|
|
The problem with Respect
JUDY BEISHON looks at the politics and electoral
record of Respect, and at its structures, determined by the narrow,
exclusive approach of the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) and George
Galloway.
RATHER THAN OFFERING a bold political alternative to
New Labour, Respect was founded on the idea that the Socialist Alliance
had failed because it was overtly socialist and therefore that Respect
should not follow its example. This was connected to the aim of taking
more of an electoral orientation. So in Respect’s founding statement the
only reference to socialism is hidden in the ‘s’ of the acronym RESPECT,
and it is rarely mentioned elsewhere either in writing or verbally.
The founding statement lists goals such as an end to
the occupation of Iraq, an end to all privatisation, a raising of the
minimum wage and bringing back the railways and other public services
into democratic public ownership. Its constitution adds: "Our overall
aim is to help create a socially just and ecologically sustainable
society", and then mentions the need for "common ownership and
democratic control".
However, at Respect’s first conference in October
2004, of the 42 resolutions passed there were no references to common
ownership or to socialism as a goal. During that conference, leading SWP
member, Lindsay German, argued against a resolution which proposed that
Respect should aim for a socialist society. She said that political
diversity is needed in Respect, and also that the resolution was moved
in ‘bad faith’ – a common argument of the SWP against resolutions it
disagrees with.
A composite of resolutions from five branches on
‘press and publications’ merely said: "Respect needs to project an
alternative politics that has at its centre a redistribution of wealth
in order to fund public services and tackle poverty". Another resolution
called only for renationalisation of "the railways, gas, electricity and
water industries", and another of "rail and bus services". Many didn’t
even go that far, with one branch ending a resolution on student fees
with: "The cost of providing education should be met in the same manner
as the cost of maintaining defence and other essential services, ie
through the tax system". Another simply said: "Respect will campaign to
challenge the power of the multinational drug companies".
The lack of willingness to raise the issue of public
ownership has not just been revealed on its conference floor. Following
the collapse of the Longbridge Rover car plant, Respect initially just
called on the government to hand over a Ł100 million loan demanded by
the asset-stripping owners, Phoenix. In contrast, the Socialist Party
called immediately for the plant to be taken into public ownership.
In general, non-SWP Respect leaders, like Salma
Yaqoob, limit themselves to arguing – sometimes eloquently – against the
Iraq intervention, ‘social injustice’, and ‘inequality’, which is
understandable from people who do not regard themselves as socialists.
But SWP representatives, like Lindsay German and John Rees, instead of
raising political understanding by injecting some awareness of the need
for socialism, just follow in the wake of those like Salma Yaqoob,
making no mention of the ‘s’ word.
Reflecting its leadership composition, which
includes the non-SWP George Galloway, and various Muslim community
leaders, Respect does not have a unified political position on most
issues, including on its attitude towards New Labour. It put out a
gushing obituary following the death of New Labour’s ex-foreign
secretary, Robin Cook, saying that he was a voice for "sanity, reason
and peace" and was a "courageous, outstanding figure". It made no
reference to the fact that Cook had played the role of foreign secretary
for British imperialism and had supported the interventions in Kosovo
and Afghanistan.
Despite the anti-working class nature of New Labour,
the Respect conference passed a resolution not to oppose left, anti-war
New Labour candidates. George Galloway has gone further than the SWP
regarding his stance towards New Labour and has, in the past, raised the
prospect of Respect possibly helping to reclaim the Labour Party. He was
also reported as saying at the Respect conference that people should
vote Labour where there was no Respect candidate standing.
Despite Respect being a centralised organisation
rather than a genuine coalition, this does not mean that its national
committee or even the executive committee has political control over its
public representatives. In order to keep its celebrities, religious
leaders and its one well-known political representative – George
Galloway – on board, its figureheads are allowed to freely express their
personal opinions in public. The SWP attempts to be controlling and
authoritarian on some issues, such as on who will be in the leadership
bodies and who will be election candidates, but decides to emphasise the
looseness of a ‘coalition’ when it comes to issues of programme and
policy.
