"There is no other choice" means so much more

 

I suppose this article is a sequel to this article, but it can be read as a standalone piece too. 

The dust has now settled on the events of the last couple of weeks at the top of Your Party we saw a public separation between Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana and we also so there reconcile in public as well. Though when I say reconcile, I would say it was more akin when siblings mid argument are made to apologise by their parents, nothing was resolved and one person got their way despite peace being declared.

It was left solely to Zarah Sultana to hold out the olive branch, in fact all reports suggest that Corbyn's camp was unwilling to talk. It begs the question why did this situation arise in the first place?

In my previous article I mentioned how Your Party could not have been launched with the support Corbyn gained over his time as Labour leader, whilst this is true, had he launched a party with the Independent alliance MP's and not Sultana, would it have had the immediately popularity it did? Absolutely not, in reality both figures needed each other to drive the initial call. Without each other the call would have been hollow. 

The understanding that neither could launch without the other is key to understanding what took place next, it also justifies the drive by Sultana to open up the membership with speed. What she did next though was of course a huge tactical blunder! Despite attempts a peace talks, when the membership was eventually rolled out for the second time, it was done in such a farcical manner, no mention at first of those who joined the first time round like myself. Then a ban on members of a political party, then changed to members of a national political party, both wrong moves, both without a mandate and both without any clear definition.

I still have no real idea of my membership status, I think I am a member, but am I? and even if all the data is transferred offered? When does this exclude me from anything between now and then? The details are non existent.

Then we come to the details of the parties formation, firstly four policy documents should be produced and circulated. To members, am I one? or to everyone who signed up? At the time of writing with only a few hours left in September I haven't received them. These documents will be discussed and regional assemblies, where amendments can be proposed and they will go to conference.

Under normal circumstances a conference would be the place to debate out policy in a democratic manner, don't get me wrong, there are different types of conference, some more democratic than another. But the proposal for this conference is far from democratic, there is very little anyone could say to argue that it is. 

There will be 13,000 delegate spread across two days, meaning each delegate gets to attend one day, Whilst the agenda has not yet been announced, You can assume accounting for breaks the conference is likely to run for a maximum of seven hours per day. Being extremely generous and assuming there is no speeches from the platform, no conference organising announcements, no votes to count etc. This would give each delegate 4.2 seconds each to speak. A conference of that size over that time space would always be a farcical event, a rubber stamp exercise with no intention of discussing the details, no minor details, but every important details of how the party will live and breath.

That's before we even begin to talk of the method of election for conference. Sortition is a sham! It has the veneer of being a quirky and democratic process akin to jury service selection, it is however nothing of the sort. If you were to take a random 13,000 people from 800,000 though adjusting for geography, gender, ethnicity and age what do you loose? You loose all of the collective discussions from the proto branches of Your Party, indeed its statistically possible for not a single person who has been involved in the proto-branches to be elected a delegate this way, rendering everything done so far meaningless. It means those connected to grassroots struggle, in community campaigns, in trade unions, environmental campaign's and those organising against genocide, are less likely to be delegates. It means branches cannot collectively agree on delegates who best represent their views. It means democracy is a word and not an aspiration.

It shows the real intention at the top, from Corbyn's side along with the Independent Alliance, the intention is not a member led democratic party and the conference, framed as democratic is there to rubber stamp what is presented.

Various groupings have arisen in some form or another to demand democracy is brought to the fore, the overwhelming majority of these are genuine, a real coming together of these forces is essential going forward, but are all calls for democracy genuine?

No, is the answer to that. In Wales for example, the unofficial leadership have positioned themselves as the bringers of democracy, they place demands on the UK leadership that everyone wants, to release the membership data, and general calls for a member led democratic party, but these calls are hollow because behind the words there is no action.

What role have the unofficial Welsh leadership of Your Party actually played when you strip back the nice words spoken? Took me awhile to think what to write for this section, I felt though the need to expand beyond 'nothing' They have organised an All Wales meeting for the 25th October, the details announced are vague though, its not a conference, but its more than a rally is what we have been told. The reality though, is this is one of the regional assemblies that have been organised, so the reality is, the meeting they organised, what agreed at UK level and they have simply carried out the bare minimum of democracy possible. With again very little information of how it will be formatted, discussing the four documents produced would be thoroughly insufficient, it also needs to deal with the organisational structure for a nation.

Though beyond what has been announced from the unofficial Welsh leadership, more importantly is what they have not done, there is no prospect, certainly from anything I have heard, of electing a leadership, even a temporary one which should be favoured until we have build up official structures, yet without any democratic accountability, they demand all membership data and resources are handed over to them? They may walk the walk, but they show no evidence of being able to talk at all.

Its clear from my interactions in person and online, that whilst there is a general theme, we have all joined Your Party for different reasons, we are not going to get everything we want, but without democracy we will get nothing, so we must demand, demand and demand again.

We should also be sceptical, sceptical of those who say nothing, or those who come forth with hollow words of democracy, but their are no democratic actions to follow.

Despite all of this, which is less than delightful, Zarah Sultana was absolutely right, there is no other choice, the rise of reform, 150,000 far right marchers on the streets, rising austerity and an ongoing genocide means there simply is no choice, we have to build a radical socialist fightback, but that can't happen without a democratic party build from the ground up.

We have no other choice but to organise within Your Party and fight against the erosion of democracy it has even begun, demanded and every stage democratic participation and all those committed to building a genuine democratic party need to work together and confront any barriers that exist to this at every level. There is no other choice.