Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts

Wednesday, 1 July 2009

Haitian Election Boycotts: Masses Reject UN Occupation

Whilst the mainstream media maybe talking up US forces pulling out of cities and towns in Iraq there is another occupation that the US initiated that is still ongoing. On February 29th 2004, US special forces kidnapped the Haitian President, Jean-Bertrand Aristide and dumped him in the dictatorship of the Central African Republic after funding guerrilla insurgents and others to destabilise the country. US, Canadian and French forces moved to occupy the country, ostensibly as peacekeepers, and were later replaced by a Brazilian-led UN peacekeeping (read occupation) force.

Even 5 years on thousands still marched through Port-au-Prince to mark the anniversary of Aristide’s overthrow demanding his return to the country. Aristide is still associated with the hope the masses felt with the end of the hated Duvalier dictatorship and is seen as having achieved improvements for the mass of the population (such as increases to the minimum wage) despite the concession he made to imperialist countries to get international aid, such as the privatisation of public services. Indeed, the 2006 election of the Lespwa candidate and former associate of Aristide, Rene Preval, to the presidency was seen as a vote for the return of Aristide. But with huge food shortages leading to rioting in the capital, Post-au-Prince last year and no return of Aristide, support for Preval has massively diminished.

On April 19th the first round of Haiti’s senate elections were held with a record low turnout. According to the Provisional Electoral Council (Conseil Electoral Provisoire - CEP) the turnout was 11%, although other observers place the figure as low as 5%. Prior to the elections, the CEP excluded all 14 candidates of Aristide’s party, Fanmi Lavalas.

In the run-up to the second round of elections, a prominent Fanmi Lavalas supporter, who was imprisoned in the run-up to the 2006 to stop him being a candidate in the Presidential elections, Father Gerard Jean Juste died from cancer. His funeral was used as a rallying call by Fanmi Lavalas activists to call on the population to again boycott the elections. Yet the funeral was yet another scene of vicious attacks by UN troops, killing one of the mourners. Despite denials by the UN force, a video has emerged showing two Brazilian troops firing into the crowd. The boycott appears to have been equally effective the second time round prompting the government to claim that imaginery ‘violence and intimidation’ are to blame for the low turnout.

Whilst Marxists support the right of Fanmi Lavalas to take part in the elections, and the right of Aristide to return to Haiti, neither will solve the problems of the Haitian masses. If either were to return to power, they would be forced into the position that they were in previously of giving concessions to foreign imperialist and capitalist interests in return for meagre aid packages. The Haitian masses must look towards the small but significant working class in Haiti and the development of a revolutionary party that can lead serious struggles to improve their living standards.

Monday, 8 June 2009

Election Results: Round-up and a little bit of Analysis

Where to begin....

Well I think the thing that has stuck in the mind of most on the left in Britain has been the election of 2 BNP MEP's in the North West (Nick Griffin) and Yorkshire and the Humberside (some bloke I can't remember the name of but he had been chair of the National Front). Yet they did this on the back of a lower vote in those regions than they received in 2004.
And this points us to the startling feature of these elections - the collapse in the vote for Labour - nationally they were down 7% to 15.7% behind both the Tories and UKIP. Indeed the Tories actually topped the poll in Wales!
But the collapse in Labour's vote wasn't to do with Labour voters switching to other major parties like the Tories and the Liberals - they simply weren't coming out to vote and many of them won't come out to vote Labour again - such is the stink over the last few weeks, particularly from the expenses scandal, but the economic model they presided over has collapsed and in a similar way to what appears to have happened in Germany and France, they don't really have an alternative to it.
What this result has done, I think, is exposed that the strategy of relying on turnout, of saying don't vote BNP doesn't work. What we must do is put forward a positive alternative - and give workers a political voice that represents their interests and seeks to rectify their grievances.
And this is where I feel No2EU - Yes to Democracy comes in. Okay so the name was a bit crap, the platform was vague and limited and it achieved a small (but marginally better than what I personally expected) 1.01% of the vote nationally coming behind the SLP, but I still stand by the decision of the Socialist Party congress to take part in the coalition.
For one thing it meant that the RMT union has stood candidates in an election against the Labour Party and signs are that it will do the same in a general election, which I think will help hasten other unions to do the same. Also it meant that Socialist Party members were taking part in elections everywhere in the country - not just targetting a few specific wards or constituencies - which I believe meant people were more willing to take our material and read it. Which is especially good considering we published our own material, of course supporting No2EU but also, emphasising the points we felt were most important and allowing us to go beyond the limited No2EU platform. In North Wales this has meant we have been able to gain contacts in the last two months outside areas we are currently organised in (and in North Wales organised can be a little loosely applied due to the shear geography of the area). Take a look at the report that Socialist Party members and sympathisers in Wrexham have written http://www.socialistpartywales.org.uk/news/2009-06/8-wrexham-stall-report.html and this is an area where we didn't have any members til very, very recently.
I am reliably informed that the total left vote (that is of No2EU, SLP, SSP & SPGB) was 340,805 which is 2.25% which apparently is the highest left vote in European elections on a UK wide scale. This needs to be built upon with a challenge in the general election when it gets called and the organising of that challenge needs to be done now.
Which brings me onto the Greens. Their vote was the most increased in the election up some 2% or so, despite them not getting any new MEPs elected (they retain their current 2). Given they came close to beating the BNP in the North West should No2EU not have stood?
I don't think so - for a start I would argue that there are many working class people who probably wouldn't have voted Greens who did vote No2EU. More fundamentally however, is that simply backing the Greens would have put off the task for another election of trying to build an independent political voice for workers - and much as socialists and the Green Left within it may want the Green Party to become that, I don't think it can or will. However, I would welcome collaboration between the Greens and a new workers party (certainly when neither can contest all the seats in an area), but the key point is that that party needs building immediately otherwise working class votes will keep going to the far right as a protest and potentially worse.

Rest of Europe

By far the best result of the elections for me was the news that the Socialist Party's (CWI Irleand) Joe Higgins had been elected as an MEP in Ireland as well as winning 6 council seats in the elections.
But also SYRIZA in Greece got 4.7% and one MEP and the Bloco de Esquerda (Left Block) got 10% of the vote (not sure how many MEPs this translates to). I have to say though I'm finding it hard to find out the results for various groups in Europe so any comments people can leave to help would be appreciated. But the general gist is that in Europe the left (and I mean the actual left) has gained slightly.

UNISON

Also released today were the election results for the UNISON NEC with 6 Socialist Party members elected onto the UNISON NEC - Roger Bannister (North West), Glenn Kelly (Local Government) and Jean Thorpe (East Midlands) retained their seats. They have been joined by April Ashley (Black Members), Vicky Perrin (Yorkshire and Humberside), and Hannah Walter (Northern) - however several other on the left have lost their seats.

Saturday, 17 January 2009

Vote Robbie Segal for USDAW President!

Note: A report of the Bangor Gaza protest will appear sometime tomorrow on this blog. It was a good protest, and from what I've heard so were ones elsewhere.

The ballot opens for the USDAW President and Executive Committee elections on Monday 19th January. Robbie Segal will be standing for the post of President but also for re-election to her current Executive Committee position. I'd like to encourage all members of USDAW to vote for her. To give people a flavour of her campaign I've posted links to a few things below

Stop Job Cuts (Article from this weeks The Socialist on USDAW elections)
No festive joy for shop workers (Article from previous weeks The Socialist on unionising at a warehouse)
Christmas is Over and the Cutbacks Begin (Article on cutbacks at Morrisons from the Activist blog)
The Activist Issue 13 (Newsletter of Socialist Party members and supporters in USDAW featuring New Years greetings from Robbie)

Tuesday, 9 December 2008

Towards Effective Green Left Unity

The following statement has already appeared on the Nation of Duncan and A Very Public Sociologist. There has been some discussion posted on AVPS already (whilst I encourage people to check the debate this blog does have a slightly different readership to AVPS). The statement is sort of self-explanatory and I believe is due to be published in this Thursdays issue of the Socialist. - Oh and there are some criminology posts coming soon!