As on public ownership and socialism, there are a
number of subsidiary programmatic issues that Respect has had great
difficulties with, due to its composition and the SWP’s unwillingness
and inability to explain what is correct politically and to be honest
when a political compromise is necessary. Compromises are not called
compromises but are passed off as political principle or are treated
with silence. But its silence on a number of issues means that it shares
responsibility for the positions taken. For instance, to adapt to the
religious Muslim leaders on the executive, any references to
‘secularism’, whether referring to the nature of Respect itself, to
workers’ organisations in Iraq or anywhere, or to the education system
in Britain, are simply voted down. George Galloway has been allowed to
express his views against abortion and voluntary euthanasia with no
direct criticism from the SWP.
The SWP has also forced Respect to accept Galloway’s
refusal to live on an average worker’s wage. Although the SWP leaders
try to present themselves as the theoreticians of Respect, it is George
Galloway who sets the policy at the end of the day, because of his
relative weight in the media and reputation in the anti-war movement.
Galloway’s increased profile internationally as a result of his US
senate hearing and his position as a left MP who overturned a
significant New Labour majority, has increased his ability to dictate
the agenda inside Respect.
Recently, divisions resurfaced on the issue of
terrorism. A Respect conference resolution on Iraq made no qualification
when it called for support for the ‘Iraqi resistance’, a position the
SWP ran into difficulties with in the Stop the War Coalition. But more
recently, tensions in the Respect leadership were evident following the
7/7 London bombings, when George Galloway was vociferously condemning
the bombers, calling them ‘monsters’ and suchlike, while the SWP was
trying not to use the word ‘condemn’ at all in relation to the attacks.
The electoral record
IN THE 2004 European elections, Respect’s first
national electoral outing, George Galloway got 4.84% of the vote (91,175
votes) in the London Euro seat (a slightly lower, but similar,
percentage to the vote of Irish Socialist Party member and TD – member
of the Irish parliament – Joe Higgins in Dublin). Then, in the 2005
general election, concentrating on the Muslim anti-war vote, Respect won
the Bethnal Green and Bow seat putting George Galloway back in
parliament, and came second in Birmingham Sparkbrook, East Ham and West
Ham with 27%, 21% and 20% of the vote respectively. They stood in 26
seats altogether. Lindsay German, in the June edition of Socialist
Review compares this favourably to the Green Party, which stood 200
candidates, with their best result being in Brighton Pavilion where they
came third with 20%.
However, the SWP leaders of Respect are highly
selective with their comparisons, writing out of their history books the
existence and achievements of the Socialist Party and its forerunner the
‘Militant tendency’. For instance, Lindsay German, in the same Socialist
Review, says that the 2005 general election "marked the revival of the
left electorally in Britain", and in the next sentence says that the
votes of George Galloway, Salma Yaqoob, herself and Abdul Khaliq Mian
(from the Muslim Alliance) "have not been seen since 1945 when
Communists Phil Piratin and Willie Gallagher were returned as MPs". So
the parliamentary victories achieved in the 1980s by Militant’s Dave
Nellist, Terry Fields and Pat Wall, who stood on Marxist policies, are
deliberately ignored. The Respect leaders also gave no recognition
during the general election campaign to the Socialist Green Unity
Coalition (SGUC), which stood a slightly higher number of candidates
than Respect, including Socialist Party member Dave Nellist, who
received 1,874 votes in Coventry North East.
The Socialist Party welcomed George Galloway’s
victory in Bethnal Green and Bow and recognises it as an achievement for
Respect. Galloway succeeded partly because of his reputation as a
leading anti-war figurehead, which he built up over years, mostly prior
to Respect’s existence. It is also the case that Respect’s best votes
were achieved by orientating to anti-war Muslims. However, this was not
done on a class basis, with equal emphasis on social and economic issues
to that of Iraq, but largely as an ‘anti-war party’, and partly through
religious leaders. Where they stood in areas without high Muslim
populations, their votes were significantly lower.
