Conference boost for Socialist Alliance
The Socialist Alliance constitutional conference was held in London on Saturday 1st December, last year, with over 700 members present. ALAN THORNETT reports
The conference successfully adopted a new constitution – proposed by the International Socialist Group (ISG) the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and five prominent independents – by 345 votes against 311 for all other alternatives.
The new constitution gives Socialist Alliance members full rights to determine policy, elect leadership bodies and select candidates to stand in elections.
It also enshrined rights of freedom of expression and dissent within the Alliance and the right to sell and distribute publications other than those of the Alliance.
It is a good framework for the next stage of the development of the SA. What marred the conference, however, – even if it had been widely predicted in advance – was the carefully staged walk-out by the Socialist Party (SP).
Five alternative constitutions were presented to the conference. That proposed by the SWP/ISG and a number of key independents was adopted.
Those proposed by Workers Power and by the CPGB were leftist, and both effectively called for the SA to become a revolutionary party. Pete McLaren, one of the existing officers, put forward another constitution which was essentially the status quo.
The RDG put forward the constitution of the Scottish Socialist Party, in order to propagandise for the SA to become a party on the lines of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP). While the ISG agrees that this should be the long term goal, we did not support putting this proposal at this time, as the Alliance is not yet ready.
Further there were additional problems, given the politics of the RDG, with the way they had amended the framework SSP constitution for use in England.
Then there was the constitution proposed by the Socialist Party – which enshrined the scandalous principle that any six members within a constituency, who formed themselves into a platform, could veto any decision taken, including the selection of candidates.
Outgrown
A new constitution was badly needed because the existing one had been outgrown by the SA itself and no longer provided structures which best facilitated its development. The motivation for the ISG SWP et al constitution (in the preconference bulletin) put it this way:
"We now have a fundamentally different SA to the Alliance that existed even a year ago, and the structure of the SA needs to be changed to take account of these developments. In particular we need a constitution which will ensure that the SA becomes more democratic and inclusive and at the same time is able to provide an effective and coherent national direction".
That meant not only having a structure which could give effective leadership to the SA but also one which gave more rights to individual non-aligned members of rather than squeezing them out by emphasising the constituent organisations – as the SP proposed.
New balance
This did not mean eliminating the representation of the constituent organisations, far from it, but it did involve striking a new balance between them and the independents. This was spelled out in the protocol for the election of the EC which was agreed by the conference along with the ISG/SWP constitution.
Under the protocol each of the principal constituent organisations would continue to be represented but with a predominance of independents. The exact representation of the different organisations would not be predetermined constitutionally but introduced politically during the election process.
The political idea behind this was to be able to relate effectively to the break which is taking place from New Labour. Today this is not taking the form of organised blocks, but of an attrition of individuals.
The SA needs to respond to this and make provision for these individual activists in its ranks. This involves showing them that they will have full rights and influence in an organisation which also contains existing far left organisations. The idea that they would come into local Alliances where minorities could veto majority decisions seems slightly unhinged.
There was not agreement amongst those proposing the successful constitution, on the longer term future of the SA, particularly the idea that the SA should have the perspective of becoming a new left party like the SSP.
The SWP strongly reject this idea, and it will be an ongoing debate with them. But there was agreement, including with the SWP, that the SA needed to have more of a party structure if it was to attract individual activists breaking from new Labour.
Loose arrangement
The SP strongly rejected this move towards a party structure, however. Despite their vigorous propagandising for a "new mass workers party" they wanted an alliance which was simply a loose arrangement between existing organisations.
A new mass party was for some future undefined date – and would not be based on the SA. This is an irrational position, which seems to be based more on a sectarian response to the SWP than anything else.
The SP had been making it clear for several weeks that they intended to walk out of the conference if the constitution proposed by the ISG the SWP and others was adopted. This was spelled out with total clarity when Hannah Sell introduced the SP’s proposed constitution.
