LAST YEAR the Socialist Party wrote to Respect, asking for a meeting
to discuss how our two organisations could best collaborate in the task
of overcoming the lack of political representation for the working
class. As a result, we were invited to meet Respect on 7 March. Judy
Beishon reports.
Introducing the discussion, Hannah Sell restated that the Socialist
Party welcomes every positive step towards working-class political
representation. She went on to say, however, that although we welcomed
Respect’s electoral successes, such as George Galloway’s victory in the
2005 general election, it is clear that Respect is not at present
developing into a sizable, effective force that can represent all
sections of the working class.
It has not developed into a force even equivalent to other formations
such as the WASG in Germany, the Left Bloc in Portugal and the Brazilian
P-SOL.
One reason is Respect’s political approach and programme. It is
important, for instance, to recruit Muslim workers to a new workers’
formation, but this must be clearly based on a programme of
working-class unity across all sections of society. Otherwise, there is
the danger that divisions will be exacerbated, rather than unity being
developed towards formation of an effective mass force.
Unfortunately, the approach and material used by Respect, which has
achieved its electoral gains primarily by work in Muslim communities on
the issue of the Iraq war, has laid it open to the perception of being a
party predominantly for Muslims, with the corresponding dangers this can
bring. The Respect representatives at the 7 March meeting dismissed our
points on this issue and, without presenting evidence, argued that
Respect has broad appeal beyond the Muslim community.
Another reason for Respect’s failure to develop as a vehicle of
working-class political representation, and the fundamental reason why
the Socialist Party has been unable to join Respect and argue for our
ideas from within, is because Respect is not organised on an inclusive,
federal basis.
It claims to be a coalition of different organisations and opinions
rather than a centralised party, but a large majority at most of its
meetings and rallies are members of the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP).
So on Respect’s constitutional basis of decision-making by ‘one person,
one vote’, the SWP is able to decide the outcome on most issues, from
overall policy to the selection of election candidates.
Many trade unionists, left activists and community campaigners
amongst others, are very wary of a ‘coalition’ which can be manipulated
behind the scenes by a single organisation. This is the more so for
workers who have had direct experience of the past policies and methods
of the SWP.
Because Respect does not have a genuinely federal constitution that
would have ensured that major decisions are taken on the basis of
agreement between the key participating organisations, or that would
have prevented the dominance of any single organisation, it has
prevented wider layers from joining.
Over time, with an influx of new workers and youth into one (or more)
new formations, federation-based constitutions could be changed through
democratic discussion and debate to structures appropriate for the
larger size, tasks and degree of political agreement of the
organisation.
But it is premature at this stage in England and Wales to have a
‘party-type’ constitution, especially considering the present level of
left and trade union forces involved in the necessary processes.
Unfortunately, the three Respect representatives at the 7 March
meeting made it clear that Respect would not reconsider the basis of its
present constitution. SWP member John Rees, Respect’s national
secretary, said that its structure is already federal, as there is no
‘party political agreed position’ and its members can campaign for their
own ideas. But such a broad political entity requires a corresponding
organisational federalism, which Rees does not support.
The other Respect representatives present, Tower Hamlets councillor
Oliur Rahman and International Socialist Group (ISG) member Alan
Thornett, said that the Socialist Party should join Respect, but also
believe no fundamental changes to be necessary.
Alan Thornett even argued that Respect needs more centralisation
rather than less, despite the fact that his group recently produced a
public statement criticising lack of accountability and democracy in
Respect.
Most of the measures they have supported are being implemented,
especially following Galloway’s Big Brother performance, which clearly
revealed to Respect members the need for accountability of public
representatives. But the changes being made will not solve Respect’s
problems, or alone lay the basis for it becoming a larger, successful
coalition.
The Respect representatives accepted that Respect is still ‘in
formation’ and is not therefore the final word on a new workers’ party.
But when invited to sign Respect up to the Campaign for a New Workers
Party (CNWP), they did not do so, though they agreed to raise it at
their next national council meeting and will send a speaker to the 19
March conference.