Working-class Muslims have moved against New Labour
as a result of the Iraq war and, as one of the most oppressed sections
of society, are important to win to the labour movement. However, this
must be done on the basis of a class-based appeal and not an opportunist
one resting on religion and culture in the way that Respect has swung
towards. At times, Respect has portrayed itself as ‘the party for
Muslims’ and Galloway as a religious man who is personally against
drinking alcohol, abortion and voluntary euthanasia. At a recent Respect
meeting for students in Leicester, he even said that he was fasting for
Ramadan – despite the fact that he is not Muslim himself.
There are significant dangers with this approach,
particularly of creating potentially dangerous divisions between
working-class people from different backgrounds and communities. The
task should be not just to attract Muslim votes and allegiance, but to
take the starting point of the radicalisation and anti-New Labour mood
of Muslim youth and workers and take it further, by introducing the need
for class unity and socialist ideas that can show a way forward.
The problem with Respect’s approach towards Muslim
organisations, is not in the main what has been said and written, but
what has not been said and written. While it is possible for socialists
to oppose the war on Iraq in alliance with organisations like the Muslim
Association of Britain, or in an electoral alliance against New Labour,
it is not acceptable for them to never write or speak a word of analysis
or criticism on the political solution those organisations offer to the
problems faced by working-class people, including Muslims. However, the
SWP is silent on these issues, trying to paper over political chasms to
avoid offending its allies and friends in Respect.
When the Socialist Party works with others in
coalitions and alliances, whether in a majority or minority position,
our stance is always to put forward a programme and strategy to advance
the struggle and consciousness and to try to win the others involved to
that strategy. For example, we were in a minority on Liverpool council
in the 1980s battles with the government, but we won majority support on
the council and among workers in Liverpool on the basis of putting
forward a strategy to advance the struggle. And while paying great
attention to the detail of strategy and tactics, we do not hide our
belief in the necessity for socialism, and are always prepared to
critically analyse the views and aims of other organisations in our own
material. Even though the SWP form a majority in Respect, instead of
putting forward a programme and strategy to advance campaigns and
political consciousness, it appeals to the lowest common denominator in
the arguments and positions it puts forward.
Centralism not democratic federalism
IN ITS CONSTITUTION, Respect calls itself "broad,
open and inclusive", and "politically pluralistic". The constitution
states: "Members of other parties, organisations, or faith groups who
join Respect are entitled to keep their identity as members of these
organisations or groups whilst participating fully within the structures
and activities of Respect… Trade unions at the national, regional or
local level may affiliate to Respect. They will have the right of
representation at annual and other conferences". And: "Any group of at
least 20 members will have the right to organise within Respect and to
present resolutions to conferences – consistent with the agenda of the
conference".
In practise, however, there are great limitations to
the extent to which other political organisations – other than the SWP –
can keep their identity within Respect. Respect’s 2005 general election
candidates had to be selected by majority vote at local level and
approved by the national council. In most cases the SWP can mobilise
their members to achieve an SWP ‘majority’ for such selection meetings.
If a candidate from a minority organisation within Respect gets through
this process, it is then the SWP’s position that no organisation can be
part of Respect and stand in an election under its own name and
determine its own election campaign politically or organisationally.
So it is impossible for any organisation or group of
workers to be part of Respect without placing its election campaigns
under the direct control of the SWP. This is the same situation as when
the SWP controlled the Socialist Alliance. Groups of workers or
organisations were told they had to give up control of their own
campaigns and stand in the name of the Socialist Alliance. Worse still,
if they refused to submit to this control, the SWP declared that the
Socialist Alliance would stand against them, as it did on more than one
occasion, including when the Campaign Against Tube Privatisation stood
for the London Assembly, with the support of a majority of branches of
the rail workers’ union, the RMT, in the London underground.
