BY
LALITHA CHELLIAH
I have followed the Socialist Alliance unity debate. As a member of the Socialist Alliance — but not a member of either the Democratic Socialist Party (DSP) or the International Socialist Organisation (ISO) — it has been interesting to observe the reflections made in the presentations so far.
One of the key elements of this debate is, without it being stated explicitly, the urgent need for the left to react to the international and national onslaught by the right wing. This onslaught ranges from the threat of war against Iraq to refugee issues in Australia.
This urgency seems to be reflected in the DSP's desire to dissolve into the Socialist Alliance. This view may be truly justified when viewed from international and national political perspectives. At the same time, the ISO has tried to justify its views and concerns.
As an independent, this debate raises a number of questions for me. Firstly, the unity process for me was a dream come true. As a person who believes that the majority of people do oppose the actions of international and national politicians who act against basic human values, I wanted a force that can and will act against such actions. Hence, I joined the Socialist Alliance.
I still observe elements of the numbers game in the debate. Is the thinking then aligned with the same parliamentary games played out in the capitalist arena by the ALP and the Liberals? Is this necessary? Maybe it is idealistic to expect two groups, who wish to unite, to do so without suspicion of each other.
Is this suspicion about what has not been expressed thus far in the debate? So far, the differences have been outlined clearly, yet the similarities have not been spelt out. Maybe it's time to take stock of the points of agreement and compare them against the list of disagreements.
It's my view, having read the ISO's views, that they may feel that the list of agreed points are not sufficient to go ahead with the fusion.
Timing
The international and national political situation demands urgent action from the left to present itself as a credible force. The political gains of the Greens are not an accident. These gains at the expense of ALP demonstrate that people are tired of the tweedledum, tweedledee syndrome and wish to move ahead. The Greens are buoyant from their gains while the left is still struggling to work out its differences.There is international political unrest, reflected by the mobilisations against the World Trade Organisation and the war against Iraq. The left has the opportunity to place its agenda in the political arena. This means that addressing the needs of the political situation must come before its internal squabbling.
It is true that, as David Glanz states (GLW #516), that the Socialist Alliance can mobilise and act as a force in the form that it has done so far. Where does that leave the independents who wish to be active? While organisations within Socialist Alliance caucus, form their views and present them at alliance meetings, the independents can only present theirs as individuals.
This is a formula for alienation. The feeling that organisations continue to function in this way is a threat to the functioning and the ongoing building of Socialist Alliance. The independents obviously have not joined the ISO or the DSP for their own particular reasons, but are willing to join the alliance. This is the issue that needs to be explored.
If the strategy of the two organisations is to form a mass party on the basis of socialist principles, then the timing is more than perfect. Should this be delayed or hindered by their differences, instead of going ahead on the basis of their common ground?
It is always easy to find differences. But a principled political person moves ahead in times like these to forge unity and keeps their eyes on the common enemy. This view is demonstrated by the attraction of the alliance to broader forces, including in the trade unions. While the DSP and ISO have the ability to discuss as groups and present their views to the trade unions, other independents are waiting to be able to discuss their views in the Socialist Alliance.
Bolsheviks
The common agreement amongst the two main organisations, and the smaller groups and independents, within the Socialist Alliance is that it is anti-capitalist. Tactics and strategies have to flow from this agreement. The alliance's views have to be discussed and decided upon by the whole membership, not just by small caucuses that wish to exert their views on others. The point here is that the Socialist Alliance has to debate as a whole all its views in its meetings, otherwise the independents become disenfranchised. The alliance must be inclusive not exclusive.Views on issues have to be based on the historical gains of the left and applied to the current situation. No view should be a blanket one or inflexible, as long as the flexibility remains within the principled position that the Socialist Alliance is anti-capitalist. It is difficult to go wrong on this basis.
It also does not mean that a transitional strategy should be ignored. This was demonstrated by the Cunningham by-election in Wollongong, where many voters were happy with the Greens but not quite ready to vote for the SA. This means that there are issues on which we can form a united front with the Greens, and this has happened in the past.
What do Bolsheviks do in the current situation? The Socialist Alliance is the arena to discuss this. Further clarifications will occur as we act as an united force. Political unity comes from acting and discussing, not just discussing. This does not mean that the Socialist Alliance is not acting, but I think we are hampered by the different organisations struggling to build their own groups as well as the alliance.
Among the alliance's constituent parties, there are, no doubt, fears about dissolving the organisations which their members have strived to build over many years. It is a difficult ask, but a necessary one given the political situation.
The ISO and the DSP have survived for several decades as small groups that tend to be dominated by young people. The working class is changing. In the near future, a larger proportion of workers will be older and have family responsibilities. Strategies have to be designed to orient to this.
Unfortunately, the Socialist Alliance is not yet ready to worry about such issues as long as the internal debate continues. How long are we to wait before the alliance is allowed to operate as a legitimate, fully functioning party? Should there be a time limit set, and the two organisations work towards it, or should the discussion continue without limit?
As an independent, I have reservations about such an open-ended approach as it belittles the political urgency of the situation we face.
I look forward to working within a Socialist Alliance that is an anti-capitalist political party made up of many groups and individuals.
[Lalitha Chelliah is a Socialist Alliance member in Victoria.]
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, December 4, 2002.
Visit the Ìý