Alan Thornett and John Lister
This is the text we submitting to the Respect NC tomorrow. It is not a voting text but a contribution to the discussion. We will also be putting a resolution to the meeting tomorrow which will be for voting. We will send it out later.
We welcome the issues raised by the letter George Galloway has sent to the Respect National Council, which in effect opens the pre-conference discussion for the Respect conference in November. In fact we have been raising many of the issues ourselves. Some of them we raised at the Respect conference last year. Now Salma Yaqoob, too, has submitted a strong statement echoing similar core points to those raised by George.
We are aware that there has been a discussion between the SWP and George Galloway and others over the letter and that there is a wider and escalating debate taking place around it. There is a dangerous dynamic to this debate, in which we understand some people have tried to reject the substantial issues raised in George Galloway’s letter by presenting it as a challenge to working class politics in Respect, and accused him and anyone supporting his criticisms of adopting what is termed “communalist” politics. Although we have only been marginally involved in this debate, we are very concerned that this line of argument has been raised – it is one which could divide Respect if it is pursued.
Salma’s text very capably rebuts any allegation of “communalism”. But the clandestine debate has always been a false one, because there are actually no communalist politics, or anything close to it, in George’s letter. On the contrary it is an argument for the building of a broad-based organisation more effectively than in the past.
In our view any attempt to use this or other diversionary issues to divert from the valid critique which George Galloway has raised over the situation in Respect can only undermine future prospects for building it as a broad-based left alternative to New Labour.
Many of George’s points are valid and merit a serious and constructive response. In particular we agree with him on the following:
1) There is going to be an early general election – either in the autumn of this year or in the spring of next year. Brown is likely to take advantage of this favourable situation – the crisis of the Tories and the Brown bounce – particularly since it might not last long.
2) Yet Southall demonstrated – if demonstration was needed – that Respect is in no shape to effectively fight an election. Its membership has indeed declined and many of its branches are moribund. The lesson from Southall is that Respect cannot succeed in a new constituency unless it has built a base in that constituency well in advance.
3) The objective conditions which produced Respect, and the space to the left of Labour, remains in full-force, as shown by the Shadwell result. Brown leads a right-wing, anti-working class, neoliberal government, which has continued the Blairite relationship with the employers, and is even more hostile to the unions, as his pay freeze makes clear. His scandalous appointment of Digby Jones and other right-wing Tories makes this clear enough. Brown is worse than Blair on civil-rights and is equally supportive of US imperialism and its wars. Trident will be replaced just the same.
4) Despite the politics of new Labour, Respect has not fulfilled its potential politically or organisationally. We have long said that a membership of 2,000 or so, for an organisation with a Westminster MP, a presence in local government, and remarkable name recognition, is ridiculously low. Membership has declined from 5,000 in 2005 an awkward fact that was denied, rather than addressed, at the last conference. The potential for development has been shown, however, in key localities, not only in East London but in Preston, Birmingham and Sheffield for example, as George’s letter and Salma point out.
Respect needs to build itself as a national organisation. This means a stronger national profile and much more attention to building local branches. It needs effective fund-raising.
In our view in the longer term the strategic issue is whether Respect should be a political party or a loose coalition. We have argued that the loose coalition model – or “united front of a special kind” or whatever – does not work. We believe that challenging for political power taking on all other political parties and dealing with all the problems that arise needs the structures of a political party: This does not mean that we believe Respect is, or could sensibly be declared to be, a party in any sense at the present time. A process of development is required to make this a possibility. Meanwhile we agree that even as a coalition Respect could be far more effective, proactive and dynamic: we agree with both George and Salma when they underline the need to organise Respect as a coalition in a much more coherent and inclusive way, and to raise its profile.
There are numerous factors behind the present impasse Respect has reached, and George rightly points to some of them:
a) There are serious problems of democratic functioning in Respect, which is a barrier to recruitment. This includes the functioning of the office and the selective implementation of decisions. (There are numerous examples of this, for example: The officers agreed on several occasions that the full acronym – respect, socialism, peace, environment, community, trade unionism – should be used on all publications. This failed to happen in most instances. The original proposal for a trade union conference with a big priority towards organising it jointly with the TU left and the CPB was never pursued).
b) There have long been problems with Respect’s profile at public events and demonstrations. The Manchester paper has certainly been a positive development in this. We agree with George when he says: “In every area of activity we need to encourage our members to focus on recruitment, fundraising, establishing the profile of our candidates and unashamedly promoting Respect as the critical force in the wider reconstitution of the progressive and socialist movement”. The weakness on this is partly because Respect is one of the few organisations on the left which does not have its own paper, even though our meetings, conferences and rallies are seen as venues to sell newspapers from almost every other current on the left.
c) Respect has failed to respond to the failure of the Labour left to mount a challenge to Brown in the leadership election. This issue was discussed (at our instigation) at the last National Council, at which numerous suggestions were made by us, by George and by other NC members: – but none were implemented and nothing has happened. The Morning Star/CPB organised a conference to discuss the new situation, as did the RMT: but Respect – which has been the most important left initiative for many years – has done nothing.
The recent Morning Star article by Rob Griffiths, raising the issue of the need for a new party, is an important development. We have to promote a dialogue with such potential allies and build their confidence in what we are doing. We cannot simply say “here is Respect, it is the best thing around (which is certainly true) and you should join it”. We have to show them that we are a serious, active, inclusive, campaigning organisation. If Respect is to seriously build itself, it has to convince those coming from the labour and trade union left that there is a democratic space within Respect in which they can function.
