Dear Charlie,
I believe
all the current members of the CC are brilliant fighters, each in their own
unique and valuable way. I have seen no evidence of a CC cover up and I accept
their word. I do have specific reservations about one or two on the CC: that is
not surprising, and not important; no one is perfect, including me etc. I also believe that there is tremendous talent
in the membership of the organisation. I am thankful to the party for
introducing me to some of these comrades and also for educating me in the
politics of the IS tradition.
I
understand the need for unity within the party and that this allows for a
united CC to roll out whatever policies we have agreed on and therefore, I also
agree that permanent factions cannot be tolerated as this will hamper the
ability of the party to focus on what is important given current political
conditions.
So what is
wrong?
The problem
has arisen around the Disputes Committee, but, having thought about the reasons
why the sad difficulties arose, I think the stresses that built up leading to
the crash stem from the particular way we currently elect the leadership. There
are a number of different ways this could be addressed, but that’s not really
what I want to talk about here.
Comrades
naturally, because they believe in the organisation, want to be loyal to the
leadership and to the party. I myself want to do this and have done so throughout
my two dozen years in the party. I have disagreed with the party direction from
time to time, but I have always continued trying to build the party and to sell
the paper etc. When I have a vote, I loyally vote for the party, for the CC
position. And, outside the party I always argue passionately for our politics
and tradition.
A party,
with a clear unified message, is a strong party. And we work to try to build
such a party. Comrades intuitively feel this is a strength of the SWP and
loyally vote for CC positions and CC slates. But building for strength and
flexibility is not necessarily a straightforward task. There is a difficult
path for the CC to tread to maximise strength and flexibility.
I think the
system of electing the CC (by slate) has meant that any error by any individual
CC member can tar the whole CC (perhaps in the view of the CC members as well
as those in the know), because of the joint responsibility conferred by those
elections. There will be a temptation for the CC to close ranks to maintain
unity and strength and also to maintain secrecy on any problematic issues. What
has been a strength under normal circumstances becomes rigid and brittle, and a
source of weakness, under conditions of stress of the kind we have seen lately.
The CC may feel they must hang together or hang separately. Rigid loyalty to
the CC of the kind expressed by some comrades, during most periods a strong support,
can in more difficult periods become its opposite.
To me,
admittedly without any detailed knowledge of the recent cases under dispute,
but from the only vantage point I have, it seems that this rigidity and
brittleness has been extended to the DC. Clearly, the DC fractured this year.
The abuse of the power of the party exhibited by the 2013 DC Report Back is
evidence, for me, of this weakness. Anybody can make a mistake, but it must be
owned up to for any healing to commence.
I was
extremely saddened when the overwhelming majority of the 2013 SWP conference
did not vote for a clear apology to two women comrades subjected not only to
the original misconduct they had reported and complained about but also to
further abuse from the party apparatus. Why didn’t the comrades want to
apologise? They didn’t want to? I don’t believe them! I believe they voted to
be seen to be 'loyal'. Voting under the present system is a loyalty test. And
of course, comrades want to be seen as loyal.
The party
has been weakened this year, not because of the faction, but because of the way
the leadership and apparatus has related to the party given the internal
crisis.
It wouldn't
be such a problem if it looked as though there is possibility of changing the
situation.
I voted for
the faction slate, even though I have never signed up to any faction, because
there was no alternative. I could have continued to vote loyal, but my heart
wasn't in it given the options available. I actually thought that the
combination of comrades on the CC slate was probably a better combination than
the faction slate. However, the fact that they were bound to one another
because of the slate, made that choice wrong for the reasons given above. I
suppose it was a protest vote.
I could
have decided to stay in the party, beavering away from below, disregarding the
type of leadership we have, and that is what I almost decided to do, but I have
decided that would probably be wrong and would be, given the seeming
intransigence locked in to the democratic structures of the party, simply wasting
time.
So, because
I cannot see any possibility of the change I think is necessary happening here any
time soon, and because I don't want work in an organisation where I may be
thought of as disloyal, and because I feel, after nearly a quarter of a century
fighting for and with the party, that my time and energy might now be better
spent elsewhere, I quit.
John
Cowsill
No comments:
Post a Comment