The right of "any group of at least 20 members" to
organise within Respect is at the discretion of the SWP, as no such
right was granted regarding delegate attendance and contributions at
Respect’s first conference. At that event, all resolutions that were
backed by the SWP were carried, and all those opposed by the SWP were
defeated. A resolution for the right of political platforms to exist was
defeated, as was one asking for the right of existence of groups such as
the disabled, black members and lesbian/gay members. The national
council is elected by the conference through a slate system. As the SWP
had a significant majority, they were able to choose which slate became
the leadership body. Although a minority of members of the present
national council are in the SWP (ten out of 48), the SWP decided who
will be on the council – ie others are only there at the SWP’s grace and
favour.
Reflecting weakness in the trade unions, only seven
national council members have a trade union position mentioned next to
their name on Respect’s website. Around ten on the council are Muslims,
with some of them being members of either the Muslim Association of
Britain or the Muslim Council of Britain. There is no provision in
Respect for significant minorities or non-union affiliates to have
representation on the national council – this is entirely at the
discretion of the SWP majority.
SWP member and Respect national secretary, John
Rees, in May’s Socialist Review, declares the intention to create a
"mass left-wing alternative to New Labour". But you will search in vain
for encouragement to build democratic branches and to engage in
democratic debate and discussion of political ideas to strengthen
Respect politically. Instead, rally audiences are urged to join up to
‘help Respect win in the next elections’ and SWP and Respect members are
urged to build "a network of supporters and activists in every area".
(Socialist Review, June 2005) Most Respect rallies are characterised by
an absence of any political discussion or debate, with usually no
questions or contributions being invited from the floor. The Respect
conference too had no real political debate, with resolutions only
having one speaker for and one against.
This approach will not succeed in recruiting,
retaining and politically developing young working-class people, or
workers of any age and background for that matter. In this period, where
an increasing number of people are moving in an anti-capitalist
direction, there is a demand for accurate analysis of events,
information about socialism and Marxism, and democratic discussion on
the way forward. The SWP’s approach will not satisfy these demands. The
lack of democracy and debate that exists in their own party is taken
into Respect and other organisations under its control.
None of the lessons of the demise of the Socialist
Alliance have been learnt by those in Respect’s leadership. The SWP was
completely unwilling to compromise on the Socialist Alliance’s
constitution, to retain an element of federalism in order to keep all
participants on board. The Socialist Party proposed a federal
constitution that would have made it a genuine alliance and maintained
the maximum possible degree of unity. But in the event of this not being
accepted, we were prepared to stay in the alliance on the basis of a
proposed variation of a ‘status quo’ constitution, or even on the basis
of a simple limit on the representation of any single organisation in
leadership bodies, as was also proposed.
However, the SWP refused any compromise and forced
through its own ‘one member one vote’ constitution with 52% of the
conference vote. This meant that any organisation or group staying in
the Socialist Alliance would have to accept the dictates of the SWP. The
Socialist Party was unable to remain in on that basis and other groups,
organisations and individuals who remained involved also came to realise
that the SWP’s approach was intolerable. It ultimately caused the demise
of the Socialist Alliance. For alliances or coalitions to be attractive
to a fresh layer of workers, they will have to be inclusive, democratic
and arrive at a way of working and constitution that prevents
participating organisations from feeling they are not fully involved.
Especially now, in the post-Stalinist era, there is great sensitivity on
the issue of democracy, with people being repelled by any situation that
smells of manipulation or dictates beyond their control.
In the Socialist Party, we will continue to help to
propagate socialist ideas and socialist unity in the labour movement as
a whole. As well as seeking agreements with other left organisations to
avoid us standing against each other in the May 2006 elections, we are
also continuing to work as part of the Socialist Green Unity Coalition,
which came into being before the May 2005 elections. In particular,
however, we look forward to participating in future developments towards
a new mass workers’ party, the creation of which is now an urgent task
for workers in Britain. We intend to play an active role in helping to
initiate steps towards that vital goal, which will include proposing the
necessity of a fully inclusive, democratic, federal constitution.
|