SWP Conference

by SWatcher Thu Oct 07, 2004 17:02

There is nothing inheritantly wrong with
1. The slate system (one could argue strongly that it is more democratic)
or
2. Uncontested elections

these 2 things are not symptoms of the SWPs lack of democracy. The symptoms are more evident in the dramatic zig zags of their leaderships positons and tactics and of the lack of any real structure for discussion in their party.

by Interested Thu Oct 07, 2004 17:04

Argue how it could be more democratic.

by Ray Thu Oct 07, 2004 17:09

I'm so interested I'll even hold off on the sarcastic remarks to give you a chance to answer. How are slates more democratic than other election formats, and why are uncontested elections okay?

by party pooper Thu Oct 07, 2004 17:23

I also would be very interested to hear how a slate system and uncontested elections are democratic but the real point here is that in the case of the SWP, the elections are NEVER contested and there is NEVER an alternative slate.

Pointing out that in theory slate elections can be democratic is utterly meaningless unless they are so in practice. The practice of the of the SWP (and many other left org.s) is totally lacking in democracy.

by Newbie Thu Oct 07, 2004 19:07

Maybe I'm being naive but how come this wasn't advertised? Most parties seem to allow people to attend as visitors or make a big deal about their Ard Fheiseanna or annual conferences. Could anyone have attended the conference? I don't want to join the SWP but I would have been interested in seeing how it works.

by party pooper Thu Oct 07, 2004 19:47

The point is.Proudhon....that it is not possible for organisations that are authoritarian and undemocratic to change the world, only replicate the present system...or have we learnt nothing from the fall of the Soviet Union etc.

Answer me this : how can an organisation which has no democratic content and is organised in a top down manner fight for and create and workers democracy where society and the economy is run from the botttom up. Hpw can an organisation which treats its members as children, to be ordered at will, challenge the capitalist state?

To ask these questions is not sectarian but essential to the creation of a movement that can really change the world. Deeply flawed organisations such as the SWP, as currently organised, either fail to bring about any change, or as with the Soviet and Chinese models only create new monstrous systems which oppress workers. So please, a bit more of an intelligent response!

No answers it seems to my original points on internal SWP organisation?

by The Enigma Machine Thu Oct 07, 2004 20:23

The report is a fluff piece but some interesting things can be learnt from it. Interesting that is to those few of us who take any interest in the doings of the SWP.

So given that there is no detailed discussion of anything in particular in the article and no reporting at all on how decisions were made what can we pick up from it?

1. 100 people or so attended the conference. This might be a slight exaggeration as anyone familiar with SWP reports of demonstrations could tell you, but on balance I think it is probably fairly accurate.

Only branch delegates have a right to vote at SWP conference but all members are encouraged to attend it. The SWP is a notoriously Dublin centred operation with only a very small presence in a few other places (Waterford, Derry, Belfast and a tiny smattering of people in Cork and Galway). A Dublin based conference should therefore be very easy for their members to go to.

The strong implication is that, boasts and delusions aside, the SWP has probably something between 130 and 160 real members.

2. The SWP are still banging on about left alliances. The latest issue of the paper carries an editorial call for one and the conference report describes forming them as "the most important task facing socialists in Ireland". Hyperbole you can expect from the SWP but this really is odd. Can there be anybody on the Irish left who would seriously consider forming an alliance with the SWP? You might as well ask if anyone on the Irish left has had the parts of their brains dealing with memory surgically removed.

3. As noted above, the SWP are increasingly trying to ape what they see as the SP's succesful community work. Revealingly, despite a ritual disclaimer that elections aren't the only thing that matter, their desire to strengthen "the party's roots in local areas" is seen primarily in electoral terms with Gino Kenny providing a quote about his election scores.

4. The part about anti-racism talks about the need for anti-racists activists to neither just concentrate on "lobbying from inside" or on "organising activities for the committed minority".

Decoded from SWP speak, the first part is a defence of their Anti-Racist Network in the North which is seen by other socialists and anarchists of being liberal in empasis and in bed with elements of the political and religious establishment. The second part is I presume a reference to the more militant tactics of the Fascists Out Campaign. The SWP don't react at all well to criticism from their left.

A skeptical eye and some background knowledge means that even the blandness of an SWP report on its own conference can be revealing.

by swp leaver Thu Oct 07, 2004 20:30

get the figures right in no way was there 100 delegates at that conference,are people not sick of the swp now?

by The Enigma Machine Thu Oct 07, 2004 20:38

I was decoding the SWP reference to "delegates". In the context of their attendance claim this clearly means anyone who attended not just formal branch delegates.

