Part Three

For a campaign of activists rooted in the communities

The meeting that established the anti-bin tax campaign in the Dublin City Council area in early 2001 was convened by the Socialist Party and a number of parties and individuals were invited. The meeting agreed that the campaign would be organised in the areas and become a genuine community-based campaign. The meeting also established the principles, approach and tactics that needed to be adopted – opposition to the bin tax as a double tax and the need to organise and defend mass non-payment. The crucial reason why this meeting was convened at that time was to cut across the real danger that different and potentially rival campaigns could be launched by the different groups, particularly by the SWP. That would have been disastrous from the point of view of the issue and would have caused confusion in working class areas.

Developing strong democratic central structures would not be easy but a struggle to do precisely that was essential to the success of the campaign. That could only be achieved with the real involvement of as many people from as many communities as possible. Therefore the campaign had to be established properly in working class areas and a very conscious approach needed to be taken to achieve the full involvement of local people. Such involvement was crucial in order to reflect the attitudes of the working class, but also to make sure the interests of the campaign dominated over any parties or politicians who attempted to use the campaign for their own interests.

In his article, referring to building in traditional working class areas, Dermot states: "Two factors came together....Firstly the general response of working class people, and then a key ingredient, a small layer of committed political activists from various groups who could bring some experience of organisation to the campaign." And again "Left wing political activists played a key role in providing a spine for the campaign. But they were also the people most likely to turn up at activists meetings, and the discussions were not always reflective or representative of the broader mass involved in the areas."...and later the consequence of having a number of political groups in the campaign demonstrated he said "the need for bringing the greatest number of people with you which meant having an inclusive and consensual approach on decision making."

A small number of experienced left activists in the right conditions and using the right methods can make a decisive contribution to establishing campaigns and struggles. That was the case with the anti-water charges struggle, and the anti-bin tax campaign in the Dublin City Council area could have been similar. But Dermot Connolly is talking about a different approach. It is clear he developed the view that it was very difficult to establish campaigns in local areas if there weren’t some existing left activists based in those areas. If that approach was correct, given the weakness of the ‘left’, the anti-water charges campaign would not have been as well established as it had been.

In line with Dermot’s view, the city campaign tended to fit into the framework of where left activists existed rather than the other way round. The city campaign was disproportionately based on political activists and groups as opposed to new activists in working class communities throughout the city, as in the case with the water charges.

The real role played by some of the political activists that Dermot refers to will be dealt with later. Basing the potential to build a campaign on the existing left is politically lazy and puts the cart before the horse. It inevitably understates the capability of people to become activists but it is in line with underestimating the overall potential for the campaign, which has already been dealt with. The reliance of the campaign on the existing and weak "left" was the opposite of what was needed and stunted its potential.

As a result, the campaign tended to exist only in the areas where there were left activists, which was a minority of the areas. Left groups or activists took responsibility or effective control for areas in such a way that meant the ability to monitor and check what work was actually being done was curtailed. In some areas, mainly where the SWP operated, what was established were weak or phantom campaigns without a real base in the communities.

Later, when it came to the discussions regarding a slate of anti-bin tax candidates, the SWP initially tried to claim real campaigns in a whole number of areas and wanted to get five or six of their candidates/areas endorsed as anti bin tax candidates in the city council area. In reality it was clear that of the areas where they claimed to have set up campaigns, only one – Ballyfermot - had any real base. At that point however in contrast to the situation on the ground, the SWP held two out of four of the city campaign officerships and a disproportionate number of members on the steering committee.

In the areas over which they claimed responsibility they established either only phantom campaigns or ones consciously built on an extremely limited basis. In effect the SWP acted as a barrier to organising the community on a proper basis. If the responsibility for such areas had been in the hands of even very inexperienced, new activists, stronger campaigns would have been built. Unfortunately that potential was lost in a number of areas.

In a very serious struggle like the bin tax, there needs to be clarity on the key tasks of a campaign and there needs to be a strong, democratically elected leadership with genuine authority that can play a positive role in overcoming weaknesses that may exist in the areas. Too many areas not properly organised can result in a critical drop in non-payment when council intimidation mounts and in turn affect the outcome of the entire struggle.

The central leadership that operated in the campaign in the first couple of years was based around Dermot Connolly and the SWP. Dermot Connolly according to himself believed such activists as the SWP members were essential and provided "experience of organisation" and "a spine for the campaign".

The SWP - using the bin tax to boost their election prospects

Spend any time in close proximity to the SWP and it becomes clear that it doesn’t seriously participate in the class struggle and that it is moving away from a socialist programme and perspective. As a party the SWP doesn’t have a real connection with the working class and its primary purpose for getting involved in campaigns is not to advance the struggles of the working class, but to boost and build the SWP. When that can’t be easily achieved they tend to surf off to another issue or campaign. Opportunistic methods are used to achieve this goal. At an important time in the anti-bin tax struggle the SWP virtually abandoned the campaign in order to try to maximise recruitment to its party from the anti-war movement. Anyone who has worked with the SWP for any length of time will have seen such motives and methods in action. There have been problems with the way they have operated in the anti-war movement, campaigns against "social partnership", campaigns against racism and deportations, the anti-capitalist movement, social forums and so on.

The approach of the SWP to the anti-bin tax campaign was refined somewhat compared to the anti-water charges movement. In the intervening period they did a somersault on their de facto opposition to standing in elections. In their conference document of 1996 entitled "Electoralism versus Revolutionary Politics" dealing with electoralism, the SWP say "sometimes there is talk of the possibility of combining extra parliamentary and parliamentary agitation. But in reality preparing for elections takes precedence over everything else." This was written in criticism of the Socialist Party, however the truth is that the SWP paid close attention to the result in the Dublin West By Election in 1996. They watched the role that Joe Higgins has played and how the Socialist Party used his TD’s position since he was elected in 1997. Our work has exposed as false their prediction of the Socialist Party’s imminent sell-out to reformism, but in a way their quote has proved remarkably accurate as it describes brilliantly how they themselves have elevated their own electoral work above everything else, including the fight against the bin tax.