The following is a statement produced by the Socialist Party following correspondence between the Lewisham Socialist Party and the Lewisham Green Party after a Green Party candidate was revealed to be on the membership list of the BNP:

ONE of the Green Party candidates who stood in Telegraph Hill ward, south London in the 2006 local elections appears on the list of alleged BNP supporters recently leaked to the media. This ward, in the London borough of Lewisham, is represented by two Socialist Party members, Ian Page and Chris Flood, who have been councillors there since 1990 and 2003 respectively.
When the list was published Lewisham Socialist Party was asked to comment. Aware that the list, leaked by disgruntled BNP members, did not necessarily imply support for the far-right party, we contacted the individual named, who informed us that he had never been a supporter of the BNP and their racist ideas.
We accepted his assurance but, as there were others on the list who have been Green Party members and who have also been BNP supporters, we also wrote to the Lewisham Greens for their views before we made any public comment.
Darren Johnson, a Lewisham Green councillor and London Assembly member, replied, saying that, “knowing him as I do”, he was convinced that the individual concerned had been “the victim of a malicious prank” and had given “no indication whatsoever that he shared the obnoxious views of the BNP”.
But Darren Johnson also conceded that their ex-candidate, who had no campaigning record in Telegraph Hill, “has had no active involvement in the Green Party for the past two years”, in other words, since the 2006 elections.
This raises a wider question: even if, as it appears, the candidate was not sympathetic to the BNP’s poisonous ideas, why did Lewisham Green Party conclude that he was a better representative of anti-cuts, anti-privatisation and pro-environment policies in Telegraph Hill than the sitting Socialist Party councillors, Ian Page and Chris Flood?
The Socialist Party has consistently approached the Green Party to discuss whether we could come to an electoral agreement, at least to not stand candidates against each other where possible. Through the Socialist Green Unity Coalition, for example, we discussed this with the Green Party’s national election officer, who confirmed that such agreements could be made by local parties.
The Socialist Party and the Green Party have important differences. The Socialist Party believes that fundamental change is necessary to save our environment, which can only be achieved by democratic public ownership of the major companies that dominate the globe.
On Lewisham council the Green councillors have not always backed the Socialist councillors’ proposals to resist the pro-market agenda of the establishment parties – New Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats. But there is sufficient agreement, we believe, for us to seriously discuss possibilities for electoral agreements.
Unfortunately that has not been the approach of Lewisham’s Greens. Their strategy in the 2006 elections was to stand as widely as possible, regardless of who they were standing against or the record and commitment of their candidates.
The Greens stood three candidates in the three-seat Telegraph Hill ward in 2006, who each polled around 400 votes – well short of winning but far more than the gap between the New Labour candidate elected as the third ward councillor and the third-placed Socialist Party candidate, Jess Leech. Was it really necessary to stand in Telegraph Hill and allow New Labour to slip in? Especially as there were other, New Labour-held wards, in Lewisham where the Greens only stood one candidate?
Darren Johnson hasn’t accepted our offer to discuss what lessons from all this there may be for the future. But the Socialist Party plans to stand more widely in Lewisham in the next local elections in 2010 along with, we hope, local trade unionists and representatives of different campaign groups fighting to save council housing, defend education, and keep our NHS safe from privatisation. They too will expect that Lewisham Green Party would co-operate to maximise the electoral challenge to the establishment parties.

Additionally commentary from Neil Cafferky from the Socialist Party national office -

I should emphasise at this point that this is NOT an attack on the Green Party for having an election candidate who has since appeared on the BNP membership list, although it is reasonable to seek clarification from the Greens regarding their knowledge of this person’s politics in response to quires from voters in the area. Nor is the Socialist Party trying to dictate to the Green Party who or where they can stand. That is, of course, a decision that must be taken by the members of the Green Party themselves.

What the Socialist Party is seeking from the Green Party in Lewisham, and elsewhere in the country, is clarification on their relationship with the rest of the Left on the electoral field.
With the new mood of co-operation on the Left following recent setbacks in the quest for a new workers party and with the possibility of an general election in the summer it is vital that the strongest possible challenge is put up to all the establishment parties by socialist, trade unionists, community activists and environmentalists.

Hopefully this can be the beginning of a discussion between socialists and Green Party members on the best way forward to challenging the rule of profit, big business and environmental destruction.

Friday, 7 November 2008

Interview with Cindy Sheehan - Anti-war Mom Calls For New Party, Polls 17% Against Nancy Pelosi

From the CWI website. For me the 17% that Sheehan won is the bright spot of the election (better than Nader's 0.5% - but that still equated to half a million votes - and i was happy with 271 votes in Bangor). Obama has mobilised thousands but he remains a president for the Democratic Party, a pro-capitalist party and will only be forced to implement some of his most leftwing policies under the pressure of the movement he has intiated. A new party, like what Sheehan is calling for will help this along immensly (although the name First Party is a bit rubbish). It will be a good beginning and is well worth discussing.