I would be surprised if they were having to lie about getting 100 people to their party conference in Dublin. That really would mean that they were in freefall.

You seem to be implying that you were at the conference, so how many people do you think were there? And what are your other thoughts on the event?

by !ce p!ck Fri Oct 08, 2004 16:41

I'm curious if anything was heard of a 'Civil Rights Association' being formed in Dublin?

The SWP fronts African Social Forum and Amnesty For All seem to have flopped - now its time for another front?

rumours are floating that McCann is coming to Dublin to start up such a campaign - Dublin SWP must be so desperate on this issue that they are even allowing McCann south of the border.

also the decoded language might include their animosity towards RAR, not just FOC, considering thier long time animosity towards Rosanna Flynn.

the SWP loves to issue-hop - but have not been able to hop on this issue just right - might be because many in the asylum seeker community grew not to trust them during the CARR campaign when Kieran Allen tried to bribe the SWPs way into CARR with an offer of money, but backed out when things did not democratically go his way

_____
Party Pooper:
4. The part about anti-racism talks about the need for anti-racists activists to neither just concentrate on "lobbying from inside" or on "organising activities for the committed minority".

Decoded from SWP speak, the first part is a defence of their Anti-Racist Network in the North which is seen by other socialists and anarchists of being liberal in empasis and in bed with elements of the political and religious establishment. The second part is I presume a reference to the more militant tactics of the Fascists Out Campaign. The SWP don't react at all well to criticism from their left.

by Swappie work Fri Oct 08, 2004 18:17

His latest leaflet... 3 euro

full of all the facts about Shannon that the SWP have dug up through Kieran's hard work of ... getting some lackey to cut and paste from Indymedia.ie

I wonder how many copies of that will be sold under false impressions?

by SWatcher Fri Oct 08, 2004 18:19

The mechanics of the electoral system are not the way in which you can really determine whether a party is democratic or not. Every electoral system has it benefits and its drawbacks.

You have to look at other factors. If the slate that is put forward is the result of widespread and healthy discussion in the party then it is not necessarily undemocratic. this type of discussion does not seem to happen in the SWP, this is what is undemocratic.

by Ray Fri Oct 08, 2004 22:14

" Every electoral system has it benefits and its drawbacks. "

The benefits of a slate system are obvious. It allows the majority tendency of a party to squeeze out minority voices. It allows a leadership to perpetuate itself without challenge. Those are the benefits the SWP leadership see in it. What other benefits are there?

So which slate-using party are you a member of, 'SWatcher'?

by Party Pooper Fri Oct 08, 2004 23:35

By definition an election is only a democratic election when there is competition. If there is more than one slate, yes then a slate election could be democratic. However as I understand it there has never been more then one slate proposed at an Irish SWP conference, so its just the leadership reproducing itself.

As for other left org's, Im not sure but I think the SP used to have the same system but now they have individual candidates, although the leadership 'recommends' those whothey favour. As for the other smaller marxist groupings such as the CPI,SD,ISN and Spartacists I would guess they have the same 'Leninist' electoral system. Of course the real proof is in the practice: do changes occur in the leadership due to these elections as opposed to splits, purges and fall outs at the top.

by Swatcher Sat Oct 09, 2004 16:35

If an election is contested it does not necessarily make it democratic. Look at the USA for example or what is going on in Afghanistan now. Both are 'contested' but could hardly be called democratic.

Hypothetically, if the SWP through full open and democratic discussion came to an agreement on a slate of candidates how is this not democratic?

As I said earlier every electoral system has it pros and cons. In the slate system one could argue that it allows a mix of gender, age, level of experience, geographical spread, political outlooks etc that may not be possible if it was elected through another method.

Ray, what electoral system does the WSM use?

by James Sat Oct 09, 2004 17:58

Eh? What electoral system does the WSM use?

None, we don't have a leadership to elect! All members have equal say in deciding policy, through branch and at National Conference and soon a federal co-ordinating group. There is no central committee, elected or otherwise, to decide policy or tactics on behalf of the rest of the organisation. There will be a national committee, where the members are strictly mandated by branch. The function of this will be to ensure coordination between Cork and Dublin and that the organisation operates in a federal manner. It won't have power to dream up new policy on behalf of the organisation as a whole as it will have to take instructions on each issue from its constiutent branches and if the issue affects our core positions, return to the branch for ratification. Members of the national committee can and probably will be changed for each meeting.

