably developed a base
- a method similar to the Socialist Party's continuing success in
Coventry, and to Walsall's persistent campaigning locally, almost
regardless of whatever successive organisational structures exist
nationally). And in any case these were not the right elections to
draw conclusions from. A postal ballot, cross-region, election for
European seats, revealed less than might have been seen from
contesting local elections (something the leadership of Respect almost
totally prevented happening, outside London, either through the
Socialist Alliance or through Respect itself, despite some last minute
changes of mind). In addition, Respect repeatedly claims its successes
to be the rapid fruit of a "new" party; when undoubtedly it is
gaining, electorally, from votes gathered over previous years by its
predecessor organisations, notably by the Socialist Alliance.
This very mixture of conclusions,
electorally, unfortunately enables Respect to claim (and believe?)
that it is more popular and that it represents more of a coalition
than it does. While it appears to have grown in members, to a larger
level than the Socialist Alliance (at most about 2,400 members), it is
very uneven in its geographical and political content. But what it is
not doing is acting as a coalition for unity, especially regarding
socialists, left-leaning greens, libertarians, peace campaigners or
anyone with an activist background outside of the approved.
The calling of a Founding Conference, on a
delegate basis, should be opposed, loudly and widely. While there are
practical arguments for and against any method of conference
organisation, this event is intended to put Respect on a formal basis,
capable of fighting future elections, on a unity ticket, across the
whole country. But without opening itself up to anyone who genuinely
wants to develop a unity coalition, the organisation will have
defeated one of its main aims right from the outset. Just as Arthur
Scargill declared that the Socialist Labour Party membership depended
on acceptance of a constitution that no-one else had yet seen, Respect
is now effectively preventing potential supporters from joining or
participating in the full prior knowledge of what they are getting
involved with.
In practical terms, even if Respect
branches can be set up and operated in London (following the successes
of Greater London Assembly campaigns), there is little possibility of
an effective branch structure being truly in existence in the next
couple of months outside of the capital. Consequently "areas" will be
arbitrary, and meetings predominantly filled with people local to the
venue. Politically there is no likelihood of relatively small meetings
electing delegates other than totally supportive of the Respect head
office. This has to mean a preponderance of SWP delegates, or very
close supporters (potential future SWP members, in other words).
Respect is therefore preventing its foundation from looking and being
anything other than monolithic in its political culture and
composition.
There is another significant issue, which
similarly clouded the development of the SLP. The "country" of
organisation should mean England; yet Respect has constituted itself,
for electoral registration purposes, as capable of fighting elections
in Wales (genuinely a debatable issue) and in Scotland (where the
Scottish Socialist Party is established and still, remarkably,
comradely in its remarks about Respect). This issue will not go away.
And there is another particular reason for
the left to question the nature of the Founding Conference - that is
what the Respect leadership trying to achieve here. Without raising
unduly conspiratorial delusions, it is highly probable that the main
intent of the local area delegate basis of participation is to exclude
one particular section of a potential political coalition -
individuals or organisations making up the activist, socialist, left,
whose presence at a conference would certainly raise issues of
democracy, pluralism, and unity. A willingness to debate differences
can only make a coalition stronger. Removing the possibility of this,
before it even happens, can only make it weaker.
Looking Beyond - Irrespective
of Respect:
The demand for an open, participatory,
founding event should be made across the whole of the left, whatever
the expectations of success of such a demand. If and when this is
lost, there is a strong case for another event, to take place in
November, at which socialists can seek to develop unity, irrespective
of Respect. At such an event, the tactics of intervention at the
Socialist Alliance conference taking place in December would also have
to be considered. Some will no doubt want to see this organisation
continue, on a national basis. Others will feel that, sadly, the
initiatve has been degraded by the events of this year. Locally it may
be possible to continue Alliances, and these may be able to link with
other locally-based groups, in the kind of federation that the
Socialist Alliance sought in its early days, with a view to developing
into a party in due course. But the practical tactics for dealing with
the December event would need consideration.
At the same time, there is a need to
identify an election strategy for any potential unity of socialists to
carry out. This may need to look long term, and accept that there is
not going to be a fully co-ordinated intervention in the next
Westminster Election, and instead to concentrate on the following
Election (2009-2010?). On the other hand, it may be possible to
identify the seats that socialists could realistically fight and do
well in (based for example on the contests at the 2001 Election) and
to come to an electoral agreement on candidates, under an umbrella
of socialists acting together in unity, with or without different
variations of electoral names under which the seats are fought. To
declare that these are the contests that socialists will fight, before
Respect sets itself up, may be the most effective way to proceed, both
for ourselves and for any possibility (however remote) of successful
negotiation with either Respect or Green campaigns, between now and
the Election.
In any case, we should be finding ways to
unite in practical campaigns, locally and nationally, and we should be
wary of filling our time trying to respond to proposed constitutions
whose outcome we cannot affect.
August 2004