I was at a very interesting debate last weekend, hosted by Socialist Resistance, where there was a discussion of the relationship the left should have to their elected representatives. I thought at the time that it was worth exploring because the experience of left of Labour MPs in recent years involve either George Galloway who is entirely unaccountable to anyone except himself and Caroline Lucas who, despite being at liberty to vote against party policy, has always been very conscious of her role as the sole Green MP and acts in an entirely uncontroversial way.
The comrades were keen to say that all representatives should be obliged to vote with party policy and as a group, a point reinforced by a speaker from Denmark who was pointed out that was how they ran their group of MPs.
I’m very wary of this approach, although I can see the appeal to those who’d had to endure being in a party where its leading figure had more public weight than everyone else put together and used it as he pleased.
A party that reaches out beyond zealots
It’s perfectly acceptable, I guess, for a religious sect to insist on strict doctrinal adherence but if you’d like to build a stable political party that can appeal to a range of different kinds of people, some of whom might be regular folks, you’re going to have to accept that differences cannot always end in splits, aggro and expulsions. It’s unreasonable to expect every member of the party, including leading members, to agree with every item of party policy and to sometimes feel strongly enough about those differences to express themselves publicly.
I wouldn’t trust a political party that didn’t have at least two distinct and identifiable currents within it who publicly disagree on some issue or another yet appear to be working together productively.
Now, under Blair, Labour was near universally mocked for the control it exerted over its MPs, jokes about pagers and faxes were common currency in the nineties. Yet somehow people like John McDonnell were able to get selected, elected and remain within the party, unpurged, despite probably voting against the Labour whip more often than with it! Anyone who thinks that Blair’s Labour provides a model that is too soft on dissent and divergent views is taking themselves down a path that cannot possibly lead to long lasting relationships with their political allies.
I argued that a democratic organisation has to have space for disagreement, up to and including MPs and other elected representatives voting against party policy. Even when it’s really annoying. This is, I think, a pretty mainstream view which would be fairly uncontroversial among most people.
Arguments against
Veteran socialist war horse and all round good egg, Alan Thornett, disagreed with me. I think he made two very good points, one of which I don’t agree with and one of which I think is compatible with this vision of a looser kind of party than the left is used to.
His first point (which I will try not to mangle despite not making notes at the time) was that the highest levels of democracy happen well before the Member of Parliament walks through the voting crucible and lifts the ceremonial otter – or whatever it is they do in the House of Commons to express themselves.
The members have democratically decided on party policy – to vote against it is to render that process meaningless. Then the voters put their cross in the box next to your name, because you are the identifiable candidate for the X party. The voters voted for the party manifesto, so should you.
The second argument was that if MPs vote against party policy on crucial questions it risks bringing the party into disrepute, or splitting the party, because people can’t tolerate being associated with that view. An MP or council group could severely impact the national party’s fortunes with one well placed slip.
My riposte
I agree with the second point and am not, actually, in favour of entirely free voting. It makes sense to have a set of “red lines” that are seen as so central to party philosophy that to vote against them is to place you outside the warmth of its embrace.
The caveat to this is that they have to be laid out in advance. It’s ludicrous to retrospectively tell someone for example – oh – didn’t you realise that gay marriage was a central pillar of our decentralised, unwhipped party? Tough luck buster, out you go!
I’d also add that those red lines need to be crystal clear, decided upon in good faith and not so numerous people are effectively boxed in. In other words the process has to be fair, not because we all enjoy being ethical but because without ethics and a toleration of reasonable difference a meaningful party that lasts decades is impossible. A purist sect doesn’t need ethics (ironically), a party does.
However, on the first point (that the MP is obliged to simply act as a conduit for decisions taken by others) I may be sympathetic here but I’m unconvinced on two levels. First, a viable party cannot expect fertile pluralism at the base and sterile obedience at the top. A one MP party may require that MP to reject self-indulgence due to their unique position but once you have a group individuality cannot be seen as a flaw – or you risk escalating every discussion and deviation into a series of agonising crises.
Second, you wont actually get pluralism at the base if this is not reflected (imperfectly) among the leading figures of the party. Let’s imagine there are three general positions on the police. The abolish the cops now group, the make the cops ashamed of existing tendency and the let’s make the police right on and nice faction. If only one position exists at a decision making level, whichever one won the vote at conference, then two thirds of the party feel unrepresented, dissatisfied and potential voters and supporters are alienated because they see no space for their views. You only recruit one tendency and steadily lose the support of the other two. Gradually the process makes the party narrower and steadily more sterile.
Finally
It would be a nightmare if this was replicated across a hundred different issues but in practice there are likely to only be a small number of significant fissures and, combined with red lines, a party is capable of feeling coherent and broad at the same time. While there is some art to the science the instinct to purge or obliterate difference is toxic.
Disagreement and debate can’t simply be rare events that occur very occasionally over crucial issues – a party without the habit of coexisting with disagreement would be plunged into chaos if it only deals with difference once in a blue moon. Democracy and pluralism need to be permanent features to the extent that people don’t even notice when the little disagreements take place because they are normal, interesting and taken in proportion rather than heresies.
A party has to have an internal life beyond telling each other the party line in ever louder voices and they have to interact with organisations and thinkers outside its ranks in an easy and engaging manner so that adaption and change can take place over time. The strongest trees bend with the wind, it’s why they don’t break at every gust of wind.