|
Q:
The North is more polarised now than at any time in
recent years. Doesn't this mean it a bad time to launch
a socialist bloc?
A:
It could equally be argued that it makes organised
socialist intervention more urgent. One of the reasons
for increased polarisation---not the main reason,
but a factor---is precisely that the argument for
class unity isn't heard where it matters most at the
times that matter most. If all we achieved was to
force the communal parties to respond publicly to
a class-based campaign during an election campaign,
it would be an advance. As things are, they rarely
if ever have to react to socialist argument. Polarisation
isn't the whole story, anyway. There is also rising
class anger. Look at the response to the water charges
threat, or the intensity of opposition to down-grading
hospitals. Anyone involved in the anti-war movement
will know there was immediate resonance when you raised
the contrast between miserly rises in pensions and
unlimited money for missiles. It's not true that Northern
people don't relate to class issues beause they're
so caught up in Orange-Green rivalry. What's true
is that thinking on class issues isn't reflected in
voting. A socialist slate would give us the chance
to challenge the underlying assumption in this. There's
a question of critical mass here. If we have people
with sufficient credibilty standing in enough constituencies,
I believe we can force class politics onto the agenda.
Q:
But don't issues rooted in the national question divide
even the people who'd have to form a credible socialist
bloc. Some make endorsement of the "principle
of consent" a condition for joining---but others
would refuse to join if that were the case.
A:
Even the Provos have accepted the principle of consent.
It would be a bit strange if socialists were now to
to see it as an issue to split on. Let's put this
in perspective. You can be a member of one of the
communal parties no matter what you believe on PFI,
minimum wage, a woman's right to choose, etc. All
that matters is to be sound on the border, policing,
parades etc. Socialists should reverse this order
of priorities. Defence of the public sector, support
for workers in struggle, women's rights, gay liberation,
opposition to racism and imperialism---these should
be our make-or-break issues. I'd have no problem being
part of a socialist bloc which included candidates
who took a different line on the principle of consent.
I'd argue that the class issues which unite us are
more important than the "national" issues
which divide us. What's more, it's only in the context
of a raised consciousness of class that the differences
with regard to community won't be make-or-break in
the working class as a whole. To say we cannot have
Left unity because there's no agreement on communal
rights and rivalries is to get things the wrong way
around.
Q:
But, for example, how to relate to the PSNI is a practical
question in working-class areas. In an election campaign
you can't pick what to say according to which area
you're in.
A:
Policing problems here don't entirely arise from specifically
Northern circumstances. You hear a big point made
of the fact that there isn't a single PSNI member
living on the west bank of the Foyle. But there isn't
a cop living on the Shankill either. Nor a garda in
Darndale in Dublin or a member of the Merseyside police
in Toxteth or a Strathclyde cop in Easterhouse. There's
a hostile relationship with the police in all deprived
areas because the behaviour of the police is ultimately
dictated by the fact that they represent the class
behind the deprivation. The idea that the Bogside
should support the PSNI in the interests of reconcilation
with Protestants is ludicrous. So is the notion that
the Shankill should accept further police reform so
as to make the PSNI more acceptable in the Bogside.
It's not the job of socialists to act as cheer-leaders
for the police anywhere. We should be wary and sceptical
of them and pledge, if elected, to hold them to account.
That should be our position in every working class
area.
Q:
Different left parties have such diametrically
different approaches to Orange parades that it's hard
to envisage a common attitude.
A:
The first thing socialists should say about loyal
order parades is that we don't think working class
people should be on them. It is the essence of socialism
that workers should define their politics by the interests
of their class, whereas the point of the loyal orders
is to celebrate the supposed common interests of all
Protestants. That's the reason every chapter of the
long history of loyal order marches is filled with
examples of sectarian excess. Socialists cannot be
divided about the nature of Orangeism or our basic
attitude to it when it's on the march. If we have
that common starting point, it should be possible
to contain any tactical differences in approach. We
should also be arguing to residents' groups that opposition
to Orangeism isn't the preserve of Nationalism, indeed
that insofar as it's expressed solely in Nationalist
terms it can become the mirror image of what it's
opposing and a reinforcement of it.
