Weekly Worker 611 Thursday February 9 2006 Subscribe to the Weekly Worker

‘Big brother’ fallout creates divisions

Respect is an inherently unstable political formation, writes Alec Long. And the cracks are beginning to show

In the aftermath of George Galloway’s unilateral decision to enter the Big brother house, the Socialist Workers Party - the operative majority in Respect - has been forced into giving concessions on the important issues of democracy and accountability.

A fraught meeting of Respect’s national council leadership on January 28 saw a motion motivated by muslim activist Salma Yaqoob - and supported by socialist film-maker Ken Loach - that not only takes Galloway to task for his “error of judgement” in agreeing to appear on Big brother in the first place, but also for doing so “without consultation” with the political organisation he represents in parliament and “therefore without the opportunity to consider wider views on the advisability of his actions” (see below for full text). Galloway was actually absent from this meeting and, although the reason for this is unclear, the fact is that many NC members actually took it as a snub, further souring the atmosphere.

Inevitably, this brand of criticism from such prominent individuals in the organisation has made the SWP intensely uncomfortable. Its comrades haggled at the NC to remove those elements of the Yaqoob motion that explicitly criticised Galloway - such a public rebuke might cause him to leave the organisation, John Rees warned darkly. In the end, SWPers reluctantly agreed to the passing of points 2a to 2d - in other words, to introduce a watered down version of the measures of control and accountability proposed by the CPGB and others at the 2005 annual conference, where they were contemptuously rejected as “inward-looking and introspective”, a “fundamental mistake” and a recipe for “Respect members talking to Respect members” instead of knocking on doors and giving out leaflets (Weekly Worker November 24 2005).

Even this partial concession to democracy clearly irks the SWP, and Respect comrades should be wary of attempts to undermine or circumvent it. The NC minutes (available for the first time on the Respect website - www.respectcoalition.org, February 6) report that these points are only passed “pending further examination of existing policy to ensure that it does not contradict national conference policy. If it is found to be in contradiction with national conference policy it will be referred back to the NC.” So watch this space …

Rees and co were also forced to bow to the idea of a deputation from the leadership to visit George to discuss the difficulties caused by his appearance on Channel 4’s tacky ‘reality’ show, with the “intention of producing a joint statement from both Galloway and the NC”, but with the proviso that “in the event that agreement cannot be reached at this meeting then the whole NC will be reconvened” (ibid).

This took place on Monday February 6 and, apparently, did little to appease Galloway’s critics. The Respect MP was characteristically affable and charming, but comrades like Ken Loach and the ISG’s Alan Thornett are reported to have come away still dissatisfied. As we go to press, we have no news of either an agreed statement or arrangements for a reconvened NC.

It was easily predictable that the question of democratic control over elected representatives would be one of Respect’s fundamental fault lines. From the start, the SWP has insisted that Galloway be given carte blanche to make up policy on the hoof. It is to the eternal shame of this organisation - which purports to be a revolutionary Marxist group of some sort - that it has only conceded to measures of democratic control in the aftermath of the relatively minor embarrassment of Big brother.

What about Galloway’s call for a quota system for immigration? What about the public promotion of his reactionary personal views on abortion as a campaigning tool in the 2005 general election? What about the question of a workers’ wage? (see Weekly Worker March 17 2005 for a discussion of why the defence of Marxist principle on these sorts of questions matters).

Readers will recall how at the 2005 annual conference Respect councillor Oli Rahman clumsily rubbished the notion that minutes of meetings should be produced so as to inform the membership of what its leaders are thinking and doing. In the aftermath of the January 28 NC and the partial success of the Yaqoob resolution, Respect’s website features not only the minutes of that NC, but also those for the officers’ group meeting on February 3 - although the NC actually only agreed to produce what is euphemistically termed “action minutes”.

Or, put another way, minutes with almost all the politics surgically extracted. For example, the record of the January 28 meeting reproduces simply those parts of the Yaqoob motion that were passed - those that referred critically to Galloway or the need to produce an NC statement “to reinforce the confidence of members in the future of the coalition” are simply not reported to the membership. Similarly, a summary of the main points made in the course of this important and controversial debate are apparently not deemed suitable for the eyes of rank and file Respect members.

New platform

The issue of the democratic accountability of elected representatives - both in the movement and in bourgeois political forums such as parliament and local councils - is at the heart of the founding statement of the new Respect Party Platform. Essentially this is an attempt by the International Socialist Group to organise the pro-party minority in Respect along the ‘Scottish road’. Amongst its less contentious demands that flow from this Scottish Socialist Party perspective are therefore greater democratic accountability and transparency in the organisation (see founding statement, right).

Most of the initial signatories on this document are either ISG comrades or those associated with the ‘broad’ newspaper they produce, Socialist Resistance. Unsurprisingly, therefore, it bears some of the hallmarks of that trend’s approach.

For instance, like so many others on the ostensibly Marxist left, the ISG believes that the call for Marxists to fight for a Marxist party in the contemporary world is an ultra-left error. Instead, we are meant to argue for a halfway house, centrist political formation, with all the dangers that implies for our class.

Fisher_Gate, who posted notification of the new platform on the website, Urban 75, explains that it arose from the debacle of the November 2005 Respect conference, which coalesced the misgivings of the ISG and its periphery regarding the role of the SWP into a harder oppositional stance.

We are told that that “it came about … when a group of members came together in the wake of the hysterical denunciations by the SWP and its remaining allies to a number of relatively innocuous motions on building Respect. Some were opposed at the conference and defeated; some were passed by the conference, but the SWP and co stated they would be given a ‘low priority’. The continuing cavalier attitude towards democracy shown by the SWP and Galloway since the conference has accelerated the desire to campaign for change” (posting, February 2).

Fisher_Gate is at pains to counter any notion that the new grouping represents anything as solid as a faction: “The statement is limited to that of Respect becoming a party-like organisation and the improvement of internal democracy and functioning. A faction or platform (eg, as in the SSP) would have a wide range of positions on other issues. Individual supporters of this statement might have different views on other controversies: eg, on whether Respect should support the religious hatred bill or faith schools, etc.”

Not an accurate representation of a faction, of course, but clearly irrelevant to how the leadership of the SWP will perceive the new organisation. However much the comrades seek to package what they have created as a ‘loyalist’ group, it will be looked on as a sectarian diversion. Fisher_gate noted that the “the Respect national secretary has been fully informed of the development” - and, yes, John Rees promptly denounced the initiative as “sectarian” as soon as the news reached him, apparently.

Despite its limitations, this initiative by ISGers and others is a welcome one and we urge Respect comrades to sign up to the new platform (details below). The founding statement correctly identifies the democratic deficit that hobbles Respect: “any organisation with MPs and councillors, which presents itself as a political alternative at elections, has to have basic democratic structures, procedures and accountability”. At its first meeting on Sunday February 5 the new platform decided to tweak its name to avoid carping objections from the likes of John Rees (from ‘Forum’ to ‘Platform’) and had a general discussion on perspectives.

Fisher_Gate reports that “the initial sponsors will be discussing the mode of operation of the [Respect Party Platform] with the officers’ group of Respect” (Urban 75 posting, February 3). It is important to acknowledge that, if experience is anything to go by, expanded democratic space in Respect will in all likelihood have to be won by sharp political struggle, not polite negotiation.

Print this page