The SP would participate in the conference all day (and Dave Nellist would chair it), but they would not accept the decision of conference if it went against them. Therefore, at the point where the voting on amendments was completed, and the SWP/ISG constitution was adopted, they walked out – led by Dave Nellist after a short farewell speech.
The tactics of the Socialist Party during the conference were to demonise the SWP (as an organisation bent on total control of the SA) and to crassly misrepresent the constitution proposed by the SWP the ISG and others as highly centralised and exclusive.
This, along with the direct threat by the SP to walk out, influenced a section of the independents present to vote for the Pete McLaren alternative – which the SP were prepared to go along with.
The SP was also able to capitalise on the fact that the SWP had not maintained the same level of involvement in the Alliance at local level in the post election period – although set against the involvement of the SP in most places this claim does not hold much water.
The sharpest issue behind the debate on the constitution was that of local democracy. In the general election last June the SP insisted on imposing their own candidates in selected constituencies, irrespective of the views of the majority of members of the local SA.
They also produced their own election material in the name of the SP, with their own logo, raised their own independent election fund and contributed nothing at all to the central funds of the SA.
Those who proposed the constitution which was adopted (indeed those who supported all other proposed constitutions others than that of the SP) were not prepared to have that situation repeated in future elections – particularly the imposition of local candidates.
The right of the members of a local SA, at a properly constituted meeting, to take decisions, including the selection of a candidate when necessary, was crucial to democratic functioning.
Minority veto
Equally the SP were not prepared to accept local democracy of this sort. They insisted on the right of minorities to veto majorities at local level – something they have the cheek to call "consensus".
This would leave them in a position to operate in future elections as they did in the general election. The Pete McLaren constitution (backed by the AWL) would have done the same, although in a less effective way. To go though all that again in the next election intervention would have demoralised many in the Alliance.
The SP’s position was not argued honestly, however, but couched in terms of the danger of SWP domination of the SA. Of course there is a danger domination by the SWP since it is so much bigger than all the other far left organisations – including the SP.
The protocol addressed this, however. It is a declaration that all the principal organisations will be represented on the EC, with a predominance of independents. This is backed up by election by slate, which provides for transparency and the opportunity, in the election process, for political balance and other factors to be taken into account.
The principal safeguard against the domination by the SWP, however, is political. At the end of the day there is no adequate technical way, consistent with basic democracy, of preventing an organisation with a numerical majority dominating if they decide to do so.
Culture
We have to develop a culture in the SA which makes such a domination impossible, or at least, makes those responsible pay a heavy political price.
There is no organisational substitute for this. Any attempt to subvert the right of majority decision at local level is unacceptable.
The Leeds Left Alliance attempted to do this by proposing that not all members of the SWP present could have a vote – despite the fact that they were individually members of the Alliance. The SP were now trying to do the same by minority veto. This is an organisational answer to a political problem – or potential political problem.
The tactic of the SP has been to brand the normal democratic practice of everyone present at a meeting voting as equals as ‘OMOV’ ("one member one vote). This is a slight of hand designed to associate those who advocate local democracy with Neil Kinnock or New Labour.
But Kinnock’s OMOV was not people voting as equals in a meeting but the use of the secret ballot to mobilise a passive majority against an activist minority – a very different thing.
The only place where a postal ballot has been used in this way in the SA has ironically been by the Leeds Left Alliance – one of the few local Alliances sympathetic to the SP proposals. We should condemn Kinnockite OMOV as practised by New Labour whilst defending the rights of SA members in local Alliances.
Whilst the adoption of the new constitution is a crucial step forward for the SA, it does not resolve the problem of its future development. – which in the view of the ISG should be towards a party in England on the lines of the SSP in Scotland.
Risk
Failure to move forward in that direction risks putting a brake on the political development of the Alliance, and in politics failure to move forward is to risk falling back.