Ty Moore, Socialist Alternative (CWI in USA)
“I will never concede defeat”, announced famed anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan after receiving an impressive 29,951 votes – 17 percent – in her insurgent bid for Congress. Sheehan took on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, architect of the Democratic Party’s betrayals following their 2006 takeover of Congress. The campaign faced a media blackout and Pelosi refused repeated calls to debate Sheehan. But supported by dedicated volunteers, Sheehan became just the 6th independent candidate in California history to overcome the restrictive ballot access laws, raised over $500,000, and mounted a serious campaign.
Sheehan came to national fame during her August 2005 protest outside Bush’s ranch, after her son Casey, a serving US soldier, was killed in Iraq. Hoping to end the war, Sheehan supported the Democratic Party in 2006, when they won a sweeping victory in the mid-term congressional elections on promises to end the war and reverse Bush’s corporate agenda.
But in the first months of 2007, the Democratic majority voted to expand funding for the Iraq War, and Sheehan made a decisive break from the party. In a speech launching her independent campaign against Pelosi, Sheehan explained: “An electorate disgusted with the policies of the Bush regime put the Democrats in the majority in Congress in November ‘06. We voted for change, however Congress, under the Speakership of Ms. Pelosi, has done nothing but protect the status quo of the corporate elite and, in fact, since she has been the Speaker the situation in the Middle East has grown far worse, with Congress’ help... That is not what we elected them to do!”
The interview
On a recent trip to San Francisco, I was able to meet up with Cindy Sheehan and her campaign manager, Tiffany Burns, in their downtown office. It was October 13th, three weeks before election day. We discussed their campaign, but I was especially interested in Sheehan’s recent declaration to launch a new party following November 4th.
“Ever since I left the Democratic Party, and even before, I was writing about how there is not much difference in the two-party system,” Sheehan explained to me. “I’ve seen a lot of energy around Ralph Nader’s campaign, around Cynthia McKinney’s campaign and certainly I see it in my campaign everyday. I see that all three of us basically stand for the same things. Even Ron Paul (a candidate for the Republican nomination who combined opposition to the Iraq war with a right wing, anti-worker programme) revolutionaries, who are anti-imperialist – some of them don’t really understand [Ron Paul’s] full programme… that certainly was a huge movement. Instead of having such disparate people trying for the same thing, why don’t we join our movements together to make an even bigger movement, to maybe have a viable third party.”
In a previous interview, Sheehan had reportedly already decided to name the new formation the “First Party.” My concern, I explained, was that simply declaring a new party, with a name and programme already picked out, could alienate other forces who would want to be part of the process. “I never said I would just form a third party,” Cindy responded. “I said I was going to use the energies of the movement to bring it together. My idea is to call it the First Party.” Cindy also explained, “Right now it’s just an idea. I’ve talked to McKinney about it. I’ve talked to people in the Nader campaign about it… After the elections, win or lose, I’m committed to bringing in all the voices.”
Campaign manager Tiffany Burns added that “we want to have a gathering and really create a space for people to come together and have a sense of what would the party look like, who would it represent, who wants to be a part of this, very soon after the elections, because we have to capitalize on the energy coming off of the elections.”
Is now the time?
There have been many failed attempts to build new left and working class parties, I pointed out. But big business’s two-party system in the US has proven more impervious to political challenges any other system in the modern capitalist world. What is different today?
“The independent movement is the fastest growing category in this country,” Sheehan explained. “Independents are the second most registered group in San Francisco... The abuses of the last eight years have awakened people who thought before that maybe there were two choices, at least an appearance of a choice. But they have seen the Democrats betray the country, the constitution, and their base over and over again. So I think that now is the time to strike with the ’First Party’ movement.”
I began to ask: “With the economic crisis and bailout, which Pelosi played an instrumental role in passing…” Cindy interrupted: “She didn’t just play an instrumental role, she jammed it down everybody’s throat. I mean she was the terminator of politicians at that time. She was like, ‘we are going to pass this mother f***er no matter what happens.’”
“The economic crisis is what is really motivating people, because it’s touching their lives, it’s not far away… [The new party] will of course be a party for the working class, and very pro-worker, pro-labor, pro-democratic structures. Not like the SEIU Andy Stern model. True organizing, true participation… There is not a true choice in the national picture – there is just the appearance of choice. It’s façade over substance. It’s imperialism, it’s capitalism, and it’s crumbling. No matter what they do to save it, it’s still crumbling. And I think people are going to start getting it.”
Movement building
Our conversation moved to a discussion about party building. Among the central mistakes of the Green Party, I argued, is their narrow focus on running candidates instead of devoting resources to initiating protests and community struggles. While plenty of individual Greens are active in antiwar groups, environmental campaigns, etc., the party itself rarely attempts to become an organizing center for non-electoral struggles, allowing Democratic Party-aligned groups to dominate most social movements unchallenged.
Sheehan seemed to agree. “A new party has to be diverse and it has to be a movement. It can’t just be people with registration cards walking around saying sign up for our party. It has to be something that the people will feel will actually help them. I think the Green Party is a wonderful conception, but it’s not about movement building – it’s about getting people elected. It’s not going to be a viable third party until it becomes a movement. And if people who are disaffected want to come and help us…”
“You know, we’ve had several people leave our campaign because they were only focused on getting elected, and that’s not what our campaign is about,” Sheehan finished. Burnsalso explained how they are taking “a completely different approach to a political campaign. But we’ve been really successful, which is frustrating to people who are in electoral politics, who have a cookie cutter method to getting elected, to running a campaign. We’re not just a campaign who shows up with leaflets to antiwar rallies, we’re organizing and leading them as part of our campaign tactics.”
“Our anti-war base left us”
After gaining national fame for her camp outside Bush’s Crawford, Texas ranch in 2005, Sheehan became a darling of mainstream anti-war groups and within liberal Democratic Party circles. She accepted a position on the Progressive Democrats of America advisory board. And as Burns explained, “Cindy has been approached many, many times about running. From the second she became a household name everybody thought, ‘Oh, she’d be a great Democratic candidate.’”
However, once she broke from the Democrats, “Everybody that supported Cindy before she decided to run totally turned their back on her. Our anti-war base left us when the groups that should have supported Cindy, and supported her before when she was fundraising for their groups or speaking the anti-war message without calling out the Democrats… every one of those groups totally abandoned her. There were lots of groups who just flat out said: ‘We wish you were running as a Democrat.’”
Imagine what would be possible if the social movement organizations – the unions, antiwar groups, civil rights and community organizations, the environmental movement, etc. – broke from the Democrats and dedicated their resources building a new party for working people. Tiffany made a similar observation: “And so we have been able to raise $500,000 in spite of not having access to the membership of those [anti-war] groups. We probably would have been able to raise exponentially more if we’d been able to reach those members.”
Opposing Obama
Both Sheehan and Burns had a lot to say about pressures to water down their campaign from fair-weather friends on the liberal left, most of whom abandoned Sheehan after she broke with the Democrats. “At every single event we’ve gone to since Cindy became the candidate, whether an antiwar protest or a community event, they all say, ‘Oh this can’t be a political event,’” Burns explained. “They want her because she is the peace mom, they want a name draw, but they won’t identify her as a candidate, they don’t want her to speak about why she’s running, who she’s running against, and that all has to do with not wanting to challenge Pelosi and the Democrats… You know, this is an intentional campaign that is about bringing down the two-party system and about bringing down the most powerful Democrat in Congress… If you don’t want us to say that, then we’re not going to be there.”
“The most political decision we have,” Burns said, is walking “this fine line of not alienating everyone who will vote for Obama but also support Cindy… Not in any way, shape, or form have we ever said anything supportive of either mainstream presidential candidate. Cynthia McKinney is the co-chair of our campaign, and we’ve done lots of work with Ralph Nader too… The first article [Cindy] wrote against Obama, we got so much criticism from people who thought they had a lot of political insight, who thought she was committing voter suicide. That was a year ago. But we said that Obama is just going to move to the political center, everybody knows that. The voters you think we’re alienating are smart too. They’re going to see that. And that’s exactly what’s happened. So a lot of those people who a year ago just thought Cindy was an asshole have come to agree with her.”
The campaign
I asked Tiffany about how the campaign itself was going: “We started with a very small, concentrated volunteer base. Now at times we’ll have like 40 people, but those 40 people are doing the work of 400 people. At times we’ll have 100 people come in over a weekend and do things. So it ebbs and flows… We have 60 dedicated phone bankers from across the country. We have a campaign staff of four people, and seven paid interns, and half a dozen volunteers who might as well be staff. And a normal weekend we’ll have 20-25 volunteers to help us table, do neighborhood walking. These people are much more dedicated than the average volunteer.”
“We just crossed the $500,000 mark last week. That’s phenomenal! That was from a list of 8,000 people that we started with. You know,” Tiffany said proudly, “I think there were expectations that we would only raise $50,000. We didn’t have any infrastructure or party backing.”
The Cindy Sheehan campaign signed another year’s lease for their downtown San Francisco office. They have already announced plans to challenge Pelosi again in 2010, but Sheehan hopes that by then a new party will be up and running, with candidates across the country running for Congress and other offices. Whether Sheehan’s project succeeds or not remains to be seen. There are many potential pit-falls. But the coming years will no doubt provide more opportunities than ever for the American working class to develop its own political voice.

Wednesday, 5 November 2008

Obama wins – neo-cons routed, New struggles lie ahead

From the CWI website

Tony Saunois (CWI)

The overwhelming victory for Barack Obama in the US Presidential elections and the major gains scored by the Democrats in the Senate and House of Representatives represent a turning point for the USA. At the time of writing it appears Obama has won over 52.3% of the popular vote and more than 62 million votes. The massive increase in turnout – which at the time of writing is estimated to have reached 64% - with the dramatic increase in registration and votes from Afro- Americans, Latinos and young people represent a crushing condemnation of Bush and the neo-cons as well as a generalised, if incoherent demand for ‘change’ amongst the mass of the US population.
In the run up to the election, opinion polls indicated that over 90% of the population thought that Bush was doing a “poor job” and 80% considered the country to be on the wrong track.
The backlash against the Bush regime and the effects of the economic crisis has produced a mass politicisation in the USA, reflected in this election. The huge Obama rallies during the election attended by tens of thousands, with over 250,000 turning out in the early hours of the morning for his victory rally in Chicago, indicate the massive polarisation and high expectations which have developed during the campaign.
While at the time of writing the final results are not yet tallied, it is clear that Obama has scored a massive victory amongst important sections of the population. Amongst young voters Obama was leading by 69% to 31% for McCain. Amongst new first-time voters, Obama won 69% to 30%. The only age group Obama was behind in was the over 60s.
Throughout the campaign, the question of race has been featured as an important issue which it is, especially in the USA due to its racist history. While racism still exists, Obama’s victory was possible because it cut across ethnic and racial divisions. Unsurprisingly, an estimated 95% of Afro-Americans voted for him. Amongst Latinos, 63% supported him. Amongst whites he won a minority 43%. This does not tell the entire story, as amongst working class whites the figures appear to be more evenly split.
McCain’s support was drawn overwhelmingly from small towns and rural areas while Obama won 71% of the vote in the big cities and 59% in the smaller cities and 50% in the suburbs.
In this election the decisive factor we saw was the massive class polarisation which has taken place in US society in recent years. Although the vote for Obama and the Democratic Party, which remains a capitalist party, is not a conscious class vote it does indicate the gulf which has opened up and the bitter hatred that has developed towards the rich – especially the bankers and financiers. The running sore of the Iraq war remains an important issue but as the economic crisis has unfolded it has taken precedence in the minds of people. Consequently in some polls 10% considered Iraq as the major issue. This represented an important change which has taken place during recent months. However, Iraq will remain an important question for people and for the Obama Presidency.
Throughout the election campaign, tens of thousands of people have been drawn into campaigning work for Obama. In the US and Europe, capitalist commentators have argued that campaigning activity and activists were a thing of the past. TV ads and the media were all that is needed for politics in the modern era they claimed. Both the capitalist Republican and Democrat parties have been election machines with few activists on the ground in the real sense. However, the mobilisation of tens of thousands into activity during this campaign illustrates how people can rapidly be drawn into active politics when they perceive a real struggle to defend their interests is at stake. It is striking how rapidly these layers were drawn into activity for Obama. While TV ads etc, were used by Obama, it is significant that mass meetings, workplace meetings, canvassing and the use of blogs and the web were a major feature of this campaign. This has important lessons for the US and other countries for the future when a new genuine left or workers’ party develops.
It is estimated that between 120 and 130 million will have voted in this election making it proportionally the highest turnout since women were given the vote in the US in1920. For hours people queued to cast their votes, in scenes reminiscent of the first post apartheid election in South Africa. For Afro-Americans, especially, Obama’s victory has been as significant as Evo Morales victory was for the indigenous peoples of Bolivia.

