What are they and how should they operate?

Dave Gardner

Political Parties use social action to achieve political objectives.

In order to defend collective interests within the state, one needs an organisation that has the potential to form a government. This basically is what a political party exists to do – to form a government of the country that pays attention to the interests of the group that forms and controls that party. A party of the working class should govern in the interests of all the society but pay particular attention to the broad and long-term interests of the working class. Since the working class by far constitutes the majority of the population in a country like Britain this is not government by a sectional interest but government on behalf of the mass of the population. If such a party comes to power through the popular vote then it is reasonable to claim that it expresses the will of the majority of the people. 

It is well known that many parties represent the interests of other classes, such as small businesses, monopolies and the financial sector of the economy. Since these groups are not especially numerous they will need to represent their interests as coinciding with the majority of the population i.e. the working class. The less the working class sees itself as a class with common interests the easier it will be to emphasise rivalry within it and to detach sections of the working class to find common cause with other interests. In Britain, this strategy has been highly effective in preventing the working class from exercising governmental power, let alone control of the state. This should not however prevent a working class  party whose interests are partly shared by other groups such as some kinds of small business and farmers from forming a common cause on matters that concern both.

The origins of the British political parties stem from élite rivalries and interests

It is difficult to understand British politics without appreciating that the country has a basically two-party system with deep historical roots that go back to a time long before democracy existed in Britain, in fact to a time before 1832 when something like 2.7% of the adult population (around 10% of adult males) were entitled to vote. British political parties have their origin in the English Civil War of the mid Seventeenth Century which was largely a power struggle between the landed gentry and sections of the aristocracy against the Crown. Although the gentry won this struggle they found it hard to establish a stable state that protected their interests without a royal head of state and so monarchy was re-established but with diminished powers, particularly after an aristocratic coup d’état (the ‘Glorious Revolution) of 1688, which put the aristocracy firmly in control behind the figurehead of a monarch.

This was the origin of the British party-political system. Two competing interest groups, monarchy and its supporters and the supporters of oligarchical aristocratic power formed loose organisations to contest elections. One of these (the Tories) was protective of the monarchy as the primary source of political power. The other (the Whigs) supported the aristocratic oligarchy as the governing élite with a monarch as a figurehead with limited powers. Although political alignments were never clear cut, and although there were Tory aristocrats and middle class Whigs, the basis of the political power of each was located in different positions within the ruling élites. Tories relied in particular on some sections of the aristocracy  and untitled landowners (Gentry) and on those in the broader population who felt oppressed by the aristocracy, as the main basis for their support. During the early years of party politics, changes of government were not smooth and the outgoing administration was often regarded as treasonous by the incoming one. The system took a long time to bed down as a form of peaceful transfer of power between competing factions. These early parties were basically associations of clans (groupings of extended families almost wholly drawn from the aristocracy and gentry) whose members populated both houses of parliament and exercised patronage over jobs and privileges nationally and locally. British government was a sophisticated but often brutal system of oligarchical government composed of two contending factions. 

What were the differences between the élite parties?

Since the aristocratic interest was mainly represented by the Whigs and since supporters of the monarchy sought to broaden their appeal, the Tories had a predisposition to appeal beyond their immediate supporters in the aristocracy and gentry to position themselves as defenders of the lower classes of society. Bolingbroke’s ‘The Patriot King’, written in 1738 was an attempt to show how a monarch could transcend faction and govern on behalf of all society. The Tory politician Disraeli in the mid Nineteenth Century developed Bolingbroke’s ideas and saw the possibility of a Tory -working class alliance that would counter the Whigs with their addiction to laissez faire capitalism which worked to the detriment of the working conditions of the proletariat. Such an alliance was sketched out in the Tory Disraeli’s novel ‘Sybil’ published in the 1840s (see picture of Disraeli). Tory organisation within the working class continued well into the Twentieth Century. It should be noted that both parties were imperialists and fervent supporters of the British Empire although there were differences between them as to how it should be organised.

The rise of the Labour Party and its infiltration by liberalism

Trade unionism need a political presence in order to be effective. One way of doing this is to set up a union-based political party and the Labour Party became the political vehicle of trade unions, very much a junior partner to the liberals in what remained a basically two-party system. It was possible to be a member both through individual subscription and through affiliation via membership of a trade union. Although newcomers to the clubbable and clannish parliamentary system, it was the Liberals, the successors of the Whigs, who in effect took the Parliamentary Labour Party under its wing and taught it the ways of parliamentary government. The historical influence of the Liberal Party and of liberalism as an ideology has had a profound and harmful effect on the Labour Party. First through its domestication to the clubbable world of parliamentary politics and the diminution of political conflict through cross-party friendship and more importantly the possibility of building a career within politics detached from the interests that put politicians in power in the first place and secondly through the penetration of liberal ideology into the attitudes and policies of Labour. This was a much more long drawn out and deeply rooted process that is also associated with the rise of economic liberalism within the Tory Party under Margaret Thatcher, that was itself a product of the failure of the trade union movement to develop as a governing class within the society. Liberalism in various forms ranging from imperialist attitudes to neoliberal economics to identity politics continues to cripple the Labour Party.

