Why would membership of the SPGB be refused

[LBird]

ALB, thanks for your reply.I'll have to find out more about the constitution/structure/atmosphere of the party. The rules, bodies and received ideas of the elected members about their powers, duties and moral responsibilities, are all relevant, so perhaps it won't be as easy as just looking at published material.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

It's clear to outsiders, I think, that 'SPGB democracy' has been tarnished, by all the accounts of its methods on this thread, now including yours. Put simply, shouldn't the EC be composed from the widest range of branches, rather than one or a few, even if the members from the few branches disagree between themselves on an individual basis (as you say so do)?

You make it clear that you know little about SPGB democracy.  You could improve your knowledge by referring to the party's rulebook, of which, here, is the relevant extract from Rule 12 concerning the election of the Executive Committee:

relevant extract from Rule 12 wrote:

The Executive Committee shall consist of ten members, elected annually by vote of the Party. Nominations shall be made by the Branches.

It can be seen, therefore, that the onus is upon branches to make the nominations but for the membership to make their selection from those nominated.  It's difficult to see how this process could be made more democratic; perhaps you could offer suggestions?http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/party-rules-amended-conference-2009

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

LBird wrote:

It's clear to outsiders, I think, that 'SPGB democracy' has been tarnished, by all the accounts of its methods on this thread, now including yours. Put simply, shouldn't the EC be composed from the widest range of branches, rather than one or a few, even if the members from the few branches disagree between themselves on an individual basis (as you say so do)?

You make it clear that you know little about SPGB democracy.  You could improve your knowledge by referring to the party's rulebook, of which, here, is the relevant extract from Rule 12 concerning the election of the Executive Committee:

relevant extract from Rule 12 wrote:

The Executive Committee shall consist of ten members, elected annually by vote of the Party. Nominations shall be made by the Branches.

It can be seen, therefore, that the onus is upon branches to make the nominations but for the membership to make their selection from those nominated.  It's difficult to see how this process could be made more democratic; perhaps you could offer suggestions?http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/party-rules-amended-conference-2009

[my bold]Wow! So, theoretically, all ten members could come from the same branch?Curiouser and curiouser. Clearly, I know little about SPGB 'democracy'.But, you seem happy…

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Wow! So, theoretically, all ten members could come from the same branch?

And so what if they did?  Our branches are not street gangs or drug cartels engaged in turf wars with each other.   Sheesh…

[SocialistPunk]

LBird wrote:

Wow! So, theoretically, all ten members could come from the same branch?Curiouser and curiouser. Clearly, I know little about SPGB 'democracy'.But, you seem happy…

Well LBird, it would seem most party members here are quite happy with the way this looks. To us, it looks decisively anti democratic, for an EC decision pushed forward by an EC member with a conflict of interest, backed up by Branch colleagues that happened to be a majority on the EC that day.I find it hard to believe that the rule book contains no guards against potential conflicted decisions such as this. Even the pseudo democracy we live in at present has rules regarding conflict of interests for MPs. Yet the SPGB does not have any such safeguards. Perhaps all SPGB members are flawless, ha ha. I don't know if Ed acted the way he did because of his past run in with Vin, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and put it down to naivety, not realising how it looks for a political party that claims to be the most democratic in British politics, to subvert the spirit of democracy, for little more than an issue of personal distrust. I mean, who gets to decide who is to be trusted. Glass houses and stones spring to mind.  

Ed wrote:

Vin this is not a punishment. I believe that due to your past behaviour you pose a risk to the party if you were to be admitted as a member. This is a preventative measure. It is my opinion that the risk of you repeating your past behaviour is one that the party would be stupid to take

For me this has now gone way beyond personalities and is about the appearance of democracy in the SPGB. The party needs to be squeaky clean when it comes to democracy if it wants to avoid any future skeletons being unearthed by political enemies. Get it sorted out now while the opportunity presents itself, or regret it in the future. It's that simple.By the way, Ed kept on about Vin accusing the SPGB of being homophobic. I think I've found the thread that he gets this idea from. I could be mistaken in thinking the below link is the source of Eds confusion, but in the absence of any explanation from Ed, I ask everyone to judge for themselves if VIn is accusing the SPGB of homophobia?http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/reason-party-so-small

[Young Master Smeet]

1) the EC is not a representative body, nor a delegative one; it's irrelevent which branches EC members come from.  They're responsibility is to the EC and to the membership as a whole (who have the option to reject EC candidates even when the number of nominations is equal or fewer than the number of posts being annually elected).2) The EC does, IIRC have a requirement to declare an interest; but I don't see one here.  The question at hand was not the dispute between the two men, but the suitability of a candidate for party membership.  Ed has provided reasons that are valid within the rules for the way he voted.3) I expect branches may well start sticking their oar in between now and the next EC meeting.Remember, kids, democracy is a messy business.