‘Socialism’ back on the agenda

Another important feature in the election and during the economic crisis has been that the question of ‘socialism’ has been put back into the political debate in the US for the first time in decades. Ironically this was done by the neo-con Republican right, including in the Congress. They first raised it when the bail out package was announced. Then Obama was accused of being a ‘socialist’ and even a ‘communist’ by the Republicans. Neither Obama nor the Democrats are socialists and they both defend capitalism. However, events and the Republican right, have inadvertently put the question of socialism back on the table for discussion. Unfortunately, there was not a strong left or working people’s party which could then capitalise on this. However, as capitalism continues to decline, it will re-introduce the issue for debate and discussion about the way forward in the coming months and years amongst workers and young people, as the effects of the crisis hit home.
Obama’s victory represents a further ideological defeat for the neo-cons and has aroused enormous enthusiasm not only in the USA but internationally. The people of Western Europe, and especially Asia, Africa, and Latin America in particular look to this victory with high hopes and expectations.
The crucial issue following Obama’s election victory is what polices his new administration will introduce? Will his programme and polices be able to satisfy the hopes and expectations which have been aroused amongst millions following his victory?

High expectations – will Obama deliver?

Obama will take power against the background of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s. It is already having a devastating effect on the lives of millions throughout the US. Internationally, US imperialism remains bogged down in two major wars – Iraq and Afghanistan.
The demand for change and reform could compel Obama to introduce some reforms for example in health care and assistance to those threatened with eviction from their homes following the financial meltdown. Those who voted for him will also demand that he takes steps to withdraw troops from Iraq. If he fails to do this, then the massive hope and expectations in him could rapidly evaporate. Yet, even the introduction of some temporary concessions will not be sufficient to resolve the devastating crisis which is unfolding. A genuine mass programme of public works, in the face of a deepening recession and mass unemployment, will be needed. There must be a struggle to demand no evictions from their homes of those who cannot afford mortgage repayments.
Bush rejected a bail-out to the motor industry. Thereby condemning thousands of workers and their families to suffer the misery of unemployment Rather than a bail- out for the directors of major companies threatened with bankruptcy, they should be nationalised with compensation paid to small share-holders on the basis of proven need and put under democratic workers’ control and management. These and other demands will need to be fought for by working people and those who voted for Obama, to fight the effects of the recession.
The deepening economic crisis of capitalism will not allow Obama to satisfy the demands and needs of those who voted for him. He is not coming to power at the same stage of the economic cycle as Franklin D Roosevelt did in the 1930s. Roosevelt assumed the presidency in 1933 and introduced the ‘New Deal’ just as the slump following the 1929 crash was at its lowest point and the economy then began to pull out of it. The ‘New Deal’ introduced some minimal measures which were utilised by the trade unions. Yet it was a question of “advertised reforms” and did not mean lasting significant gains for the mass of the working class.
Yet Obama is coming to power at the beginning of the onset of the recession.
Significantly, during his victory rally Obama appealed for all Americans- rich and poor, Republican and Democrat to stand together. Yet how is it possible to have ‘class unity’ between rich and poor just at the time the capitalists are trying to unload the burden of the crisis onto working people and their families. A ‘rainbow’ administration, including Republicans like Colin Powell is also being considered.
Moreover, in international policy Obama has made clear that the disastrous military intervention in Afghanistan will be stepped up with the threat of further incursions into Pakistan. Democratic Congressmen are also demanding that Britain step up its intervention into Afghanistan. This will not prevent the inevitable defeat of US forces in such catastrophic foreign interventions.
This election opens a new era of struggle in the USA. One that will pose the need to build a new political party that will fight to defend working people and challenge capitalism. One that will offer a real socialist alternative to capitalism.

Monday, 3 November 2008

“It’s the economy, stupid!”

My most recent column for Bangor Student Union's Newspaper - Seren. I was a little short of space for this months column so I had to be very brief on the issues concerned.

Those were Bill Clinton’s famous words about what the main issue was during the 1992 US Presidential elections. And in the wake of the freezing up of the banking system last month, the part and full nationalisations that have taken place, increasing rates of home repossessions and the rising tide of unemployment have made it the main issue in this years U.S. Elections.
Of course, in the early days it was all about change, as Barack Obama positioned himself as an alternative to both the continuations of the last two US Presidents in the Republican Party candidate John McCain (potential successor of George W Bush) and his rival for the Democratic Party nomination, Hillary Clinton (potential successor to the aforementioned Bill Clinton). Of course Bush was responsible for the Afghani and Iraqi invasions, but Clinton had previously been responsible for the sanctions against Iraq and other U.S. military actions too.
The selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate, as an apparent political ‘outsider’ (she still is the Governor of Alaska though!) was an attempt to undermine Obama’s theme of change which had actually mobilized a lot of younger voters to support him in the U.S.
But it is the economic crisis deepening that has swung Obama decisively into the lead. Thousands of families in the US face losing their homes as a result of the subprime crisis. Whatever anger about the Bush government’s policies that existed before (and unlike here the anti-Iraq war movement in the US was getting bigger not smaller), it has been massively multiplied by the economic crisis their ultra-neoliberal policies have driven the U.S. It is the height of irony that government’s who love the idea of the free market like those of Gordon Brown, George W Bush, Angela Merkel etc. have been forced to nationalize or part-nationalise so many companies to save the market they so cherish.
You may think that being a socialist I’d be on top of the moon at the moment with capitalism taking a battering, but unfortunately not. The truth is that what these governments want is to bail out these company’s bad debts, get them back into shape and then sell them back to the private sector. And its ordinary people that they are going to try and make pay for it with cuts to public services.
Capitalism goes through economic crises every so often like this, but the only way to make the situation better for the rest of us is to fight for it to be better. Although these companies have been nationalized, they are still gonna be run by similar people to those who wrecked them who won’t be as interested in the human cost of their decisions as opposed to the need for them to make these companies profitable again. And both McCain and Obama agree on this basic strategy, rather than what I would advocate which is placing them under the democratic control of the people who work at the company and the people who use their services.

Monday, 12 May 2008

Something's Missing?

I had to comment on this commentary by Rob Sewell of Socialist Appeal on the Uk local election results. It's not something I normally do, but it's quite misleading. The original article is here.

I wouldn't expect anything else of Socialist Appeal than to use the not too fantastic results of the left (particularly SWP/Left List) in the local elections to say there is no possibility of building anything outside of Labour. But you would thought they would tell the whole story.

The paragraph that offends me most is as follows

Another sect, the so-called Socialist Party, fielded about 15 candidates nationally in the local elections. They all sank without trace - except one. And this was the exception to the rule. This was Dave Nellist, the ex-Labour MP of Coventry SE, who retained his seat in St Michael’s ward with 1,643 votes. This was clearly a personal vote as the other two SP candidates managed to scrape a measly 142 votes (to come bottom of the poll of seven candidates) and 135 votes (to come bottom of the poll out of six). Other results included Alec Thraves in Castle ward, Swansea, who scored 172 votes, Pete Bradley in Nuneaton who polled 88, while in Stoke on Trent the SP candidate got 130 votes. In London, they fared no better, where they stood Chris Flood for the London Authority. He managed to come bottom of the poll (10th out of 10 candidates), with 1,587 votes (out of 146,841 votes caste) in Greenwich and Lewisham. This was even less than the votes cast for the fossilised sect of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, which polled 1,588 votes in Lambeth and Southwark!


The results picked are selective - (this is also the case with some of the SWP/Left List candidates who polled fairly well in a few areas outside London where they have been campaigning for several years) But it misses out the four best results after Dave Nellist - which are

18% (377) Pete Glover in Sefton
936 Ian Slattery in Huddersfield (standing for Save Huddersfield NHS)
12% (295) Lyne Worthington in Bagueley, Manchester
12.3% (352) Mick Griffiths in Wakefield

now, these aren't victories but they are better than the results reported by Socialist Appeal, and show that we are building bases of support in several areas around the country.

but also there is the question of why we stand in elections. according to Socialist Appeal we should be standing to win hundreds of seats by the sounds of it (okay maybe I am exaggerating a bit). we know we are only small and the task of building a much bigger organisation remains.

for us however, standing in elections is part of the process of building our support - most of the time we don't expect to win (although it's nice if we do), it's more about increasing our share of the vote, building support for socialist ideas and building the party.

