Left links up for major campaign at next election
Alan Thornett gives the International Socialist Group's assessment of a landmark conference.
The conference of Socialist Alliances held in Coventry on September 30 was a historic event on the British left. Over 400 hundred activists embracing the bulk of far-left organisations in Britain (outside of the Stalinist tradition) came together, along with independent activists and local campaigning groups, to hammer out a framework for a united intervention into next years general election.
This remarkable gathering included a large number of members from the two largest far-left organisations in Britain, the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Party. As Dave Nellist, who chaired the conference, said in closing it: "not only were we all in the same room at the start of the conference, we were also all in the same room at the end of it".
The conference itself - which was four or five times as big as any previous such gathering called by the Socialist Alliances nationally - reflected a wide realisation that without a Socialist Alliance campaign there will be no significant socialist voice in the general election, given the current weakness of the left in the Labour Party. The resulting successful outcome of the conference has set the scene for the biggest electoral intervention by the left in Britain since the war.
This is a unity which springs from the harsh realities of the current political situation in Britain: the rightward march of Blairism on the one hand, and the disaffection from it, on the other, of socialists looking for an alternative.
There is an opportunity for political realignment to the left of Labour, and a wide realisation that this potential cannot be fulfilled on the basis of the old divisions but only on the basis of a new spirit of unity.
The conference was not before time, however. Since the success of the London Socialist Alliance, the expansion of Alliances in towns and cities across England has far outstripped the development of the structures needed to consolidate them and maximise their potential in the election.
The practical upshot of the conference was the adoption of an agreed protocol which can provide both an organisational structure for the election campaign and an approach designed to bring as many left candidacies as possible under the banner of the Socialist Alliances.
The protocol was, however, sharply controversial, particularly with the Socialist Party. The final outcome was a compromise, but it does appear to represent a structure which all the organisations present could accept and work with even if they remain unhappy with aspects of it.
The sharp debate on structures, though, represented a deeper division over the character of the Alliance we are setting out to build. Would it be an Alliance of organisations and individuals seeking as far as possible to present themselves as a part of a common project, and prepared to subordinate, to a degree, their individual identities to strengthen the common identity?
Or would it simply be an electoral arrangement bet-ween competing organisations, which would go on putting their own identity, and own interests, first in the traditional way?
THERE WERE many shades of opinion expressed on these questions, but it seemed that the Socialist Party were the only current to consistently defend the latter view. Their speakers intervened to claim (astoundingly) that the officers' proposed protocol would create 'over-centralisation' to the extent that it was only appropriate for a full blown political party! This is an irrational view in relation either to the original proposals or to the policies eventually adopted [see box].
All that was being proposed was the minimum structure capable of presenting a united and coherent campaign, with an election committee at national level, a high degree of autonomy at local level, and with the political organisations involved free to make clear their own identity and project their own politics.
To argue that this represents the structure of a political party is absurd. But it is true that the protocol from the officers represented the formation of a political alliance rather than simply an electoral block.
We are trying to build a national political current. Therefore certain minimum criteria are necessary. This, in our view, is the only way to mount an effective campaign and the only way a genuine convergence can be maintained and developed.
The Socialist Party meanwhile have got themselves in a twist. The stance they have taken in the Socialist Alliances, for the last six months or more, is that the Alliances should move towards becoming a new political party to the left of Labour. They have regularly denounced the SWP for treating the Alliances as simply a temporary electoral block, and for not understanding the urgent need for a new workers' party.
They have repeated this mantra at every opportunity. Now they have done a complete summersault by arguing that that the Alliances under the officers' protocol would be too much like a political Party - and that they should pull back from this and simply be an electoral pact.
It is an extraordinary turn around. They still call for a new party of course, but it is simply propaganda stripped of all content. We must have a new party - but the Socialist Alliances, which are the most promising development in that direction for a very long time, are becoming too much like one. Suddenly the Alliances are not the basis for such a new party. But if the Alliances are not the best development in that direction to date, maybe the SP could tell us what is?