Various people volunteer to do particluar things from time to time; organise a talk, look after the money, take the minutes at a meeting etc. In theory these could be elected if more people than necessary volunteered. In practice, possibly because we are so small, it is not necessary. None of these positions carry any authority to decide policy on behalf of the organisation. In any case there is a policy of rotation so that people don't get too comfy in their position and obviously they are recallable if they are doing a lousy job.

by David Ryan Sun Oct 10, 2004 02:52

I am shocked at Party Pooper's revelations. How dare the SWP hold a conference and purport to elect a committee by the slate or list system? It is no excuse to say their members agreed to that procedure and still less that how members of the SWP organise the running of their party is a matter for themselves. Their failure to use solid anarchist principles exposes their real intentions: to enslave us all at the first opportunity.
Party Pooper, SW watcher , Ray and others have done the working class movement in Ireland a real service in exposing this treachery and have thereby continued the best traditions of debate that have earned Indymedia its high reputation among all right thinking people.
I for one would like to shake their hands, but am unable to do so because they quite properly found it necessary to disguise their identity. In the light of the evil-doing of the SWP so exposed I find this perfectly understandable.
To have brought such a welter of well-attested facts to this most important question and to have added comments of cogency and intelligence does credit to your burning desire to liberate humanity from the oppression that the SWP imposes on the people the length and breadth of the country.
God bless you all!.

by Ray Mon Oct 11, 2004 09:51

"Ray and others ... quite properly found it necessary to disguise their identity"

Can't speak for the others, but my name really is Ray. So now we're on first name terms David, would you care to explain to me what advantage the SWP sees in the slate system?

by Swatcher Mon Oct 11, 2004 16:17

I don't think the WSM can really criticise the method the SWP use for electing their leadership due to the fact that the WSM have no elections whatsoever!

I take the point about all members being involved in decision making but how are WSM members that take on extra responsibility accountable to the membership?

by Ray Mon Oct 11, 2004 16:30

its on the WSM web pages

Long answer -
"I don't think the WSM can really criticise the method the SWP use for electing their leadership due to the fact that the WSM have no elections whatsoever!"

The WSM does have elections whenever there's competition for any position. This generally doesn't happen, because people are only to happy to step aside and let someone else do the work.

"I take the point about all members being involved in decision making but how are WSM members that take on extra responsibility accountable to the membership?"

The responsibilities and duties associated with each position is defined in the constiution, and conferences and other meetings can assign other mandates as necessary. Every position - treasurer, national secretary, paper editor, etc - must produce a regular report for the organisation's internal bulletin. Members can be recalled from their position at any time. All this is in the constitution and other position papers, available to read on the WSM website.

So, I've answered your questions 'SWatcher', how about answering mine? What party are you in, if any (and why not post under your real name)? What are the advantages of the slate system, such that you could argue that its more democratic?

by SWatcher Mon Oct 11, 2004 16:44

I am not really doubting the fact that WSM are a democratic organisation. The point I am making is that one does not necessarily have to have contested elections for a group/party to be democratic. WSM generally does not have contested elections, either does the SWP. If you are to look at whether a group/party is democratic you have to look at the level of participation in the decision making process and the level of discussions in the group/party.

Another thing, I am not some advocate of the slate system, all I said that it has its benefits, one of which I mentioned in a previous post.

by Uncle Joe Mon Oct 11, 2004 16:54

"WSM generally does not have contested elections, either does the SWP."

So you think that makes them the same in reaching decisions?

"The point I am making is that one does not necessarily have to have contested elections for a group/party to be democratic."

Indeed - that's what made the DDR so good!!

by Ray Mon Oct 11, 2004 17:04

"WSM generally does not have contested elections, either does the SWP. If you are to look at whether a group/party is democratic you have to look at the level of participation in the decision making process and the level of discussions in the group/party."

But those are areas that are completely subjective. SWP members will say that they have a high level of discussion, you will disagree, and round and round it goes.

Nobody can disagree about the fact that the slate system is used. And whoever uses a slate system, as a system it clearly militates against minority representation, making it harder for people who aren't part of the established leadership to gain any representation at all. That can be demonstrated with only a moments thought.

"Another thing, I am not some advocate of the slate system, all I said that it has its benefits, one of which I mentioned in a previous post."

Your argument that the slate system allows diversity is poor (but enough to identify you as an SP member). (since you won't identify yourself)

If you want to guarantee diversity, you can get a leadership to co-opt members of the minority onto the slate. As long as the minority is not a minority of political dissidents, they might do it. Hooray, for the hand-picked tokens!

