Britain, Anarchist Federation, Organise! #80 - The Socialist Workers Party:,Why it?s all Gone Wrong

The recent conferences of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) have seen its membership 
confront the Party's governing Central Committee in an unprecedented fashion. In tandem
with this, a series of leaked documents, and the explicit critiques of outgoing and 
expelled members, have left the SWP's internal machinations subject to scrutiny by both
its bitter rivals and long-standing opponents. One of the largest factions outside of 
electoral politics in Britain, the self-styled Party of 'peace, justice, equality, and 
socialism' (SWP, 2013b), now finds itself rapidly losing members and on the defensive. 
There is wider political relevance to the episode. Not only does it show how democratic
processes can be used to manage rather than to support dissent, it also shows how utopian 
ideals can construct a culture which then subverts them.

This is something which must be addressed at all levels and within all forms of organising 
that claim to be revolutionary (including those calling themselves anarchist).

The SWP is certainly one of the
most visible and active explicitly
self-proclaimed revolutionary
groups in the UK. Due to a good
street presence, an orientation to
recruitment and propaganda and
involvement in prominent cam-
paigns such as the anti-war move-
ment, opposition to student fees
and trade union activity generally,
the SWP, and its various 'front'
groups, have a high profile. As a
result, there has been widespread
media coverage of its recent tur-
moil; the Guardian describes it as
?the UK's most prominent far-left
organisation? (Malik and Cohen,
2013). With such accolades apply-
ing to a membership estimated
at approximately 2,000, the least
that can be said is that the SWP
punches above its weight in the
political stakes. Yet the energy
and passion of its members and
organisers faces dissolution. In
the aftermath of what was
surely a traumatic
Party process, there is a
real risk that disillusioned activ-
ists will disappear from activity.

At the core of the conflict is an al-
legation of rape, brought formally
in September last year and dating
back to 2008, by a female party
member against a former Central
Committee member and current
full-timer. This was investigated
internally by the Party's Disputes
Committee, and its findings pre-
sented to a tense meeting at the
regular January conference (New-
man, 2013a). The Disputes Com-
mittee's position amounted to
'not proven', whilst explicitly not
disputing the testimony of the al-
leged victim. It was only narrowly
endorsed by Conference, despite
a ban on the distribution of texts
calling for its rejection (Ibid.;
Newman, 2013c). In effect, the
Party determined that nothing
would be done about a complaint
of sexual violence levelled at a
senior figure, with no explanation
given.

Unsatisfied members soon
formed a faction called 'In De-
fence of Our Party' (IDOP). It was
both the largest, and the only
irregular, faction in the Party's
history (Newman, 2013b). They
demanded an open discussion
within the Party to
inform a review of its
disciplinary process, whilst
seeking assurances that no action
would be taken against dissenting
Party members. IDOP also called
for the immediate removal of
the Central Committee member
accused of rape from ?any paid
or representative roles in our
party or united front work for the
foreseeable future? ('SU Editors',
2013). Although it contradicts
the party line established at
Conference concerning the rape
allegation, what is remarkable in
IDOP's declaration is its expressed
faith in both the Party's internal
democracy and its capacity to
evolve. The decision to form a
faction should also be considered
in light of an incident prior to the
January conference. The incident
saw four members expelled when
a private deliberation over chal-
lenging the Disputes Committee's
findings was leaked to the Central
Committee (Newman, 2012). This
too had represented a show of
open defiance, and was a direct
challenge to the Party leadership,
including criticism of the Party's
supposedly ?democratic? culture
('SU Editors', 2013).

IDOP's proposals were presented
to the SWP's National Commit-
tee (NC) in early February, where
they were rejected by a ratio
of votes exceeding 4:1 against
(Newman, 2013b). Despite, or
perhaps bolstered by this show
of Party discipline, the Central
Committee then called a Special
Conference for March 10th, with
the remit to ?reaffirm the deci-
sions of January?s conference and
the NC, resolve recent debates,
clarify some elements of the
constitution and move the party
forwards? in the face of IDOP's
?extraordinarily unpolitical? fac-
tionalism (Ibid.).

