[page 27]
Hue and cry over 'norms'
Andre
At the last PC cde Jones proposed several resolutions over what he claimed were ' a number of fundamental attacks on the democratic norms and functioning of our organisation' which had allegedly been made at the Central Committee. According to Jones, these attacks had been made during the 'staffing' item. As we shall see, while cde Jones claims that his resolutions defend the rights of minorities, they are in fact a swingeing attack on the rights of minorities, and indeed the right of all members of the organisation, and leading bodies, to cast their votes which ever way they think is correct.
It is becoming a common practice for cde Jones, when he dislikes the way someone votes (or thinks) to claim that they do not have the right to do it (or say it). Thus at our last national conference he fatuously claimed that Tendency X did not have the right to discuss its attitude to the documents of other tendencies - since this was 'against the fundamental norms of our organisation'. And now, at the September Central Committee he has discovered that it was incorrect for Tendecy Y cdes to cast a positive vote on the composition of the full time staff.
Before we consider the detailed meaning of the Jones resolutions, we should stop to consider the whole campaign which cde Jones is waging. His hue and cry over norms, his constant repetition that there is a concerted attack on the democracy of the organisation, has a precise and conscious function. Cde Jones is building a case. His case is that there is a petty bourgeois, bureaucratic,London-based clique (the 'Biggs-King clique') which is trying to destroy the democracy of the organisation (read: 'has the temerity to challenge some of the political positions of cde Jones'). To justify this charge new 'norms' (generally over who is allowed to vote for what, and who is allowed to discuss with whom) are made up on the spur of the moment.
None of this is new in the Trotskyist movement, of course. Clique leaders of tinpot despotisms in the small sects regularly make social characterisations of their political opponents. And now Jones and Brown want to do the same. Thus Brown at the political committee started to shout that certain cdes political positions reflected 'their social conditions of existence' ( as opposed presumably to the rock hard proletarians, steeped in daily work in the labour movement, of those who support Jones and Brown: do tell). This whole campaign is the height of ludicrous factional hysteria. If it designed to whip up the Jones-Brown supporters it might serve a function. No one else will take it the least bit seriously.
Now let us look at the Jones resolutions. First, resolution (1) argues that no one can be instructed to serve in a post which they do not wish to serve in. This is presumably a critique of the slate presented by Biggs for full time staff at the CC, which certain cdes indicated that they wanted to withdraw from. Now the point about this series of events is not at all that the comrades concerned objected to carrying out the tasks to which they were assigned in the Biggs slate, quite the contrary. Rather they objected to carrying them out if their own slate for the full time staff were not agreed ! Concretely this boiled down to 'I/we will not work full time unless cde Jones does'. The comrades concerned were not expressing their refusal to work full time: they were presenting the CC with an ultimatum and a blackmail. Of course, no one can be forced to work full time if they concretely refuse given the overall slate. But the CC has *every right* to express its views on who should work full time, an overall slate, even if it has to be subsequently modified in the light of refusals to take up the posts assigned. Otherwise the CC can be prevented from expressing its view on which is the best team
[page 28]
to make up the full time staff. Cde Jones first resolution should be rejected.
Cde Jones second resolution suggests 1) that minorities have the right, and all political positions have the right, to nominate which of their supporters should be on the CC and work full time. CC nominations can only be challenged on 'some objectively defined grounds' (?); and full-time nominations can only be challenged on the grounds that the nominee(s) are not 'statutorily qualified' to hold the post or 'don [sic] not carry out the work assigned to them'.
Cde Jones explanation of these norms is one-sided, and hence wrong. The fundamental norms in this regard are that minorities nominate their own slates for the CC, and their own proposals for full-timers. But there are *no absolute rights* for political groupings to *decide* exactly who should occupy those posts and positions. Only the *whole* National Conference can decide the CC. Only the *whole CC* finally arbitrates on the full-time staff. And every delegate to conference, and every member of the CC, has the right to vote for or against the final slates presented.
In regard the composition of the CC, it is quite abnormal to interefere with or challenge the lists presented by different political groupings. But in this matter, you have to distinguish between what is normal or abnormal, and what are *rights*. If cdes feel that a particular person is disqualified, by virtue of breaches of proletarian morality, or by constant public indiscipline for which they have be disciplined by the organisation, then the whole conference has the right to intervene and change the slate. In addition, the Nominations Commission has the right to strongly recommend to a particular position or grouping that it changes its slate, by virtue of imbalance for any number of reasons.
The one absolute right in relation to the election of the CC is that the whole conference has the right to decide. The reason for this is very easy to see. The election of the leadership is the election of the leadership of the whole organisation, by the whole organisation. Leaders of minorities elected to the CC are leaders of the whole organisation. If this were not the case, then of course there would be no need for the Conference to vote on the final slate. All that would be necessary would be the sending of a list by each political grouping to the Nominations Commission, which would then automatically be the final CC adopted. But this does not happen, because the party is not a federation of factions and tendencies with absolute rights. They are subordinate to the whole organisation, and its final authority, Conference.
Now we come to the full time staff question. This is more complex, but the same general principles apply. It is more complex because the full time staff has to compose a workable team actually capable of carrying out the tasks assigned to it. Generally, of course, a mature leadership would seek to ensure the integration of minorities into the full time staff, given that the number of full timers makes this a feasible option. Normally the views of minorities on which of their supporters should work full time have to be taken very seriously, and not lightly challenged. But once again, the whole party decides who works full time, that's why we have a slate, an integrated team to accomplish the tasks. Otherwise all you have to do is send a note to each political minority...please send us your list of full timers !
The principles embodied in cdes Jones resolutions are those of the party as *a federation of factions*, each of which is possessed of absolute rights. My own opinion is that this notion of the party derives from the series of articles entitled 'Faction and Party'. Be that as it may, the federation of factions conception of the party is a license to put the wishes of minorities above the view of the whole party. We have some recent experience of that kind of thing. It should not be allowed to go any further.
[page 29]
There is one really fundamental norm (and right) in our movement which cde Jones does not mention - the right of every member of the CC, and every conference delegate, to cast their vote according to their conscience and according to what they think is correct for the development of the movement. Nobody can challenge that right by PC resolutions about who must abstain in what vote, who can or can't vote for this and that. Cde Jones motivated his resolutions on the basis that two supporters of Tendency Y cast their votes positively as between two slates for the full time staff. Cde Jones can think this unwise or even factional. But he can't challenge anybody's right to do it. When the PC or CC passes resolutions forbidding certain cdes from voting on particular questions, then we shall really know that the norms of our organisation have gone down the pan.
This is particularly the case since nobody from Tendency Y was actually being proposed for the full time staff ! So TY should have sat on their hands and expressed no opinion ? The idea is ludicrous.
There is another piece of doublethink in cde Jones position. By casting a vote against the slate on which cde Jones was one of the candidates, the two cdes of TY allegedly cast their vote against the nominees of a definite political position. What was that position ? The McDermott document, for which cde Jones did not vote ? Or the Jones document which was defeated ? The conference majority, on which there were the same proportions between the two slates ? Or is he saying that the Brown-Jones group habe the right to nominate their own full-timers. And if they have, then why not the London-based petty bourgeois clique ? And when do we start work ?