Or you could say that 10% of the committee must be women (for example), and can only be elected by women. That way the minority gets to choose its own representation. More democratic, and ensures representation.

by john Mon Oct 11, 2004 17:51

the slate system has a point in large multi tendency parties where there may be nationally organised factions, for example the old militant in the labour party, for small couple of hundred strong groups Swp or Sp I don't see much point. It should be done away with. Its hard to argue democracy when there is only one slate, with no opposition, much in the way of our presidents election. Follows the rules, but democratic, hardly, For the WSM I imagine it's very easy to work by concenous in a small group but say a couple of hundred or even thousand joined I? It could easily go the way of the sp or swp going by the comments above, no elections because "This generally doesn't happen, because people are only to happy to step aside and let others do the work" sounds a little SPish

by Ray Mon Oct 11, 2004 18:01

"the slate system has a point in large multi tendency parties where there may be nationally organised factions, for example the old militant in the labour party"

That's precisely the worst point of the slate system. Suppose you're in a party, call it the Marx party. There are two minority factions - the Trots and the Fabians, each with about 10% of the membership, and a majority faction, the New Marxists. There are 10 people on the central committee.

In a normal election, the central committee would have 8 New Marxists, 1 Trot, and 1 Fabian.

In a slate system, the new Marxists can put forward a slate of ten members, and get them all elected.

Obviously, the slate system makes it harder for minorities to win representation.

"For the WSM I imagine it's very easy to work by concenous in a small group"

The WSM does have elections, whenever necessary. Read the constitution. The elected positions in the WSM, unlike those in Trot groups, involve shag all power and a lot of work, which is why they're not fiercely competed over. But there are no institutional bars on competition, and its generally welcomed (if only for the novelty value).

Also, unlike the SP (or any other Trot group I know), there are strict limits on how long you can stay in any position. You can't be national secretary for 20 years, or paper editor for life, there's a two-year limit on everything. With the ability to recall officers at every conference or national meeting.

by hs - sp Mon Oct 11, 2004 18:09

"involve shag all power and a lot of work"

sounds just like our party again ; )

by Ray Mon Oct 11, 2004 18:14

The SP national committee has the power to set policy in between conferences, doesn't it? None of the WSM's positions have that power.

by Amused Mon Oct 11, 2004 18:16

So you are telling us that Hadden, McLoughlin and Boyd have no power.
Pull the other one!!

by Ray Mon Oct 11, 2004 18:19

Nobody in the WSM is paid by the organisation.

by hs - sp Mon Oct 11, 2004 18:21

I meant in real life!!!,

but seriously you're right we elect people who have the power to change policy, course if they actually did significantly without including the members you'd more than likely see the latest leftist split. Think though its necessary with any group of more than 100 members and spread nationally to have this.

by hs - sp Mon Oct 11, 2004 18:22

there'll be no messing in the anarchist revolution!! Did I beat a record in reponses there, touchy!! Again just my own silly idea of a joke. sorry!

by Special D Mon Oct 11, 2004 18:29

If changes in policy happen in an organisation between conferences after full discussion with the membership I don't see how this would be undemocratic.

If the WSM had over 100 members spread throughout the country how would they organise? More importantly how would they be able to have the correct tactics and policies in the heat of a political and social crisis with rapidly changing conditions? With the time-wasting bureaucratic proceedures that WSM would go through I would suspect that in a revolutionary time they would be caught putting forward yesterday's demands

by BC Mon Oct 11, 2004 21:52

The Socialist Party abolished elections by slate some years ago. Elected committees are chosen by individual vote.

by Ray Mon Oct 11, 2004 22:07

but an ex-member, familar with the constitution and practice of the organisation. And you're a member of the SP, right? So why not say so?

"If changes in policy happen in an organisation between conferences after full discussion with the membership I don't see how this would be undemocratic"

The trouble is, there is no requirement for the leadership to have such discussions - the point of your central committee is that they can decide what they want, without any need for consultation.

Secondly, you don't explain how these discussions would take place. In the WSM, there is a clear mechanism for changing policy between conferences. You propose a motion to a national meeting (or call an emergency meeting) and manated delegates from each branch discuss and vote on the change. Does this take time? Yeah - about as much time as it would take for 'a full discussion with the membership'. Except mandated delegates ensure that the members actually get a say, and the leadership can't just ignore and awkward dissenters.

"If the WSM had over 100 members spread throughout the country how would they organise?"

As I've described, as the constitution describes.