At this point, it is useful to con-
sider the extent of the control
afforded to the Central Com-
mittee over the business of the
organisation. Essentially every
aspect, from the formation of
branches to the appointment of
senior party members, is subject
to the scrutiny of the Central
Committee. Further to this, the
Committee has summary pow-
ers over democratic process in
branches and districts, including
the representative basis on which
delegates are sent to Conference
and elected to the National Com-
mittee. In this context, it is not
difficult to see how the latter, a
fifty-member body whose deci-
sions are ostensibly binding upon
the Central Committee, becomes
merely an executive tool, primar-
ily charged with ?assist[ing] the
Central Committee in providing
leadership for the Party? (SWP,
2009).

It follows from this that SWP
conferences have to be carefully
stage-managed. Meetings of the
Party's ?supreme policy-making
body? are preceded by a three-
month period during which the
Central Committee meets with
members through district 'aggre-
gates' (whose composition they
have also determined) in order to
highlight, and hopefully assuage,
any potential points of contention
(SWP, 2009). Faction formation
and submissions are also restrict-
ed by precedent to this period.

The process of Conference itself
is determined and overseen by
a body appointed by the Central
Committee and subject to the
provision that Party officials and
staff have automatic speaking
rights (Ibid.). The March Special
Conference enjoyed all of the
above, whilst allowing only one
month for debate and the sub-
mission of motions. Considering
the gerrymandering and control
of Party process and communi-
cation available to the Central
Committee, it is remarkable that
fully half of the motions to Spe-
cial Conference were against its
position (SWP, 2013a).

In the event, the Central Commit-
tee achieved a resounding victory.
As its representative system saw
split caucuses returning solidly-
loyal delegates, the Central Com-
mittee's main motion to Confer-
ence was backed by 77% of voters
(Thomas, 2013). This disbanded
IDOP, condemned internal dis-
sent, decried the poor politics of
its student organisation (which
had been a key contributor to
IDOP), began a process of mak-
ing the Disciplinary Committee
entirely rather than largely unac-
countable and reaffirmed the con-
tested decisions of the previous
conference (Ibid.). Their second
motion, which amended the Con-
stitution to limit both factions and
Special Conferences in the future,
was also passed ?overwhelming-
ly? (Ibid.). Mass resignations and
defections inevitably followed
Conference, demonstrating the
extent of principled dissent in the
Party and the intractability of the
leadership (Seymour, 2013).

Where does the authoritarian
practice evident in these process-
es come from, and how does it
serve the SWP's ultimate declared
goal: global revolution leading to
a new society of world socialism,
a world of ?peace, equality, jus-
tice?, and workers' control (SWP,
2013b)? The Party maintains
that this machinery is necessary
to challenge the existing struc-
tures of power, as manifested in
?wealth, [the] media, courts, and
the military? (Ibid.). By offer-
ing a disciplined framework of
theoretical and tactical unity, the
combined strength of the prole-
tariat can be yoked to the ?ideas
and strategies that can overthrow
capitalism entirely? (Ibid.). The
Party's model for attaining this
goal is ?democratic centralism?.

To understand how the SWP
sees democratic centralism,
it is helpful to think of it as al-
most the inverse of mainstream
?liberal democracy?. The latter
supposedly draws in a plurality of
perspectives and charts a 'least-
worst' course between them;
democratic centralism measures
all input against its core positions
and expects disciplined realign-
ment to these for the purpose of
political expediency (SWP, 2009).
In both cases, neither democracy
nor idealism is served. Whilst lib-
eral democracy misrepresents the
mismatched, mixed-weight, fixed
fight of competing interests as a
fair contest of ideas, democratic
centralism posits its ideals as a
remote outcome of its current
business, to decorate its activities
but not inform them. As such, the
notion of the future free society
and its values gain the distant
allure of the Kingdom of Heaven,
whilst having all of the practical
political impact of wallpaper. That
is to say, denying low-ranking
women in the Party protection
against sexual violence on the
part of Central Committee mem-
bers is politically expedient, and
hushing it up and driving objec-
tion underground is necessary for
unity under Capitalism.