Also — – partly as a result of Respects failure to promote itself as a convincing alternative that can win support from trade union leaders — – the RMT is considering standing candidates in the GLA elections. We should welcome this development — but do everything it can to reach an agreement with the RMT for a joint slate in these elections.
d) It is difficult to comment on the financial points George makes. There has always been a lack of transparency in financial administration which has made the functioning of the organisation and democratic decision making very difficult. The NC rarely takes a financial report, and never a detailed one. Yet “off-message” proposals are often met with claims that “there is not the money” while others go through.
There are also issues on which we would go much further than George does in his letter:
The first of these is the wider issue of democracy, particularly the accountability of elected representatives – and we welcome what John Rees is now saying about this. Respect members have to be confident that our elected representatives function under the direction of the elected bodies and in line with agreed policy, with differences of opinion managed collectively. Far too often we find out what George is doing – appearing in Big Brother (the most controversial with many of us); not standing for Parliament next time; standing for Parliament next time; standing for the European Parliament, etc - from the media, and not through Respect, and when it is already to late for a collective approach.
The NC has no involvement, that we are aware of, in what George does in Parliament. We need to connect the work in the councils and in Parliament more directly to the leadership bodies. Officers or NC members are unable to take responsibility for what the organisation does in these important areas of work unless they are well informed about it.
2) We need to get rid of the slate system for elections of Respect’s leadership at conference and introduce a method which is less alienating to independents. Respect needs to be super-democratic if it is to attract experienced people who are fed up with the Labour Party. Respect structures need to be less vertical with more connection with the branches, which is why we proposed, at the last conference, a delegate based National Council.
3) On profile, Respect’s own regular national publication would give substance and direction to local branches between big events. Set-piece rallies are very good, but how to build Respect effectively when the rally is over, particularly in the weaker areas, is not so clear.
4) Respect has to have a political life separate from its participating organisations. Its leading members have to be in a position to make building Respect a genuine priority in their political work, and prioritise building a collective, inclusive leadership that sets out to draw together the strengths and the talents of all the currents and independent forces that rally to Respect. In our view that means taking on the character of a political party which can collectivise political experience.
5) There is the issue of political profile (policy and programme), which is not mentioned in George’s letter.
Respect must have clear socialist politics. This does not mean that we have to mention socialism in every sentence, but Respect has to be within a consistent socialist framework. The current leaflet for the GLA campaign is politically bland and does not mention socialism at all. The same with the London broad sheet published in the Spring. It has no mention of socialism beyond the masthead and no mention of the environment from cover to cover. Almost all of it would be acceptable to a Lib Dem (apart from anti-privatisation) and all of it would be acceptable to the greens. If we are not politically distinct from the greens what is the point?
It would be a big mistake to go into the coming election, facing Gordon Brown, with this type of election material. Any left party wanting to make its mark under these conditions will have to have clear and distinct socialist politics on which to build the campaign.
It will also need strong material on the environment and on climate change if we are to challenge the greens and connect with young people across the country. Respect has strong positions on climate change in its policy document – but the issue has remained marginal in most Respect literature.
The debate on “communalism”
We can have a legitimate debate around new constituencies (sections of the working class) won to Respect – particularly when they are minority communities with which the left has no experience. There may have been over emphasis on particular communities to the detriment of others – that can be discussed. And political concessions may have been made (dropping of an adequate socialist profile for example) in the course of this that can also be discussed. But this is not “communalism”. It is an outrageous charge, which should be withdrawn.
Moreover Respect came out of the anti-war movement, recruited from the anti-war movement, and won its electoral base from the anti-war movement. It was a major breakthrough, unprecedented on the left, into minority communities in East London, Birmingham and Preston in particular. Bringing sections of new radicalising communities into a left-wing organisation was never going to be easy.
We gather there is now much debate around the situation in Birmingham and in particular Tower Hamlets – where apparently there are major problems. It is hard for us to make any judgement on these disputes. None of these problems has been brought in any understandable way into the meetings of the NC. There were a few reports on the work of the councillors but the battles in Tower Hamlets now being referred to were never raised. No doubt there are problems and conflicts: but such problems are probably inevitable when such breakthroughs are made by the left into new sections of the working class – whether minority communities or not.
The question is not whether there have been and will be political problems and disagreements: the question is whether political steps were taken to discuss these problems openly and bring about a common political development. Was there discussion on the issues involved? Has Respect developed any systematic political education on a more general basis? The answer, unfortunately, is no.
Practical steps
The organisation has been going backwards and now faces a crisis. No change is not a viable option.
The conference in November needs to build a new and broader unity in the leadership bodies and make the necessary changes which can take the organisation forward and build it as a broad, active, high-profile, campaigning party to the left of New Labour, which in our view should also run an active publicity machine and a high profile campaigning publication. This would present a strong and credible appeal to the left in the trade unions, the demoralised left in the Labour Party and to the Morning Star/CPB. Any other answer threatens to undermine all of the gains that have been made so far, and all of the good work that has been done so far at national and local level to build Respect.
Technorati Tags: Respect, George Galloway, Socialist Resistance, British politics, socialist
Liam redux 
Leave a reply to Andy Newman Cancel reply