Modern mass political parties depend on active memberships and deep roots within communities.

Only a small proportion of the population will want to play an active role in politics and fewer still want to become party activists. That said, in the years following the second world war and until the 1980s, British political parties had a mass base and there was more political awareness and trade union activity in the society than there is now. However, in the democratic era political parties need to represent a good cross-section of those parts of the population whose interests they particularly wish to represent. A working class party needs to recruit across the working class without allowing one section to dominate the rest.  A working class party also needs to have a good geographical distribution, it needs to represent the whole country and not just the capital. If possible it should have deep local roots and be embedded in civil society. It should be capable of reaching out to sympathisers and engaging with them through festivals, conferences, demonstrations and workplaces. It should certainly have an extensive media presence and ideally a newspaper that represents its views – easier said than done. 

Party members should be trade unionists where possible but it is important that they do not dominate union structures and make them appendages of the party, thus undermining their own core function, to protect and extend the interests of their members in their workplaces and enterprises. Parties are collectives of individuals dedicated to a common purpose so they need to be composed of individuals who can work together, respect the points of views of others and seek to lead through persuasion rather than manipulation or bureaucratic manoeuvring. Membership should be a privilege and applicants should expect to be scrutinised before they join, particularly if they have previously enjoyed a dubious political past. None of this is simple, but it is important. Failure to attend to these issues will lead to an unrepresentative and possibly even corrupt political party.

The rise of a new political class and a uniparty.

In Britain since the 1980s the decline in political interest, trade union and party membership has led to a situation where the parties are again becoming more like the élite organisations of the period before the Reform Act of 1832. However, instead of representing the interests of different factions of aristocrats, landowners, industrialists and plantation owners they now represent lobby groups of financiers, industrialists and foreign policy interests underneath a veneer of popular democratic structures. Wealthy organisations and individuals can set up so-called think tanks that crank out policy recommendations in the interests of their funders, then lobby or covertly bribe MPs to enact legislation that puts their policies into effect. This process is much more advanced in the United States than it is in the UK, but it is a steadily advancing process here. Keir Starmer and the Labour Party are a good example of a party in hock to powerful commercial and defence interests who do not have the interests of the electors at heart. 

The Labour, Liberal and Tory parties are run by individuals who are typically products of élite universities and often private schools. They may have allegiance to one particular party but in reality their views are very similar to each other. They forge careers as junior party functionaries, think tankers and political advisors with the view to eventually getting a seat in the House of Commons or House of Lords. They are good at ‘networking’ or forging chains of influence and often master the ‘black arts’ of inner party manoeuvring, conducting purges, character assassinations and fixing elections. They have little concern for the needs of the electorate. The policies that they develop for their respective parties are largely interchangeable and differences between them are exaggerated to make party competition appear more of a real thing than it actually is. A commitment to imperialist foreign policy is a given across all the main parties, warmongering is compulsory as is denunciation of anyone who wants peace or friendship with Russia, China or the Palestinian people. If, by some mischance a figure should emerge, like Jeremy Corbyn, who advocates a degree of humanity and independence in foreign policy or a programme of mild social democracy at home, he or she is ruthlessly hunted down through smears, disloyalty, expulsion and character assassination, often aided by the foreign powers whose agents party functionaries all too often are. What looks like democracy based on elections is, in reality, an oligarchy of formally separate but in reality nearly identical parties composed of careerists who make sure that anyone who tries to disrupt the oligarchical system is crushed. Up to the time of writing they have been remarkable successful. 

Membership and party aims

Anyone, particularly socialists, who wish to challenge this corrupt system are up against formidable challenges. Mainstream media will either ignore or attempt to rubbish them; funding will depend on the limited resources of members and, beyond that, the task of persuading diverse individuals to take part in a collective enterprise that involves self-sacrifice and much time is itself formidable. In order to do this a political party needs to have a clear conception of what it is, how it relates to major interests within the society and how it positions itself in relation to the world outside the UK.