Wednesday, 7 May 2008

Devastating Election Blow for New Labour

Taken from Socialist Party Wales website

Report by Dave Reid

This year’s local election results in Wales have delivered a devastating blow to Labour. Together with the results in England they represent a comprehensive rejection by working class people of everything that new Labour and the Brown government stands for.
Labour has been thrashed in its old heartlands. It has lost Blaenau Gwent, Merthyr and Torfaen councils and suffered serious losses in Caerphilly, areas in which Labour used to regularly win crushing majorities in good times and bad. Labour also lost Newport so now controls only Rhondda Cynon Taff, Neath Port Talbot and Bridgend.

Mortal blow to Brown and New Labour

But this is not the old Labour Party. A growing layer of working class people has realised that this is not their party anymore and have abandoned Labour as decisively as Blair and Brown abandoned their interests. Others cannot bring themselves to vote for the crew who has just put income tax up for the lowest paid workers in the country. They may return to vote Labour to keep the Tories out in the future but not with great conviction.
Labour’s projected share of the vote across Britain stands at just 24% the lowest for over 40 years and puts Labour 3rd behind the Liberal Democrats. Brown’s premiership has been dealt a mortal blow. He will attempt to cling onto power or face being dumped before the General Election, an even more ignominious fate than James Callaghan, who was one of the few Prime Ministers not to win a General Election.

Support for whoever could beat Labour - No enthusiasm for Tories

David Cameron has tried to ride the crest of the wave of his party’s gains. But there is no enthusiasm or illusions in any of the other parties in Wales and certainly not the Tories. This was a vote against Labour, not a vote for any of the other parties. In fact this election represented a further rejection of the Tory policies that New Labour has promoted. The Tories re-gained some seats in their old Welsh strongholds of Monmouth and Vale of Glamorgan, but have not broken through in most of Wales. They only gained control of Vale of Glamorgan council.
Voters supported whoever could beat Labour and in most areas that was not the Tories. Most old Labour voters stayed at home. In the valleys it was People’s Voice and Independent candidates as well as Plaid Cymru who broke Labour control. In Cardiff the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and Tories gained as Labour was pushed back to the 3rd party in the capital.
The Liberal Democrats benefited from the anti-Labour mood and held onto to their control of Cardiff and Swansea but there is no enthusiasm for their councils and they made few gains.
Plaid Cymru suffered serious losses as well as gains, losing control of Gwynedd, their only council. Significantly Plaid lost seats to Llais Gwynedd (Gwynedd’s Voice) which was formed primarily to stop school closures in the countyOverwhelmingly working people are sick of all the parties. All the opposition parties talk of change but they all implement similar policies when in power.Working people are craving a real change and the situation is crying out for genuine alternative to the stale diet of all the parties. People’s Voice’s and Llais Gwynedd gains show the potential for a new mass workers party.

A warning and an opportunity for socialists

The increased vote for the BNP is also a warning to the labour movement if it fails to provide an alternative to the pro-capitalist parties. However, despite a big press campaign against immigrants before the election, the BNP failed to make a major breakthrough in Wales. Only in Swansea did this racist party succeed in making gains in the number of votes.

The Socialist Party standing as Socialist Alternative achieved the best results of the left with creditable results in Cardiff and Swansea. However at this stage the support for our ideas is not reflected in votes. Working people realise that we need a bigger vehicle to deliver real change.
A serious discussion must begin in the Welsh trade union movement to look at the unions forming a new party through which the working class can fight to offer a real change form the policies of all the pro-capitalist parties.

Monday, 21 April 2008

Nepal: What now after Maoists’ election victory?

I don't usually do reposts, but the election victory of the Maoists in Nepal deserves particular attention, as I am not an expert on the sistuation I've reposted this report from the www.chinaworker.org. website.

The Maoists have won a spectacular victory in the Nepalese elections

Per-Åke Westerlund, CWI Sweden

In a shock for regional and global powers, the Prime Minister as well as ministers of Finance, Defence and the Interior, will now belong to the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) who received over a third of the votes. To rub in the humiliation, the US Embassy had predicted the Maoists would get 8-10 per cent of the vote. Workers and poor in Nepal, however, should not expect socialist policies from their new leaders.

By Sunday 20 April, the CPN-M had won 121 seats out of 226 so far counted for the new Constituent Assembly (CA). The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, the two parties that have dominated most governments since 1990, had 36 and 32 seats respectively. Royalist parties have no seats so far, while new parties representing the Terai population in the south, have more than 20 seats. The Maoists have secured a majority of the 240 directly elected seat. In total the CA will have 601 delegates, of which 335 are proportional and 26 allocated by the interim government. When the counting is finished, the Maoists are forecast to have about 33 per cent of the popular vote and more than a third of the seats. In their strongholds in western Nepal, Rolpa and Rokum, the Maoists as expected won all seats, but even in Kathmandu, the capital, they secured seven out of the 15 directly elected seats. More than 2,000 election observers were in place and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described the poll as ”orderly and peaceful”. The Maoist leader received congratulations from the ambassadors of India, Japan and other countries.

It is a remarkable sea-change when the CPN (M) leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal – known as ’Prachanda’ – is the most likely future president of a Nepali republic. Only a few years ago, the government issued a 5 million rupee reward for him, dead or alive. Even earlier, before the start of the ”People's War” in 1996, the party could ”hardly master a presence at its public meetings” (Deepak Thapa, ”A kingdom under siege”). It is also only three years since king Gyanendra in a coup, abolished government and parliament in an attempt to re-establish the absolute monarchy.
The Nepalese Congress Party and the Communist Party (Unified Marxist-Leninists) that have dominated governments since the 1990 people’s power revolt and up to now have been described as the ”main parties” are now in deep crisis. CPN-UML has already announced they are resigning from government.

Enthusiasm and hopes are widespread in Nepal as well as in neighbouring India, especially in the countryside. The Maoists are seen as fighters for land reform and known for cancelling poor families’ debts. At the same time, governments and capitalists are fearful for what kind of model the Maoists will follow.

More far-sighted analysts, however, stress that the Maoists are the ”new mainstream”, indicated by Prachanda’s conciliatory victory speech. He underlined the need for ”good neighbourly relations” with India and China. Secret meetings between the Maoists and US ambassador, Nancy Powell, have also been revealed. ”We are trying to establish close links with the US”, commented Maoist central committee member C P Gajurel.

”Nepal Maoist win rings false alarm bells abroad”, concluded news agency, Reuters, while ultra-capitalist The Economist stated ”there are grounds for enthusiasm”. This on the basis that the Maoists ”are above all nationalists, not leftists,” with economic policies that ”seem quite liberal”. On Monday 21 April, a business website reported, ”Nepal’s stock market has recovered as the reconciliatory rebels pledged to promote a pro-industry, capitalist economy”.

The war years

The Maoists launched their People's War in February 1996, but especially since 2001 their intention has been to reach a negotiated settlement. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) that year launched the ”Prachanda path” as an amendment of Maoism. One of its cornerstones was ”dialogue” with other parties and even the monarchy! By then, the Maoists had already established strongholds particularly in the west, but found it harder to find new fighters. The pressure for the fighting to end was strong. The Maoists and the government conducted several rounds of talks in 2001-03.

It was particularly the ’9/11’ events in the US that prolonged the war, with Western governments supporting the Nepalese ”war on terror”. The same year, in June, king Birendra and his whole family were killed in a massacre. He was replaced by his more confrontational brother, Gyanendra. In November 2001 the Royal Army entered the war. The army was expanded from 50,000 to 75,000 troops and received major support from the US, Britain, India and China.

It is often repeated that 13,000 were killed in the war 1996-2006, but 10,000 of these were after 2001, when the army launched its offensive. State forces killed four times as many as the Maoists. Many of the army’s victims were civilian supporters of the Maoists. Especially in the beginning of the war, the established parties, particularly Congress, were responsible for torture, arrests of journalists and the police campaigns.