The SWP refusal to shift on this creates an ongoing ambiguity on the role of the SA which will not go away. On the other hand the new constitution provides a much better basis for building the SA than the ad hoc situation we had before the conference.
One important way of keeping the SA moving forward, short of becoming a political party, is for the SA to have a well produced and regular publication which it can use to build itself – something which was called for in a resolution tabled by the ISG which was subsequently composited.
This unfortunately was defeated – although it had the support of most of the constituent organisations (other than the SWP which opposed it) and a large number of independents.
Opposition to the composite was moved by Mark Hoskisson of Workers Power. He argued, totally implausibly, that if the majority at the conference did not think the SA is ready to be a party, it cannot be ready to have a publication, which required political coherence.
This is remarkable given that WP think the Alliance IS already ready to be a party – and a revolutionary one at that – and therefore by their own definition it is ready to have a publication!
It sounded like a tit-for-tat reprisal against those who did not vote for the WP proposal. Either way, the defeat was damaging for the future of the SA.
Hoskisson argued that given the political differences which make up the SA, a publication could only have lowest common denominator politics which would lead nowhere. If it was not this, he said it would be a "tower of Babel" , with a patch-work of different views.
It is hard to argue, however, that an organisation which was able to fight an election campaign on a programme as detailed as the SA Manifesto would be unable to produce a publication.
Of course the SA does need to further develop its politics and make them more coherent than is currently the case. But the production of such a publication is probably the most effective way of pushing this forward. At the same time it would have been the best answer possible to the walk out of the SP.
Of course it was the vote of the SWP which ensured the defeat of the resolution on a publication, whilst WP gave it the political rationale. In fact the SWP have not argued that the SA is not sufficiently politically developed to have a publication: they have argued that it does not yet have the structure or the resources.
This ducks the political debate, however, since it is had to see how the resources will be generated until a publication is launched and the problem confronted. Which comes first – the chicken or the egg?
Independents
An interesting phenomenon which emerged at the conference was that of "organised independents". There was a meeting of about a hundred such independents at lunchtime.
A leaflet entitled "To All Independents" supported the call for an Alliance publication as well as the move towards more of a party structure. It said:
"We want the SA to have its own voice, its own agenda, its own literature, its own campaigns on council housing, civil rights, the war, ant-fascist activity, industrial disputes. We want to see the SA membership decide its own policy as the issues arise".
Overall it was a successful day which took a number of key decisions which are crucial to the further development of the SA at this stage.
The decision of the SP to revert to the crudest sectarianism in the worst tradition of the British far left is not the responsibility of the SA and is not a political reflection on it.
The job of the SA is to continue the process of reshaping the English left and challenging its sectarianism – which has been its crucial contribution for the past few years.
With the benefit of hindsight we should conclude that it was absolutely right to take a stand and defend the democracy of the SA despite the danger of a SP walkout. Not only would it have been a concession to far to sacrifice local democracy, and severely damaging to the development of the SA, but would not have resolved the problem of the relationship between the SA and the SP. That will only be resolved when the SP turns away from its sectarian trajectory.
In their resignation statement the SP said that they would seek an electoral pact with the SA in elections. It is important that the SA follows this up and tries to hold them to it, but it could be difficult if they insist on certain constituencies as they did before.
Membership drive
In the post conference period there has to be a strategy developed for building the SA. This needs to include a vigorous membership drive to develop the membership within the new unified structure, and the SAs own political projects at both the national and local level.
We need to continue to argue for the need for a publication in order to develop the argument for the next time we get the chance to propose it.
The important thing now is how the incoming leadership of the SA (and the constituent organisations) responds to the adoption of the new constitution and structure.
If the SA is allowed to stand still in the next few months (as the SWP allowed it to do over the summer) it will be a problem.
If on the other hand (which fortunately seems to be the case) the SWP and the new leadership responds by driving the SA forward, then a very important advance can be made, even within the constraints of SWP policy of rejecting the move towards a new party.