The Workers Party has made a good start on this by stating its core values of socialism, rejection of liberalism and its fads particularly its nihilism about society, anti-imperialism and a commitment to the family and social cohesion. In addition there is a manifesto that fleshes out these points with some policy proposals. It is obvious that, in a country dominated by neoliberal and neoconservative media, a commitment to socialism and anti-imperialism is going to arouse great hostility. Neither are the commitments to social cohesion and anti-liberalism popular with the media. However, a set of values like this has the potential to appeal to very large sections of the working class who are struggling with the failure of capitalism in Britain to ensure decent living standards for all. In the end, a party that seeks to court popularity at the expense of its own values is just going to sink into the morass of left-liberal-imperialist attitudes that pervade the left in the UK and will make no impact. 

At some stage such a party will need to make clear how the core values connect with each other. Anti-imperialism should be seen as a necessary remedy against wasteful and dangerous foreign adventures that imperil the British population, promote instability and lead to an influx of refugees and especially economic migrants.  A commitment to self-determination is in line with the value of treating everyone as of equal moral worth. ‘Common sense’ socialism will need to be debated in terms of such fundamental issues as the scope and nature of nationalisation, working class and trade union involvement in key institutions, including the enterprises in which people work, the role of small businesses and the extent to which economic markets should quell oligopolistic behaviour and ways in which the state can support innovation. No small matter is the question of how socialists can make best use of the fact that the UK is a sovereign currency-issuing state that can never ‘run out of money’. We have an example in the People’s Republic of China of a country that harnesses markets without letting them get out of control and there is a lot to be learned from the recent Chinese experience. Finally, a working class party needs to think about how the labour market can be made to work in the interests of the working class, which means thinking about how economic strategies, vocational education and the effect of large scale immigration on the domestic labour market perpetuate a low skill economic strategy by Britain’s employers.

Labour Affairs does not wish to spell out how such a party should organise itself. The Workers’ Party needs no lessons from us on how to conduct its affairs. Nevertheless, questions of party organisation are important, often pose dilemmas and need periodically to be reviewed. One of these is the question of membership, whether it should only be individual or whether there is scope for affiliation via a trade union. How selective should a party be about admitting members, not just because they adhere formally to the party’s values but because they are capable of working productively towards common ends with other party members. In the writer’s own opinion a smallish party with a committed and cohesive membership is likely to be more effective than one that indiscriminately accepts members. Reform UK is a good example of a party with a large membership that suffers from members who put their egos first and the values of their party a distant second. Even when there isn’t a problem of massive egos, the ability to work productively and co-operatively with others cannot be taken for granted. Once a small party has established a healthy working ethos it can think about careful expansion.

However parties have to make their own decisions about various organisation matters and how the ethos of the organisation is maintained. A party of individual members should have a vote for each member of equal standing. 

Internal democracy and internal dissent.

A party that wants its members to think for themselves will have to cope with discussion and disagreement. Disagreeing in a comradely way and agreeing to abide by decisions made by a majority is easier to describe than it often is to put into practice. A party needs to develop an ethos in which this is expected and this can take time. This is why adherence to core values is so important, it has to accommodate dissent and the clash of deeply held views on apparently technical but actually politically very important matters such as how the budget and money supply is managed without the proponents of particular views putting them forward as a kind of cult view rather than a practical strategic suggestion.

Funding.

The Tories and right-wing outfits like Reform will never be short of rich donors. Working class parties have to make to do with member subscriptions. Unequal access to funding makes a democratic level playing field almost impossible to achieve. Furthermore, funding from large donors undermines the independence of a party. Even when a donor makes no specific request, fear of not getting further donations can affect political judgement about future policies. It goes without saying that there should be a ban on foreign donations to indigenous parties. Otherwise powerful actors who do not have the public interest at heart will be able to make hay with British democracy. There should also be a strict annual limit on the amount that domestic donors can pay into a party’s coffers. This country is much too lax in its regulation of individual and foreign donations and this seriously undermines our democracy.

It has been said that state funding of political parties will make the donor problem unnecessary. Unfortunately this proposal makes our political parties dependent on the state and the state as sole individual donor cannot be assumed to be a benign actor. There is no good case for the state funding of political parties except in the limited case of providing support for parliamentary operations which parties with seats in parliament might otherwise be unable to support.

A National Party.

British political parties should represent the interests of the British people or sections of the British people. They cannot represent foreign entities as the European communist parties did until the fall of the Soviet Union. There is no harm though in having good relations with like-minded parties in other countries such as the Communist Party of China which does not seek to impose its pattern of government across the world. BSW in Germany and the Workers Party in Britain will also greatly profit from sharing experiences and ideas. Being a national party need not mean being an insular or chauvinistic party. The working class of Britain needs a party that puts its interests first but which is also alive to injustices that result from policies that Britain has promoted through its actions, such as genocide in Gaza. It need not be shy about the need to defend British sovereignty and security interests while taking account of the security needs of other countries. Collective security is the best way to promote national security. Imperialism, as in the case of warmongering against Russia is one of the surest ways to ensure disaster for the British working class.