The peak of the state’s armed offensive was the king’s coup in 2005. The coup was in response to a strong mass movement in April 2004, when more then ten people were killed in daily clashes in Kathmandu, but also as a reaction to previous governments’ failure to crush the Maoists. However, the king’s power was finished within a year by the ”April revolution” of 2006, a mass movement that surprised all parties, including the Maoists. In November the same year, the established parties and the Maoists agreed to a Seven-Party Alliance which established a coalition government and a temporary parliament.

Further turn to the right

The elections now is for a constituent assembly in which the Maoists will be the biggest party. The comments of Baburam Bhattarai, number two in the hierarchy of CPN(M), in an interview with Indian journalists indicate the Maoists are preparing for further shifts to the right.
First, Bhattarai plays down the historic significance of the Maoists’ election victory: ”I have observed how popular waves have swept parliamentary elections in India. In 1977, Indira Gandhi was defeated. Similarly, sympathy votes after her tragic death helped Rajiv Gandhi to sweep the 1985 parliamentary elections. I had seen such mass hysteria earlier.”

Baburam Bhattarai then stresses the Constituent Assembly will work under an Interim Constitution from 2007 that demands political ’consensus’. The Maoists stress they want a coalition government with all parties in the Assembly. This assembly, according to Bhattarai, will work for two years to draft a new constitution. Apart from deciding for a republic and asking the king to leave his palace, in one of its first sessions, the assembly will work slowly.

”I take it as a great responsibility because we have to restructure the 250-year-old feudal system. You cannot expect it to happen overnight. Secondly, while restructuring the state, we have to take into account different aspects such as poverty, illiteracy, health and others. We don’t have enough resources and skill to reorganise the country in the way we want to. It may take at least 10-15 years to do it”, Bhattarai stated.

This already shows a bureaucratic approach from the coming government. It is true that that the monarchy is 240 years old. But for a long time, 1846-1950, the king was just a figurehead and the country was ruled by a political dynasty, the Rana family. While the accumulation of contradictions and dissatisfaction can take a long time, it is rather the rapid events involving the masses that have changed Nepal. The struggles in the end of the 1940s and early 50s, than again in 1990 and 2006 achieved more than decades of ’gradualism’. Bhattarai wants patience while negotiating with corrupt party leaders in the assembly. ”What we need right now is political stability”, he says. While the masses don’t expect miracles, for any party calling itself socialist or communist, the question of democratic control from below is a key factor. Waiting ”at least 10-15 years” is not part of a successful revolutionary process in any country.

The state

This is particularly the case since the old economic and state powers are fundamentally intact. During their People's War campaign, the Maoists established a de facto separate state apparatus in areas under their control. Their armed forces ruled through ”people’s committees” and a number of front organisations, such as ”All Nepal Women’s Organisation” and liberation fronts for minorities. It this way, the Maoists were able to abolish feudal powers and rules; cooperatives and collective farms were introduced; a third of the Maoists fighters were female in a country with the biggest inequality between the sexes in South Asia; debts were abolished; workers’ received support in their struggle for higher wages; discriminated ethnic groups and castes were promoted. This attractive pro-poor policies could only be achieved through struggle against the ruling elite. Now, however, the Maoist leadership seem to believe they can cooperate with the economic and political elite.
Bhattarai speaks about a ”Truth and Reconciliation Commission” as well as ”integration of the security force”.

The latter is a long standing demand from the Maoists, of a merger between their 29,000-strong People’s Liberation Army and the former Royal Army with 100,000 troops. Previous statements from the Maoists against the need for a big army are now changed. ”The strength of the security forces after the two are combined would be roughly over 100,000. Going by the country’s population, such a number may appear necessary. But we have to reduce the size of the army in the long term. I think that instead of having such a huge number of army, we could go for trained militias who would defend the country at times of war. I think it would be useful to train such a force. We should mobilise them during emergencies”, Bhattarai says. A costly army of 100,000 in one of the poorest countries in the world – to be mobilised ”during emergencies”! Not a word about democratic control or what kind of ”emergencies”. The officers of the national army (the title ’Royal’ was abolished last year) have been trained in the war against the Maoists. In any capitalist country, the role of the army is to be the final defender of the capitalists’ power and a constant threat against movements from below. In South Africa, the real role of the ”Truth and Reconciliation Commission” was to secure the economic power of the previous oppressors while giving nothing to the poor masses. For the Maoists in Nepal, this seems to be an attempt to escape their ’terrorist’ label internationally.

Maoism

Nepal is a very poor country, ranked 158 out of 179 in GDP per capita, according to the World Bank. Its GDP per capita is only a fifth of China’s and less than half of India’s. The total state budget is only 1.2 billion US dollars, of which western aid accounts for 30 per cent. Hundreds of thousands of young people can’t find jobs, and 80 per cent still work in agriculture. One third of the population of 27-29 million live on less than one dollar a day.

This is what global capitalism has offered Nepal. The Maoists have never understood or advocated the need for a democratically planned economy. Essentially, Maoism is a variant of Stalinism. Stalinism, in turn, was a u-turn from Marxism and Bolshevism in order to preserve the power of Stalin and the bureaucracy that arose after the isolation and exhaustion of the Russian Revolution. Stalinism was marked by several key features: a) it is nationalistic, b) it believes in a ’two-stage’ revolution in which the first, democratic, stage is conducted in alliance with the ’national democratic’ capitalists. This stage always takes precedence over the supposedly later, socialist phase., c) it does not promote world revolution and d) its party and its vision of the state lacks democratic structures and real debate. In Nepal, the first communists, as well as the Nepal Congress, started with armed struggle in the late 1940s (they were labelled ’terrorists’ by the British colonial power). In 1959, the monarchy had to accept the election of a Congress government. But only 18 months later, the king established his dictatorship, ’panchayat’, that lasted until 1990. Initially, Moscow and leading Nepali communists supported the king’s coup against the Congress. This led to a split in their ranks and subsequently to a series of communist parties that looked to China as a model.

Traditionally, communist parties in Nepal have emphasised the demand for a constituent assembly and a republic, and opposition to India’s dominance and towards the monarchy. While many politicians in today’s Congress party were part of the panchayat system, the communists were totally opposed. To the state’s slogan of ”one nation, one language” in a country with more than 40 ethnic groups and many languages, the small communist parties counter-posed the demand for autonomy and rights for minorities.

Just before the movement that overthrew the panchayat system in 1990, there were three Maoist parties. Prachanda had become leader in one of them in 1989, while Baburam Bhattarai was in one of the others. However, they played no role in the movement and failed to make gains in the coming elections despite their criticism of Congress’ and CPN(UML)’s compromises with the king.
The new CPN(M) party in 1995 had a traditional Maoist-Stalinist programme. They wanted to achieve a ”new democratic state” and pointed at six groups in society as their allies. After the working class and poor peasants, they also wanted an alliance with ”rich peasants” and ”the national bourgeoisie”, the latter as opposed to the comprador bourgeoisie and the bureaucratic king. At that stage, they named the Congress leader Giriija Prisad Koirala a ”Nepali Hitler”. Ironically, since 2007, Koirala has been prime minister in a government with five Maoist ministers.

The CPN(M)’s 40-point charter from the start of its People’s War in 1996 included key democratic demands against discrimination and for improved living standards. How these could be implemented, however, was left open. Demands for nationalisation included only the ”comprador capitalists”.

The economy

The vagueness of the Maoists in the 1990s regarding economic and explicitly socialist demands has today been replaced with an open call for alliances with capitalists. Bhattarai wants to follow a Chinese capitalist model, but says the ”age-old feudal system” will limit the possibilities for ”rapid economic progress”. He does not hesitate on what road to take: ”Once we restructure the state and involve the private sector, it will be possible to achieve rapid economic growth. We would implement a transitional economic policy during such an interim period which involves public and private partnership. (...) So, we will follow the policy of attracting domestic and foreign investments. (...) From our side, we have to provide security to investors and create a conducive environment for domestic and foreign financiers.”

The Maoists do not advocate nationalisation or a planned economy: ”The state will play the role of facilitator. The state cannot intervene in business activities. It will encourage investors to raise productivity and generate employment opportunities.”

In words, this does not differentiate the Maoists from most governments. In order to attract foreign investments, Nepal will have to offer low wages and bribes to transnational companies. Experience, however, shows that improvements in the lives of ordinary people have been a result of struggle against local and global powers.

In a further astonishing statement, Bhattarai says, ”And I also think that we will be able to resolve the differences between labour and management.” He does not elaborate how this will a be achieved. The contradiction between the capitalist class and the working class is the main political contradiction in capitalist society. It is not a ”technical” issue between ”labour and management” that a government can solve, especially if the government does not clearly take the side of the working class.