Q:
There are deeper ideological differences, reflected
in the way we relate to the former Soviet bloc, for
example. These differences are expressed in different
slogans and perspectives. The various parties aren't
going to dissolve these differences for the sake of
electoral unity.
A:
Nobody should be expected to drop distinctive ideas.
A member of the SWP, the Socialist Party, the CP,
the Workers' Party, whatever, standing as part of
the bloc wouldn't hide his or her membership. If they
tried, they'd only end up looking shifty anyway. Everyone
would have to be free to spell out what's distinctive
about their ideas. But the manifesto of the bloc across
all constituencies would naturally consist of the
things we have in common. And for a bloc to be meaningful
it will have to be more than an amalgm of small parties,
would have to draw in trade unionists involved in
struggle, individuals from community campaigns against
cut-backs and so on, women's rights, anti-war, anti-racist
and environmental activists, left-wing independent
councillors etc. It's not just a matter of small parties
accomodating one another but a coming together of
people many of whom aren't much enamoured of any of
the Left parties. There's quite a lot of them about.
Q:
Even so, the history of rivalry and argument between
the parties makes it very difficult to see them working
comfortably together. A united front campaign could
turn into a bear-pit.
A:
If we can't work together we will fail, full stop.
The Left in the North is very small, both in terms
of numbers and of implantation in unions and progressive
campaigns. We often punch above our weight through
super-activism. But we shouldn't entertain illusions
on that account. Even if every available component
of a possible socialist bloc came together, we still
wouldn't be a mass organisation.Each of the individual
parties is tiny. What's the real perspective of the
"ourselves alone" socialists? That their
party will increase by one and twos over the years
until eventually it's of a size to shoulder its way
centre stage as the sole authentic representative
of the working class? What's their estimate, at their
present rate of progress, of how long that will take?
Or do they expect an apocalyptic moment of political
truth and the masses suddenly recognising the correctness
of their analysis and rallying to their particular
slogans? The correctness of any particular socialist
analysis will surely be borne out in the context of
building a broad socialist current with others across
unions and communities. In campaigns defending the
public service, for union rights, against State repression
at home or abroad, etc., etc., the crying need in
all these areas is for coordination of the efforts
of all the Left forces. If any individual party is
convinced that it already has all the answers, won't
they be vindicated in the course of operating alongside
others in a socialist bloc?
Q:
Both in the South and across the water, single issue
candidates, on hospital closures, for example, have
done well. Doesn't that suggest an alternative strategy---a
more basic "defend public services" campaign,
which wouldn't be socialist but in which socialist
parties could play a part?
A:
That could pose more problems than it solved. Take
the case of somebody who's been a brilliant on a hospital
closure and gets elected on that single issue. Then
he turns out to be a racist pro-lifer---and socialists
would have helped him onto the platform to amplify
these views. That's not an abstract possibility. It
happened in the North in the 1990s. Would we accept
onto the ticket somebody who was 100 percent on defence
of the NHS but supports the war on Iraq or wants harsher
laws on immigration? I think we have to be audacious,
to go for the maximum of what's practical.
Q:
What's the relevance of the anti-war movement?
A:
The fact that a largely left-led movement drew tens
of thousands from all sides to the centre of Belfast
on February 15th is relevant. For some of us, it spurred
efforts to build unity on the electoral front. It
showed that people here in large numbers can identify
themselves in politics other than by reference to
the religious community they come from, that given
the chance and when imaginations are sparked, they
are delighted to do so and feel better for having
done it. The anti-war movement also clarified what
imperialism means in this century. The idea that an
anti-imperialist in Ireland is just someone who's
against the Brits makes no sense when the main imperialism
is made in the USA and Britain is a junior partner.
We should take no nonsense from Republicans about
class politics having to take second place to "the
anti-imperialist struggle". That's just de Valera's
"Labour must wait" in a new guise. When
Bush was at Hillsborough the real anti-imperialists
were outside protesting against political leaders
including Republicans glad-handing th warmongers inside.
I see the anti-war movement as a vital part of the
base to build the socialist bloc on. When you looked
out at the crowd at Belfast City Hall you had to think---If
not us, who? If not now, when?
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
