Respect And The June Elections

RESPECT – THE Unity Coalition was formed by George
Galloway MP and the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) at the beginning of the
year. It stood in elections for the first time on 10 June.

Hannah Sell

The Socialist Party took part in discussions with
Respect during the first three months of this year but concluded that we
were unable to join at that point as we had a number of disagreements with
the approach Respect was taking, both on programme and democracy. However,
we hoped that our concerns would prove unfounded and that Respect would
develop positively.

Unfortunately, the European election campaign
confirmed our worst fears about the political direction of Respect. The
vote Respect received was good in some areas, particularly Galloway’s
91,175 votes (4.84%) in the London Euro seat. Its vote in the European
elections averaged 1.7%, or just over 250,000 votes. This undoubtedly
disappointed the leadership of Respect, who exaggerated their electoral
potential.

For the Socialist Party, however, the issue is not the
vote as much as the means by which Respect achieved it. For socialists the
programme we put forward should always be aimed at raising the confidence
and level of understanding of the working class.

This means doing everything possible to encourage the
unity of the working class. That is why our sister organisation in
Northern Ireland has always fought for unity of the Catholic and
Protestant working class.

In Britain today, the reactionary policies of Blair
and New Labour are fostering division. Respect’s intention may not have
been to exacerbate those divisions, but the road to hell is paved with
good intentions.

Opportunism

RESPECT’S AVERAGE vote disguised low results in many
parts of the country, which were combined with several notable votes in
inner-city areas with large Muslim populations.

In the City and East London constituency, an area with
the highest concentration of Muslims in the country, Respect polled
15.03%. Across Birmingham the average vote was 7.4%. These votes were
mainly based on large sections of the Muslim communities in those areas
voting for Respect.

If this had been achieved by appealing to
working-class Muslims on a class basis, it would be a very important
positive achievement. There is no doubt that on this basis Respect could
have won the support of significant section of Muslims who had been
radicalised by the war on Iraq and the anti-war movement but also, as one
of the poorest and most oppressed sections of the working class, by their
conditions of life under the New Labour government.

For example, according to the 2001 census, the
unemployment rate of Muslims is more than three times that of the general
population and is the highest of all faith groups. One in seven
economically active Muslims are unemployed, compared with one in 20 for
the wider population.

However, Respect made an opportunist, rather than a
class, appeal to Muslims. A specific leaflet aimed at Muslims was produced
which described Respect as "the party for Muslims".

Under the headline "George Galloway – fighter for
Muslims" it said: "Married to a Palestinian doctor, teetotal, he has
strong religious principles about fighting injustice. He was expelled by
Blair because he refused to apologise for his anti-war stance. Our Muslim
MPs stayed silent or supported the war. Who do you want to be our voice?"

While it is right to advertise Galloway’s undoubted
anti-war credentials and to attack Muslim MPs for failing to oppose the
war (although he seems to have excused Mohammed Sawar, MP for Glasgow
Govan, saying he won’t stand against him in the next election because he
is a Muslim), the rest of this statement is a highly opportunist attempt
to appeal to Muslims on the basis of their religion.

While socialists defend the right of all to practise
any religion they wish, or to practise none, without suffering
discrimination or oppression, that does not mean we stand in political
solidarity with all Muslims.

Does Respect consider itself the party for 5,400
Muslim millionaires in Britain, many of whom made their money by
exploiting other Muslims? Or for Mohammed Al Fayed, the billionaire owner
of Harrods?

George Galloway himself compounded Respect’s mistakes
when he stated his personal views on the question of abortion, saying
that: "I’m strongly against abortion. I believe life begins at
conception." And that because he believed "in God. [He had] to believe
that the collection of cells has a soul." Immediately afterwards these
comments were enthusiastically welcomed by the Muslim Association of
Britain (which backed Respect in several areas of the country).

George Galloway has every right to a personal opinion
on the question of abortion. However, given the lack of any Respect policy
on the issue, and the failure of the SWP members who were Respect
candidates to publicly put their own opinion on the issue (they claim to
support, in our opinion correctly, a woman’s right to choose when and
whether to have children) the effect of George Galloway expressing his
personal opinion was to give the impression that Respect opposes abortion
in all circumstances.

