Parliamentary Stalinism

reprinted from Voice of the ns Regrettable though the Parliamentary Party's East of Suez decision was, it was hardly surprising - reflecting, as it did, the power of patronage rather than the logic of argument. It is some consolation that the course of history is unlikely to be deflected by the antics of pint-sized personalities at Westminster. Every sane person knows that a Western military presence cannot long be maintained in Asia, We can either leave voluntarily, or be forced outat the cost of immense suffering and probable economic ruin. However, while the issue itself will undoubtedly be resolved by the course of events, one aspect of the affair is extremely disturbing and cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged, The manner in which the decision was arrived at has grave implications for the working of democracy in this country. In a democratic state government mist be clearly separated from party. Our basic criticism of Stalin was that his power was built on the fusion of the state and party apparatus, and the most encouraging factor in the current liberalisation of Communist regimes is the gradual acceptance that these two functions must be separated if government is to function in a healthy democratic manner, It is indeed ironic that while the Yugoslavs have formally accepted that no-one should hold office in the party and the government at the same time, a Labour Government in Britain should be travelling in exactly the opposite direction. Labour's National Executive is supposed to be governed by Annual Conference: in fact it is dominated by the government, whose ministers refuse to give up their seats while rejecting the instructions of Conference. The same pattern applies at regional level; for example, Bob Mellish, chairman of the London Labour Party and of the Greater London Coordinating Committee is also conveniently the minister responsible for London Government} Back in 1960 we accepted that Labour M.P.s were free to determine their actions in the light of national policy, and in the manner traditional to the Labour Movement - i.e., by democratic decision after proper discussion, on the basis of one man one vote. In the process leading up to the formation of policy every. member of the party is equal, whether he is an elder statesman or a new back-bencher,. The government is not elected, it is appointed; it has no standing within the party. It is therefore quite improper that the government should instruct its members to 'pack! the parliamentary meeting. Even more serious is the implied threat that government members must either vote for a specific future policy or give up their positions, The threat to democracy is clear, The Cabinet can 'manufacture' support for virtually any policies it wishes, firstly by bringing enough M.P.s into the government, and if that does not do the trick, by creating enough peers to tip the balance at the party meeting. The only solution is to press for the separation of State from Party. As Ray Gunter said, "The Government is not the Party, the Party is not the Government", This should be seen to be true,