"how would they be able to have the correct tactics and policies in the heat of a political and social crisis"

The trouble with you trots is that you take an emergency situation - "what would do if things were changing too quickly for consultation", decide your answer "have a committee that can set policy" and use that solution even when it isn't an emergency, when there's plenty of time for democratic discussion. Face it - there isn't a civil war going on right now, and this is not pre-revolutionary Russia. There is no excuse for acting like an underground organisation that can't meet to discuss policy for fear of arrest.

What would the WSM do? The policy in the WSM is that people act according to the policy of the organisation, and the mandates they're given. If you're on the editorial committee of the paper, for example, you try to put together a paper according to WSM policy. If you're not sure how to apply policy, you seek direction from a national meeting or conference. If there's no time for that, you try to consult with as many members as possible before making a decision - your local branch, for example, or a couple of people you can get on the phone. If you can't cnsult, you do what you think is right.

The point is, you would do everything possible to include as many people as possible in the decision. If it happens that only a small group, or one or two people can be involved, because the situation is so urgent, then so be it. But urgent situations are the exception, not the rule. Anyone who changed policy without making even an attempt to consult would find themselves recalled pretty quickly.

You're so eager to sacrifice democracy to 'the needs of the moment' that you don't even wait for 'the moment', you just chuck democracy out the window now, to save time.

by Confused Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:40

"The Socialist Party abolished elections by slate some years ago. Elected committees are chosen by individual vote."

So how do you get nominated to go forward for a committee?
Has the number of candidates ever outnumbered the amount of seats needing to be filled?

by qwerty Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:12

The SP elects its various committees by a slate system. If you have any questions about democratic centralism then you should ask at your next SP branch meeting. If you are not a member of the SP then you can read an explanation on our websites.

by Still confused Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:29

Just to make this clear:
by BC Monday, Oct 11 2004, 8:52pm
The Socialist Party abolished elections by slate some years ago. Elected committees are chosen by individual vote.

AND

confused
by qwerty Tuesday, Oct 12 2004, 11:12am
The SP elects its various committees by a slate system. If you have any questions about democratic centralism then you should ask at your next SP branch meeting. If you are not a member of the SP then you can read an explanation on our websites.

********************************
No wonder my confusion!!
Even two members of the SP can't agree on this.

by Ray Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:36

I don't think qwerty is actually an SP member. It would be so much easier to tell if the SP members on this thread identified themselves as such, and used identifiable names (like hs has).

by BC Tue Oct 12, 2004 18:11

As I stated above, the Socialist Party abolished the slate system some years ago. Instead of voting between alternate slates delegates vote for individual candidates.

Any member or component body of the organisation can nominate a single candidate or a load of candidates. Every year that I have been at a Socialist Party conference, bar one, there have have been more candidates than places to be filled.

by Ex Militant Tue Oct 12, 2004 18:51

Its true that the SP did have the slate system, but they have now abolished it. Thats a major improvement and a clear step towards democracy but I have been told that the leadership still indicates officially who it approves of amongst the candidates. Could BC clarify this? If it is true it shows there's still a long way to go before the SP becomes finally fully democratic (and maybe I would rejoin!)

by BC Tue Oct 12, 2004 19:44

Any individual member or component body of the Socialist Party can make nominations. That includes outgoing committees and the like. The outgoing national committee, for instance, will normally make nominations.

I am against the slate system because I think it is more open to abuse than many other ways of electing people. That doesn't mean that it will be abused, as always the key thing is the existence of a lively democratic culture. Any system can be abused if people are determined to do so and others lax enough to let them from "consensus" decision making to slate elections.

I think that election by slates has certain useful attributes. It makes it easier to ensure real representation for relatively isolated branches, where the qualities and work of members may rarely be seen by the wider organisation. It makes it easier to ensure gender representation and so on. Most importantly it enables people to put forward a collective leadership. Still, I think that the big disadvantage of the slate system is that it quite unnecessarily makes it harder for members to curb a leadership. And of course, the kind of leadership which needs most to be curbed is exactly the sort most likely to abuse a slate system.

What's more, I think that our current system carries the advantages a slate system can offer without the disadvantage. Anyone can still nominate an entire collective leadership, balanced in whatever way between areas, points of view or whatever. That advice can still be very effectively given. However voting by individual rather than slate makes it easier for the membership to ignore that advice.

by hs - sp Tue Oct 12, 2004 19:51

i agree with bc, the slate system is far too open to abuse and makes opposition more difficult. (and more importantly makes just standing an act of opposition) .