While this may have increased Respect’s vote amongst a
section of Muslim voters, it will have also repelled many women that
Respect should have been aiming to attract.

New workers’ party

THE VOTE-winning strategy adopted by Respect is
potentially very dangerous. The Socialist Party has long argued that New
Labour today is another party of big-business, no different in essence to
the Tories and the Liberal Democrats.

We campaign for the building of a new party – that
brings together forces such as socialists, trade unionists and the
anti-war movement – and puts forward a socialist programme.

The recent decision of the FBU to stop funding New
Labour shows the potential for trade unionists to begin building such a
party. A formation led by George Galloway, particularly if it had been
launched from the platform of 15 February, when two million marched
against the war, could have been an important step in the direction of
such a party.

However, Respect, formed after the high point of the
anti-war movement, has so far not brought a new workers’ party any closer.
At the founding convention of Respect, Lindsey German of the SWP argued
that the Socialist Alliance had failed because it was too explicitly
socialist and that Respect would succeed for the converse reason.

This argument was mistaken, as the Socialist Party was
able to demonstrate in the Euro election in Dublin, Ireland – where Joe
Higgins received 5.5% of the first preference vote on a socialist
programme. We were able to do the same in Coventry where we contested
fourteen council seats and received an average of 16%.

In fact, far from broadening Respect’s appeal, its
leadership’s approach narrowed it. A new mass left formation cannot be
built on one issue, or by appealing to just one section of the population.
While Respect’s formal programme did include demands against NHS
privatisation, tuition fees and on other issues, the material they put out
in the election concentrated almost exclusively on the occupation of Iraq.

Iraq was undoubtedly a key issue in this election, but
for the majority of working-class voters it was not the only issue. Rather
Blair’s lies to justify the brutal war on Iraq acted as a lightning rod
for all the other crimes of New Labour.

Important sections of working people, who could have
been attracted to a new left alternative which both fought against the
occupation of Iraq and on other issues like tuition fees, privatisation
and cuts, were simply not touched by Respect’s approach.

In most areas, outside of their increased support in
some Muslim communities, their vote was even lower than the high water
mark of Respect’s predecessor organisation, the Socialist Alliance.

Divisions

IF RESPECT follows the same strategy in future
elections it could foster dangerous divisions within the working class
between Muslim and other communities.

If Respect gains by being seen as a Muslim party,
which does not address the needs of other sections of the working class,
it could push other sections of the working class away and reinforce
racist and divisive ideas.

By contrast a sizeable new workers’ party which both
campaigned in a class way on both the general issues and against racism
and Islamophobia could begin to cut across racism and prejudice.

However, it is not clear what Respect’s future will
be, or even if its leaders see it as a permanent formation. George
Galloway has mistakenly raised the prospect of Respect possibly playing a
part in a process of "reclaiming" the Labour Party and has called for the
trade unions to play a "central role" in this process, indicating that he
may see Respect as a temporary means to try and push New Labour left.

And while George has undoubtedly taken a principled
stand on the war, he is, on a whole number of issues, in his own words,
"not as left wing as you think".

This is demonstrated graphically in his recent
autobiography where he describes both Tony Benn’s Labour leadership
challenge in 1981 and the heroic struggle of Liverpool City council 1983 –
1987 as ‘ultra-left’.

He also argues that MPs should be paid twice as much
as their existing salaries of £47,000 per year, plus expenses.

While we disagree with George on these and other
issues, this does not mean we opposed taking part in an electoral
formation with him. On the contrary, we would have been happy to do so in
the case of Respect, provided it was based on appealing to broad layers of
trade unionists, anti-capitalists and the anti-war movement, and had a
democratic structure which allowed open and honest discussion with the
freedom for ourselves and others to argue for our own programme.

Unfortunately, this is not the road Respect seems to
be on. Unless Respect changes direction, it will not play a positive role
on the journey to a new workers’ party.