|
|
George Galloway’s ‘Respect initiative’
‘TWENTY-FOUR hours to make or break Tony Blair’, is how the
tabloid headlines have described the looming parliamentary dramas of January
27-28. The first date is when parliament will debate the introduction of deeply
unpopular top-up fees for university students, which are widely understood as
being a qualitative step towards a US-style university system, with elite
institutions charging exorbitant fees.
The following day will see a debate on the Hutton inquiry
into the events leading to the suicide last summer of the weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) expert, David Kelly. Whatever Hutton’s exact findings are, not
even the capture of Saddam Hussein has cut across the increasing unpopularity of
Blair’s decision to go to war and the deep-seated perception (reinforced during
the inquiry’s hearings) that he lied over WMDs in order to go ahead with the war
in the face of mass opposition.
In other circumstances all these factors would make it a
betting certainty that Blair would be forced to resign. But while this is an
increasing possibility, Blair has two great advantages – a large parliamentary
majority and, most importantly, the lack of any mass socialist alternative
standing to the left of New Labour. If such a party existed it would be able to
channel the anger of workers – on top-up fees, privatisation, low pay and the
continuing occupation of Iraq – into a powerful opposition. But there is as yet
no mass workers’ party, or even a ‘pre-formation’ on the road to a new mass
party, that could begin to provide an alternative for the millions of workers
and youth who are disillusioned with all the capitalist politicians.
Unfortunately at this stage none of the new left-wing trade union leaders have
made a clear call for such a formation, and a majority are still arguing that it
is possible for the working class to reclaim the Labour Party, despite all
evidence to the contrary.
The latest initiative to try and step into this vacuum is
the Respect – Unity Coalition, set-up by George Galloway MP, the Socialist
Workers Party (SWP) and others. George Galloway was expelled from New Labour
last October for his stand against the Iraq war and Respect’s first, and
primary, goal is to contest the European elections in June (under a proportional
representation system) with the hope that he could be elected in London.
The Socialist Party supports candidates standing in
elections who put forward a clear socialist alternative in opposition to New
Labour, or clearly represent a step towards a new mass workers’ party. At this
stage, unfortunately, Respect does not put a clear socialist position and it is
also far from certain whether any electoral successes it may achieve (and these
are far from guaranteed) would be used to advance the case for a new workers’
party.
Respect’s central slogan is opposition to the occupation of
Iraq and "any further imperialist wars". This, and many of its other demands,
are very good – for an end to privatisation, the return of the railways and
other former public services to democratic public ownership, opposition to
tuition fees, and so on. They fall short, however, of a socialist programme that
provides a real alternative to the capitalist system that is responsible for
attacks on education, the health service etc – and, of course, imperialist wars.
Possibly this is because the Guardian journalist George Monbiot and Salma Yaqoob
(chair of the Birmingham Stop the War Coalition), who are not socialists but
were two of the eight ‘founding initiators’ of Respect, opposed an explicitly
socialist content. If that is so, it was a mistake to dilute the programme of
Respect in order to win the support of a few ‘prominent individuals’. It was
certainly not necessary to do so in order to fulfil the central aim of the
Respect founders, of winning electoral support from amongst those sections of
society that took part in the anti-war movement, including the Muslim community.
It is, of course, vital to try and capitalise on the massive
anti-war movement which shook Britain. The best way of doing this would have
been for George Galloway (and the other leaders of the anti-war movement) to
have launched the call for a new party at the time of the million-and-a-half
strong February 15 demonstration, while the movement was at its height.
Nevertheless the potential still exists to win large sections of the anti-war
movement, including Muslim workers and youth, to a new left formation. But it is
not sufficient to appeal to Muslims as Muslim voters in elections. Socialists
should instead appeal to the class interests of Muslims and anti-war activists,
as with other ethnic and religious groups and the working class as a whole.
George Galloway makes a mistake when he says Respect will win "the bulk of
progressive opinion in the country" (Morning Star, 12 January). Not only because
there is no evidence for this but also because ‘progressive opinion’ is too
vague a description of who a new formation should be aiming to win. What does it
mean? Don’t the ‘anti-war’ Liberal Democrats for example, whom the Muslim
Association of Britain backed in last September’s Brent East by-election, claim
to appeal to ‘progressive opinion’ also?
In Britain today it would be possible to win the support of
broad sections of the working class on the basis of at least the main outlines
of an explicitly socialist programme. In this sense Britain, where the working
class has the experience of Labourism, is still different to the USA, for
example, where even a left non-socialist alternative, such as Naderism, could
mark a significant step forward.
In the future, it is true, a new formation in Britain might
decide, after discussion, to compromise on the socialist content of its
programme. This might be necessary, for example, in order to enable a
significant section of the working class, such as a trade union, to join the new
formation (this was the case with the founding of the Labour Representation
Committee in 1900, the forerunner of the Labour Party) – although in those
circumstances socialists would still have a duty to argue for their ideas within
the new formation. Such a situation, however, is very different to the current
position, where a relatively small group of individuals, predominantly
socialists, have decided not to raise socialist ideas, perhaps to keep one or
two ‘prominent individuals’ on board, and certainly with the hope that this
might win broader electoral support. In fact, it will guarantee neither.
Moreover, even dramatic electoral victories are only a step
forward if they inspire thinking workers and young people to join the political
fray to fight for the interests of the working class, in other words if they
mark a step towards the foundation of a new mass workers’ party. This is not
guaranteed. One particularly important task for a new formation, today when the
working class is deeply cynical about capitalist politicians, is to prove that
its representatives are completely different to the money-grubbing ‘career’
politicians. In this regard it is unfortunate that Respect is not committed to
its elected representatives taking only a workers’ wage. In the past Dave
Nellist, Terry Fields and Pat Wall, three Marxist Labour MPs who supported the
Militant Tendency (predecessor to the Socialist Party), all took the average
wage of a skilled worker. This meant they remained in touch with the working
class communities they represented but also that it was clear that their ‘hands
were clean’. Joe Higgins, currently a Socialist Party TD (MP) in Ireland, does
the same.
It is also vital that any new formation is democratic, open
and welcoming to new layers of workers and youth. Unfortunately, in England and
Wales there have already been two failed attempts to launch a left alternative
to New Labour – the Socialist Labour Party (SLP) and the Socialist Alliance. In
both cases the undemocratic and top-down approach of the leadership of these
organisations (Arthur Scargill in the SLP and the SWP in the last three years of
the Socialist Alliance) was a major factor in their inability to gain real
influence.
Unfortunately Respect, whose major component is once again
the SWP, appears to be making the same mistake. With no genuinely open
pre-discussion on how to build a democratic, inclusive electoral coalition,
Respect is being launched at a national rally in January. Nonetheless, the
Socialist Party will engage in any discussions that may take place. Socialists
must stand for the maximum possible unity of the left and be prepared to work
with others, including in the electoral field. However, it also vital to fight
to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated and that future
formations are developed on a healthy and democratic basis.
Hannah Sell
|