[Anonymous]

SocialistPunk wrote:

By the way, Ed kept on about Vin accusing the SPGB of being homophobic. I think I've found the thread that he gets this idea from. I could be mistaken in thinking the below link is the source of Eds confusion, but in the absence of any explanation from Ed, I ask everyone to judge for themselves if VIn is accusing the SPGB of homophobia?

Since you're determined to push this regardless of the consequences and in the absence of confirmation from anyone else, the accusations, now apparently deleted, were made on a social networking site.  I saw them for myself as did others.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Well LBird, it would seem most party members here are quite happy with the way this looks. To us, it looks decisively anti democratic, for an EC decision pushed forward by an EC member with a conflict of interest, backed up by Branch colleagues that happened to be a majority on the EC that day.

[my initial bold]Yeah, SP, democracy is more than voting.I suppose my problem is the way that EC members regard their role, as it appears on this thread.I would think that, in a democratic party, the role of the 10 EC members is to try make decisions based upon their understanding of the party's wishes, rather than their own individual wishes. This would involve consultation, wherever possible.So, each EC member could be interrogated by any party member as to why the EC member voted as they did, and the EC member would have to account for their vote in terms of what they thought that the membership wanted (rather than in terms of their personal opinions/predilections/biases).If the EC member gave an answer to the legitimate demand from any party member for an account of the EC member's vote that was couched in 'individual opinion', I would expect party mechanisms to grind into gear to remove that EC member.Surely the duties of the EC towards the wider party are defined, explained and followed by the EC membership?

[Young Master Smeet]

Sigh.

Quote:

Rule 17. The Executive Committee shall publish and control the Party literature. Election Statements and Election Manifestos must be approved by the Executive Committee before printing excepting handbills and leaflets. They shall establish a literature agency, from which all Branches shall be supplied, establish and maintain communications with Socialist Parties abroad and otherwise generally administer the work of the Party in accordance with Party polls, Party rules and Conference decisions, and to this end may appoint sub-committees. Names shall be called for, subject to the Executive Committee being authorised to appoint members directly to these sub- Committees if no nominations are received.

Where no further instruction is available, the Object and the disciplinary rules apply (i.e. EC members should not act in a manner detrimental to the interests of the party and the furtherance of its Object).  Rule 1 calls for the EC to ratify new members' applications: if they deem such ratification to be detrimental to the party's intrests they have an obligation to vote against ratification.  If members and branches object to any decision made, they have the right to call the EC to account over it through a number of channels (EC members are under no obligation to consult a priori over the colour of Head Office furniture or other sundry decisions, it's up to the membership to call out a decision and say they think it important and worthy of wider attention).

[SocialistPunk]

Again LBird, it seems our view of democracy being more than simply the majority vote, is seen to be strange by party members. You make some good points regarding scrutiny and accountability. They seem unable to grasp the conflict of interest of a member involved in online fisticuffs with another member having a pro active (as in tabling a motion about the other party) role in disallowing membership.Rule book procedure may not have been breached, but the spirit of democracy has been tarnished. I guess I was asking too much to think SPGB members would see a problem regarding a democratic loophole within their own sacred halls. Shame really, as every opportunity, when encountered, should be taken to make democracy not only work smoothly but appear to work. It's a case of learning from mistakes and improving, a keystone of scientific thinking, I would have thought. Unless of course the SPGB is perfect?As to my insistence in bringing back the issues (as Gnome so cleverly points out), I could be mistaken but I was not the one who rekindled the issues. Perhaps proving his inability to remain impartial. But I do believe that thread I posted a link to is where the discussion of party member homophobia originated from and is still there for all to see and judge for themselves.  