The two models ? democratic
centralism and liberal democracy
? theoretically allow space for
dissent but rarely, if ever, to the
extent that it could topple the
key beneficiaries of power. This is
the political status quo dominat-
ing both ?liberal? and ?centralist?
democratic life. Those benefit-
ting from that power are able to
use the same formal structures
against those that they are sup-
posed to represent - those who
have apparently given a leader-
ship its legitimacy by voting for
it. But in itself, this rarely drives
people from Socialist parties. This
is because the doctrine of why
?democracy? should be tem-
pered with ?centralism? is actively
expounded within them (not
least as an ill-informed argument
against anarchism).

In this case it has led to rape de-
nial and to a bolstering of support
at the top level for the perpetra-
tor. This is an abuse too far for
many in the Party, perhaps not
least because it comes at a point
when institutionalised abuse is
at least beginning to be exposed
and condemned within the sort
of organisations that liberal
democracy fosters (the BBC, The
Liberal Democrats, mainstream
religious organisations, and local
authority-run children?s homes).
The SWP leadership could
scarcely have chosen a worse
way through this crisis. The scale
of revolt represented anything
from about a third to half of its
membership being attached to
the IDOP faction (650 members
in a party of about 1400-2000).
A fair cross-section of the party
was mobilized. In fact, it took real
determination on the part of the
leadership to evade what was
probably the easier option: to
engage with the malcontents on
some level other than alternat-
ing between being dismissive and
belligerent. We suggest, there-
fore, that their chosen approach
has more to do with the structure
of organisations like the SWP. We
invite those ex-members to con-
sider whether the actions of the
SWP?s Central Committee are an
aberration within the party-polit-
ical Left, or whether the oppor-
tunities for abuse of power are
embedded within the supposedly
?democratic? structures at the top
level of centralist organisations.

Bibliography

Note: although leaked documents
are credited to their publishers /
editors, their content is consist-
ent in cross-referencing and their
integrity is not seriously disputed.
Where these documents have
been redacted, this has been to
protect anonymity. References
are correct at the time of going to
press.
Bracchi, P., 2013, ?A show of
hands! That's how the Socialist
Workers Party cleared a comrade
of rape?, Daily Mail [online] 1
February. Available from
http://tinyurl.com/bpt5cto
Malik, S., and Cohen, N., 2013,
?Socialist Workers Party under
fire over rape kan-
garoo court?, The
Guardian, [online] 9
March. Available from
http://tinyurl.com/buouovh
Newman, A. (editor),
2012, ?Statement of
the SWP's Democratic
Opposition?, Social-
ist Unity [online] 24
December. Available
from http://tinyurl.com/cqft2u5
Newman, A. (editor),
2013a, ?SWP Conference
Transcript ? Disputes Com-
mittee Report?, Socialist
Unity [online] 7 January.
Available from http://tinyurl.com/cuznp29
Newman, A. (editor),
2013b, ?SWP Leadership
Calls Special Conference?,
Socialist Unity [online] 9 Febru-
ary. Available from http://tinyurl.com/blp5hx8
Newman, A. (editor), 2013c,
?Documents of the SWP Opposi-
tion?, Socialist Unity [online] 17
February. Available from http://tinyurl.com/cs5qkyr
Seymour, R., 2013, ?The SWP
leadership has turned the party
into a sinking ship?, The Guardian
[online], 22 March. Available from
http://tinyurl.com/crvk9qa
Socialist Workers Party, 2009,
?Socialist Workers Party Constitu-
tion, 2009?, retrieved from
http://tinyurl.com/bvwqumv
Socialist Workers Party, 2013a,
?Socialist Workers Party Pre-
Conference Bulletin?, Communist
Party of Great Britain [online]
March. Available from
http://tinyurl.com/czznjaj
Socialist Workers Party, 2013b,
?Where We Stand?, SWP Online
[online]. Available from
http://www.swp.org.uk/where-we-stand
?SU Editorial Team' (editors),
2013, ?New SWP Faction De-
clared: In Defence of Our Party?,
Socialist Unity [online] 8 February.
Available from http://tinyurl.com/cowy5zr
Thomas, D. (editor), 2013, ?Social-
ist Workers Party:[sic]?, Workers
United [blog, online], 11 March.
Available from http://tinyurl.com/ccfprtv

http://tinyurl.com/czznjaj
Socialist Workers Party, 2013b,
?Where We Stand?, SWP Online