Maoist government

Are the Maoists a completely different party? Are they only taking a ”tactical pause” before pushing ahead to abolish capitalism? Has Nepal been changed forever by these elections?

On the first question, the Maoists will for a long time claim to be different. The Constituent Assembly will decide on the republic which will symbolise a big change, and a victory for the Maoists. The CA might also pave the way for Prachanda as president. If other parties object, or as in the case of CPN (UML), maybe leave the government, the Maoists will no doubt threaten to use their traditional methods of mass protests. They will also be diffuse on whether at some stage they again can take up armed struggle.

The Maoists can for a while rest upon the hatred against the other parties. The movement in 1990, however, holds many lessons for the coming period. Congress and especially CPN (UML) had strong support for a period. But their neo-liberal policies increased the gap between rich and poor. ”It was as if the 1990 movement, which people expected so much of, had never happened”, Deepak Thapa writes in his book. Already in 1992, a People’s Movement Day was organised, with a bandh (general strike). More than ten people were killed in clashes with the police. 1990 to 2003 saw thirteen governments in Nepal, all of them extremely corrupt and incompetent. The trend of increased inequality has never been broken. In absolute numbers, there were more poor people in 1999 than in 1970. Today, the problems of infrastructure, agriculture, industry are more acute than ever.

In decisive fields, the Maoist leadership have proven they are not so different from other parties. They will try to use the coalition government and demands for consensus to say they can’t implement the policies they really stand for. But as shown above, their policies on the state and the economy are almost the same as other parties. Over the last weeks, police have several times clashed with Tibetan demonstrators. Most recently, Nepali police announced they will ’shoot to kill’ any protesters that try to climb Mount Everest, where the Olympic torch will be go on its global relay. The Maoists have sided with the state forces and criticised the Tibetan demonstrators. Despite their previous view that China is capitalist, they now repeat their admiration for Mao – and China.

The question of autonomy for ethnic groups will also be a litmus test for the Maoists. There were strikes for more than two weeks in February in the Terai area on the border with India. The Terai/Madhesi people, which account for half Nepal’s total population, have never had any influence on politics in Kathmandu. In this election, there were strong calls for a boycott, but the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum and Terai Madhes Loktantrik Party contested after receiving promises of autonomy. Whether a Maoist-led government will grant this remains to be seen. More likely is that the Terai will be the region where struggle and problems for the new government will occur first.
There are no signs of the Maoists just taking a ”tactical pause”. Even if Mao himself made deals with Chiang Kai-shek’s capitalist regime, he never gave up his armed forces or areas under his control. When Mao came to power in 1949, he soon found out that his power was incompatible with the remains of capitalism. Today, the Maoists in Nepal, on the contrary, seem to believe they can stay in power by not breaking with global capitalism.

Real Marxists, as opposed to Maoists and Stalinists, would follow the tradition of Lenin and the Russian Revolution. Tactical retreats and compromises should not be concealed, or presented as something else, they should be openly explained and discussed in the party and among the organised masses of the people. If the masses in Nepal believe the Maoists have full control and a secret tactic, and only ’appear’ capitalist to fool the enemy, this will only act to confuse and pacify them.
Pressure from the masses and the global economic downturn can put pressure on the Maoists to turn to the left again. It could also lead to splits among them, with rank and file forces demanding land reform and nationalisations. A big obstacle on this road, however, is the military i.e. bureaucratic tradition of decision-making within the Maoist movement. Real socialist forces of workers and youth will therefore be needed to challenge the new government.

Despite its relatively small population compared to its neighbours India and China, events in Nepal have an important influence in Asia, as an example of mass struggle overthrowing a brutal dictatorship. This is also the reason behind the interest in the elections from world powers. Basically, these elections results are like a roar sounding the hatred of the masses towards capitalism and the established powers, as well as the urgent need for revolutionary parties for workers and poor peasants fighting to abolish capitalism and establish socialism throughout South Asia. Nepal shows the potential for such forces.

Wednesday, 6 February 2008

Student elections: Not just a 'beauty contest'!

Here's a piece I worte for last weeks The Socialist. Not sure who it's of interest to, but I would like to get more studetn visitors and I think it's a decent article

Students can't go anywhere in February and March without being bombarded by people handing out leaflets, with 'Vote for Robbo' or 'Sharon for Pres' on their t-shirts, not to mention the odd person dressed as a furry animal.


Yes, it's student elections time. This is a time for student union people to crawl out of their hiding places and attempt to talk to students. Desperate for votes, they try everything from free sweets to outright harassment!

Nonetheless most students don't bother to vote at this stage. Why should they? Many candidates don't talk about the real issues such as tuition fees, rip-off accommodation and course cuts.

Instead manifestos typically consist of pledges to be fair and to listen. But in my experience they all say that and nothing changes.

For Socialist Students, elections are not only an opportunity to challenge for leadership of student unions. We contrast our ideas to those of the right wing and build support for our campaigns.

Our approach is different to that of the careerists who often run student unions. Our manifestos put forward demands that address the real needs of students, emphasising the fight for free education as well as important local issues.

The most important thing for us is to explain our ideas and put forward a strategy for building a student movement which can defend education from cuts and privatisation.

Elections can mean there is an increase in students thinking about how the student unions are run and, on the basis of our leaflets and posters explaining what we stand for, some students will campaign with Socialist Students. We can also put pressure on the union to campaign more when they see our support.

Canvassing halls of residence can be quite scary at first, but it gives you an opportunity to discuss issues with students where they feel comfortable. Holding a public meeting on your main campaign can be useful too.

Make sure the meeting is advertised on your election materials. Hustings or candidate question times are an opportunity to challenge other candidates' ideas.

Thursday, 20 September 2007

Huddersfield - Victory! Campaign saves nursery

I decided to publish this article from this weeks issue of the Socialist becuase, if you have being reading my blog you may remember i blogged about my involvement with this group and stuff (articles are scattered throughout but A Different Kind of Stall was the first and there were various other posts on the local elections which covered the campaign too).

LOCAL PARENTS, their children and staff at Tiddlywinks Nursery in Huddersfield are celebrating a victory in reversing Kirklees council's decision to close it down. Back in February, the Director of Children's Services announced her intention to close the workplace nursery without consulting or discussing with parents or staff.

Mike Forster
Given just three weeks to launch a counter-offensive before the recommendation was endorsed, campaigners had, within a week, held a meeting of 50 angry staff and parents pledged to fight the council and organised a lobby of the town hall.

Such was the campaigners' determination, a huge wave of opposition to these plans swept through Huddersfield with huge press coverage, thousands of signatures being collected and children, staff and parents besieging the Tory council boss in his own council chamber. This forced the council to concede a review of their decision with officers instructed to look more closely at their recommendation.

The campaign group knew they would need further massive pressure to force any concession. Two town centre demos were held. The media took up the story of women fighting hard to save their nurseries.

All these parents go out to work for a living and desperately need good quality, affordable nursery care for their kids. The council is in effect saying that they will have to settle for private sector provision if they want nursery places. Huddersfield people understood that this was another form of backdoor privatisation and clearly said, enough is enough.

One local parent, Mel Mills stood in May's elections as an independent candidate on the Save Our Services ticket to highlight the nursery's plight and to maintain the campaign's momentum. She secured over 5% of the vote in a hectic three-week campaign, beating the Green Party candidate!

Tiddlywinks Nursery is in Huddersfield's Ashbrow Ward where there is higher than average unemployment and poor housing. As Mel commented, working parents will not be able to go out to work if their local nursery is closed, thereby exacerbating already high levels of deprivation.

Predictably, the review produced nothing new. The council officers still insisted the nursery should close. The council leader had to present the review's findings to an angry crowd of around 100 parents, staff and children. He asked for a response within five weeks. The campaign then produced a forty-page rebuttal of every single argument of the council.

Parents had also demanded that the Scrutiny and Overview Committee examine in more detail the officers' recommendation. That meant yet more uncomfortable headlines for the council as parents, staff and the UNISON union tore into these proposals.

Clearly the council were looking for a way out. And intense lobbying of all the party bosses on the council, made them decide to back down. The Children's Services director still wants to see the nursery shut, but she was overruled by politicians who did not want to be labelled as the council that shuts working parents' nurseries.

Last week, the council leader called an emergency press conference to announce that Tiddlywinks was saved. The campaign is disappointed, however, that two other nurseries will still be shut, leaving only one workplace nursery for the whole town. A rearguard action is still being waged to at least try and save one more.