[SocialistPunk]

You still don't get it do you YMS. Hiding behind the rule book does not make the situ look any better. Institutions so often have an inability to see themselves as others do.I am no enemy of the SPGB, but I can recognise problems when I see them. I'll ask again, is the party perfect?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Yeah, SP, democracy is more than voting.I suppose my problem is the way that EC members regard their role, as it appears on this thread.

For the record, only two current EC Members have expressed any views on this thread. Most EC Members are not regular followers of discussions on this forum. Some are not even forum members.Anyway, some more extracts from the Rulebook:

Quote:

12. The Executive Committee shall consist of ten members, elected annually by vote of the Party. Nominations shall be made by the Branches. Vacancies on the Executive Committee shall be filled only by seeking further nominations. If the number of nominations exceeds the number of vacancies, a ballot shall be held. Vacancies occurring after 1st October shall not be filled.13. The Executive Committee shall meet at least once a month. Five members shall be a quorum. Any member shall lapse from the EC if absent from two out of three consecutive meetings unless granted leave of absence by the EC for Party business, holidays, sickness or other reasons acceptable to the EC.14. The Executive Committee shall send a report of each meeting to the Branches, such reports to contain the names of the EC members and how they vote on matters of policy and principle. They shall report to the Delegate Meetings and Annual Conference, including the activities of all their Officers and sub-Committees.15. The Executive Committee shall submit a Financial Statement to the Branches each half-year. They shall submit to the Branches a report of the year's work and a Balance Sheet, signed by the Auditors, at least one month prior to the Annual Conference. They shall also bank all Party funds not required for immediate use in a current or deposit account, arranging all matters relating thereto with the Secretary, Treasurer and Trustees. In the event of financial urgency the EC shall submit a full financial statement to the Branches and call a Special Conference which shall have all powers to decide any necessary action thereon. The Executive Committee shall make all arrangements for the Delegate Meetings and Conferences, give effect to the resolutions of the Conference and those adopted by Party Poll or referendum.16. The members of the EC shall not be eligible to act as chair to the Delegate Meetings or Conferences, nor shall any member act as chair who has been on the EC whose work is under review. Such members shall have the right to speak thereat.

Note in particular Rule 14 which provides for recording how EC Members voted on an issue. Such a recorded "division" can be requested by a single EC Member. Note also that the EC Minutes are published for anyone to see, including non-members. Non-members can even call EC Members to account (while claiming that our rulebook and practice are only 'democratic' in inverted commas !).We can have an interesting discussion on the role of an EC Member, but it is certainly not to be a leader or a policy-maker, essentially only an administrator of routine month-to-month house-keeping matters and to implement decisions made by Conference or branch delegates or a referendum of all the members. Ideally, in my view at least, the EC should be a representative cross-section of the party membership. They could even be chosen by lot.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

…the spirit of democracy…

Ahhh, yes, 'spirit', that ill-defined 'atmosphere' between comrades that always seems to be sadly lacking in all the 'materialist parties' of 'Scientific Socialism'.I presume that many members, given our discussion about science and the need for its democratic control, will take the 'materialist' line that 'rulebooks' are hard and touchable, unlike our 'idealistic' mutterings about 'spirit'! If the 'objective rules' are blindly followed, then that is 'democracy'.Shall we form an online 'Geist faction', SP?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

We can have an interesting discussion on the role of an EC Member, but it is certainly not to be a leader or a policy-maker, essentially only an administrator of routine month-to-month house-keeping matters and to implement decisions made by Conference of branch delegates or a referendum of all the members. Ideally, in my view at least, the EC should be a representative cross-section of the party membership. They could even by chosen by lot.

Thanks again for the information, ALB.And your comments are certainly to my democratic tastes. Athenian sortition!

[SocialistPunk]

Hi Adam,I note with interest the following.

ALB wrote:

 Ideally, in my view at least, the EC should be a representative cross-section of the party membership. They could even by chosen by lot.

Does that mean you would be in favour of a limit as to how many EC members are from any single party Branch? The event that we are discussing here is, I imagine quite a rare situ. But no matter how it is defended it still looks problematic that a conflicted decision was passed by an EC with a majority from a single Branch that the conflict involves.I note you use the word ideally, and there in lies the crux of the matter, in not enough members being available to perhaps put a limit of two members per Branch at any one time. With a larger membership it could be done, but at present it would be difficult and may end up hampering the EC. 

[Author]

Posts