As far as the International Socialist Group is concerned, we agree with the SP on the need for a new party, and we think the Socialist Workers Party are wrong not to address the issue of the longer term development of the Alliance we are building.
But the way the SP are conducting themselves on this blunts the debate with the SWP rather than taking it forward.
THE SP presented their position at the conference as a defence of the democracy of the Alliances. In fact the logic of what they say is not a defence of democracy in the Alliances, but a threat to it.
The SP have made it clear both at the meeting of the SA officers and in a recent edition of The Socialist, that they intend standing 18 candidates in the general election. They gave the officers the 18 named constituencies where they intend to do this.
This was presented not as an aspiration - which would be a completely different matter - but as an intention. In The Socialist it could not have been clearer: "Of these seats [those contested by the SAs] 18 will be contested by the Socialist Party".
What is going on? It should be the local alliances who stand candidates not particular political tendencies! Candidates should be chosen at local level and endorsed by the election committee. If they are members of political organisations, no problem, but they are the candidates of the local alliances - duly adopted.
This approach of the Socialist Party was repeated at the conference. In response to the discussion it was 'clarified' that they meant SP candidates standing under the name of the Socialist Alliances.
This is very welcome. But it only resolves one problem, not the other. If the democracy of the local alliances is to mean anything, how can the SP guarantee having SP members as SA candidates in 18 pre-determined constituencies?
HOW CAN LOCAL ALLIANCES be formed in those constituencies on the basis that the candidate has already been predetermined by the SP? All everyone else has to do is rally round! It would create an unacceptable situation.
It is not surprising that the Socialist Party wants to minimise any national development or authoritative structures for fear that it may limit their room for manoeuvre. They reject any national structure or protocol which can determine anything to do with "their" seats.
This is the sort of attitude which will prevent Socialist Alliances developing into genuine broad organisations and restrict them to no more than a pact between existing left currents
It is an attitude which needs to be rejected. The SAs must be built on the most open and democratic basis possible, with a full input from everyone participating at local level. And this is not a moral issue. The more broad based and united the Alliances are, the more effective they will be in mounting a serious challenge.
THE VERY ACT OF UNITING under a single banner in the elections will maximise our potential support. It will attract new forces and organisations who will be crucial for our future growth.
In the past the organised left in Britain has been infamous for its sectarianism, and that included many on the Labour left.
We have to prove that we can unite around the issues we agree on in a common programme of action. In this way the sum Socialist Alliances will prove to be greater than the sum of its individual parts.
No one is arguing that any one should drop their politics or stop arguing for them or stop putting out their own material. We will certainly continue to put out our views. The issue is how that is done within the parameters of a united campaign.
The final debate at the conference was on what would constitute the election committee, the body which would run the election campaign.
There were three proposals: the existing officers' committee, which we considered too narrow; the existing Liaison Committee, which is the officers plus one delegate from every affiliated organisation; and an extended officers' committee, with one from each of the main political organisations plus four independents.
The ISG supported the third option, but we have no problems with the outcome -which was the Liaison Committee proposed by the SP. It will need to reorganise itself to do the job, but we have no doubt that that will happen.
The conference did not resolve all the problems of building an effective election intervention.
It did not tackle one issue which we regard as crucial: not standing against left Labour candidates. This is an issue on which the SP - and others who think Labour is now a straight capitalist party - will not agree.
There is a lot of work to be done before a credible election campaign can be launched. An election manifesto will have to be agreed. The Alliances nationally do not yet even have a web site.
There is no co-ordination of activities, and no common source of information as to what is going on. The existing bulletin is now inadequate for the expanded system of Alliances which is now coming into being.
The Liaison Committee has a major job ahead of it and will need to act quickly. But the conference was a very good start, and at least established some ground rules on which the campaign can be built.