However this is a significant victory. A Tory council has been forced to back down by an intense and determined campaign, helped by Socialist Party members in Unison and by our local councillor, Jackie Grunsell, who was the main voice of opposition on the council.

Mel told the socialist: "I am absolutely delighted that our nursery is staying open. This will send a clear message to people in Ashbrow that we can save local services. It will help people understand our campaign. It makes it even more important that I stand again in the elections again next year because they won't stop here.

"They are already talking about school closures, but they will not ride roughshod over us. I am sad that two nurseries are set to close, but we haven't given up the ghost yet and I intend to see this through to the end."

Campaigners will attend this week's cabinet meeting to try and force another concession, but whatever happens, they can be proud of what they have achieved.

Wednesday, 9 May 2007

2007 Elections in Kirklees

Where do I start. Perhaps by taking the good point, the one good point, the BNP failed to gain any more seats, even in their stringhold of Heckmondwike, although their vote increased in some wards they didn't make any electoral breakthrough.
The great disappointment was not getting a second Save Huddersfield NHS councillor, Ian Slattery got a commendable 1,184 (18.64%) votes taking second place but Labour managed to retain their seat. In Ashbrow ward where Mel Mills was standing for the first time as an independent Save Our Services campaigner, she got a respectable 251 votes (5.67%). Not to forget them, Respect got a paltry 169 votes (3.36%), 9 votes less than the by-election they contested in 2006 in the same ward and 70 votes less than the 239 (4.16%) the same candidate got standing for Save Huddersfield NHS in the 2006 local elections (albeit in a different ward).
Labour despite being slaughtered nationally have managed to win back control of Kirklees council (after being led by the Tories last year and the Lib Dems the year before), part of the reason why this was acheived was Labour's opposition to the Liberal-Tory-Green cuts budget that was due to cut weekly bin collections, nurseries and other services (even though Labour's alternative budget was more cuts, just of different less emotive services), another reason was the party's succesful positioning itself as not being the Labour party, instead having 'Save Weekly Bin Collections' or 'The People's Choice' as the tag lines on their banners during the elections.
After speaking to several lecturers of mine who live in the Crosland Moor & Netherton ward, many appeared to have voted for Labour as a vote against the BNP, believing the vote recived by Ian was incredibly good and as a factor which may convince more people to back the campign in the future.
From my point of view, we did seem to have a lot of support in the run up to election day and it was disappointing to lose by so many votes in that ward, however, we have come out of the election campign much stronger. We've had much more active support during the campaign with various people living in the ward helping with the election campaign and several people interested in joining the Socialist Party. We've also seen the emergence of the nurseries camapign into a fledgling political party, contesting an election and receiving a decent vote. Given the short timescale they had, to leaflet the whole of Ashbrow for the election is a commendable achievement and the fact that the candidate is speaking at the Campaign for a New Workers Party conference this weekend is even more significant, a fighting left alternative in Kirklees has definitely had it's foundations set.
Although Labour have won the council on promises of stopping cuts, they as we have already noted will only make cuts in other areas, the party is wedded to Blair's neo-liberal project so thyinsg we found large opposition to such as building schools for the future programme of privatising education and building academies will continue as will other cuts. Only a new party of the working class in the immediate future can fight these cuts as all the main parties stand for these cuts.

Thursday, 26 April 2007

Local Elections - An Update

This week sees the Socialist devoting a whole page to the election campaigns in Huddersfield. Both campaigns are going well. In ashbrow, Mel Mills, the anti-cuts candidate campaign is going well and she has agreed to come to speak at the Campaign for A new Workers Party (CNWP) conference in a few weeks. In Crosland Moor & netherton the camapign is going even better, quite a few workers and youth from the local community have turned out to support the campaign, helping leaflet and canvass, with one young asian guy translating a leaflet and translating for us on the doorstep. In desperation the sitting labour councillor resorted to lying about how jackie has voted in the council, but almost no-one in the ward believes him, they're sick of the main three parties and want an alternative, an alternative the Save Huddersfield NHS candidate Ian Slattery is providing.
The weekend sees on friday a campaign to defeat stalls day of action across the country which we will be tacking part in, with follwoing saturday featuring an ISR day of action against the BNP tied in with an anti-cuts day of action and demonstration in the town centre, the signs are good of at least one more fighting working class councillor on the council prepared to stand up for ordinary people. More importantly whatever the outcome, the camapign for a new workers party here will go from an idea, to a reality after the election with camapigns coming together on this saturday to demand an alternative. As Mel says, "It's time for the working class to get up of it's knees and fight".

please note the link to the feature in the socialist may not work until friday 27/04/07

Tuesday, 13 March 2007

Local Elections

Yes, I know it's over a month away but the local election preparations have begun in Huddersfield, in fact they began a while back when we wrote the winter/spring leaflet of the NHS campaign (hopefully soon to be put on the socialist party website at the address below).
Anyway, today was spent leafletting, with the glossy leaflet we've produced (okay, it's not that glossy but we got it professionally printed), although at the weekend, the first canvass happened where we got a fair bit of support. This is as oppossed to the scam leaflet that has been put out around Crosland Moor & Netherton, where a doctored leaflet has been put out making the campaign seem communalist, and also, more humorously, spelling Dr. Jackie Grunsell wrong. We're not sure who has done this, but it means that this year the other parties are more likely to try and attack us than last. We've putting forward Ian Slattery, member of the campaign, president of the socialist student society at the uni and SP member as our candidate, who'll be standing against a Labour incumbent (whom many people around the ward have described as worse than useless) and the Liberal Democrat candidate who lost her seat last year, whilst fighting broke out between her supporters and those of last years Labour candidate.
After a few hours, we got on with going through the names of everyone who said they'd vote for us last year (the pledges) and started labelling envelopes ready for a pre-election letter to them. My hand is still hurting as a type right now, there was a hell of a lot of them (given we got over 2,000 votes last year you'd expect that). Our aim is to hold some public meetings where hopefully we can draw some of these people into the campaign and get them active. Either which way, we had a fairly productive day, and we're in with a shout of having the second Save Huddersfield NHS councillor elected in Huddersfield, a massive step forward for workers in the area (especially given the support we've given various campaigns as well as the NHS, such as the nurseries, Unique Care and the emergent anti-academies campaign).

For more info about the 2006 council election victory follow this link
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/elections/ElectionCampaignHuddersfield.htm

Monday, 19 February 2007

Beating the BNP

Last week I indavertently ended up in a SWP public meeting/forum. They had the usual discussionn etc. (which i may comment upon at some point), but what interested me was a little discussion they had at the end about the BNP standing in a local by-election in Calderdale. The BNP won a by-election in the Illingworth & Mixenden ward in 2003, and since then now have two councillors in calderdale (down from 3 at one point). The by-election is interestingly enough in the Illingworth & Mixenden ward, where a sitting Labour councillor has died. Thus the SWP are mobilising against the BNP in this election.
But what are the SWP in Huddersfield & Calderdale doing to stop the BNP, they're out leafletting to get people to not vote BNP. And who are these voters supposed to vote for instead, the Tories, Liberals or Labour, all of whom support the cuts that are allowing the BNP to gain support? What is needed is a new worker's party that can oppose these cuts and help lead the fight against them, the SWP claim RESPECT is this, but they are not standing a candidate or even putting out propaganda for people to join RESPECT (this is to the best of my knowledge). From what I've seen, the SWP seem to have a policy that says that Labour is reclaimable, as can be seen by their failure to call fro the trade unions to disaffiliate from a Labour party that is attacking them and call for a new party (or even join RESPECT). Their approach is best summed up as a stages approach, first we stop the BNP getting elected, and then we do something to support the struggles of working people.
Unfortunately, the SP in Halifax do not have a large amount of members and when discussing whether we could put out propaganda for the formation of a new workers party (and asking people to join the CNWP) we found that due to our conference being this weekend we didn't have enough comrades left to do so (this would have been in addition to the stall we'd already arranged in Huddersfield). It is something we want to do, given the resources and the mobility to do so.
Where we stood last year in Huddersfield we did cut across the BNP vote significantly (their support was minimal in the ward we stood in), and Dr Jackie Grunsell has shown herself as a class fighter, supporting the Unique Care strike, the campaign against Academies, and against nurseries closures and other issues in Kirklees. Hopefully we can build upon this work, and stop the BNP reclaiming the area that was once the 'jewek in their crown'.