Right from the very start of the bin tax the SWP believed this campaign provided a key platform to win electoral positions, which in turn could be used to build the profile and organisation of the SWP. In theory they half recognised that it would be impossible to build electoral support if they continued with the crassly opportunistic approach of intervening into and then dropping communities that they used during the water charges. Their work in the anti-bin tax campaign was centred on attempting to attract new voters to the SWP and not on a genuine acceptance of the importance of the struggle itself. In the majority of areas therefore the SWP continued to operate like a propaganda group and refused to involve itself in struggle to the degree that is necessary to sink real roots. They wanted to do just enough work so they could say they were active but no more and certainly never enough to build the type of campaign that was necessary to defeat the councils on the bin tax.

In a couple of areas, namely Dun Laoghaire and Ballyfermot, a couple of their leading members to a certain extent went further in the sense that they established a media presence and a profile as "activists" on some issues. Given the political vacuum that exists, they were successful to a degree. However the bin tax battle showed that even here, they ultimately proved incapable of fully embracing or developing struggle in the communities to the full. The over-riding basis of their involvement was still to establish an electoral base and not on bringing campaigns, like the bin tax, as far as possible. This had the effect of limiting the real potential for struggle in the areas, which ironically in turn limited their own electoral potential.

Obviously the Socialist Party is in favour of political parties, groups and individuals being fully involved in campaigns. That is necessary and inevitable and can play a critical role in politically re-arming the working class. But as well as having that right, groups and parties have a responsibility to the issue and to the working class, to work in a serious and democratic fashion. Contrary to Dermot Connolly's implication, the Socialist Party does not at all think that is infallible or that we have a monopoly on good ideas. We make many mistakes. However one thing we are not guilty of is abusing working class campaigns. We are honest with the working class and try to clarify and develop a better understanding of the issues and the tasks for the benefit of all concerned.

The way the campaign in the city council areas was steered certainly suited the SWP. The over emphasis given to the role of political activists and groups and the informal, "inclusive" and "consensual approach" to running the campaign meant they had influence far beyond what was justified and that it was difficult to challenge the status quo and redirect the campaign onto a proper path. In the actual conditions that operated in the city council campaign an "inclusive and consensual approach to decision making" actually meant that maintaining unity and positive relations with parties like the SWP became more important than implementing the correct approach to building the campaign. With regard to the ABTC in the city council area a consensus approach to decision making is just another way of saying that unity between political groups was more important than building the campaign in the best way.

The Socialist Party is in favour of unity, but real unity and consensus can only be developed through honest discussion and action. A consensual, informal approach creates an atmosphere that makes it difficult for people to raise differences and can in effect make it impossible to prioritise tasks and make effective decisions. It sounds designed to increase participation but in effect sets a tone where unrepresentative groups or individuals can do whatever they want regardless of the views of the overall campaign. Such an approach and method of operation is not part of the tradition of the working class movement for the very good reason that it doesn’t assist in clarifying tasks and carrying struggles forward.

In serious campaigns like the battle against the bin tax, there needs to be full freedom of discussion amongst activists, clear decisions taken and then a responsibility on those in the campaign to fully implement such democratic decisions. In such a way ideas and methods can be debated and the best and most appropriate will be embraced and others will be discarded.

By early 2003, two years after the campaign was established and facing the possibility of non-collection in a matter of months, the city campaign was not in a strong position. While some strong campaigns had been built in a number of local areas, as mentioned overall it still only existed in roughly a quarter of the council area. The central campaign structures were dominated by political activists and groups, with little participation of new activists from the areas. Finally, the leadership based around Dermot Connolly and the SWP, had adopted and pushed the wrong approach to building the campaign and had created illusions in the impact of political lobbying and that didn’t auger well given that the campaign was entering a decisive number of months.

Differences in the Dublin City Campaign

In the ABTC in Dublin city there are major political differences. These divisions reflect the substantial differences that existed on how the ABTC should be built as already outlined, on an assessment of the key tasks at crucial times and on tactics the campaign needed to use in fighting non-collection. These will be dealt with in a more developed way later.

Yet Dermot Connolly tries to reduce the divergence between himself and Joan Collins and the Socialist Party to the following: that the Socialist Party was involved in a grab for control of the city campaign in early 2003. That when Dermot and Joan stood up to this unprincipled manoeuvring, the party leadership manoeuvred to get him and other officers removed from their positions at the April 2003 conference of the city campaign. The facts actually show the complete opposite.

In late 2002 and early 2003 the Socialist Party members on the city steering committee correctly pointed out that the campaign was in a weak position and argued that a new drive to extend the base of the campaign was necessary. We had a choice: either do nothing about the fundamental weaknesses in the campaign or try in a genuine way to do what was possible to build the campaign and prepare for the possibility of non-collection

Unfortunately regardless of how obvious the real weaknesses were, the leadership based around Dermot Connolly and Brid Smith (of the SWP) responded to the Socialist Party's assessments of the campaign in a defensive way. It became obvious to the Socialist Party and other activists that Dermot Connolly, Brid Smith and their supporters in the leadership were resistant to an honest, objective assessment of the situation, which was essential in order to go forward and build the ABTC properly in the city. The conference was convened because most people in the city campaign understood that a conference could play an important role in clarifying the tasks and preparing for the battle against non-collection, which the councils were preparing for.

With regard to the elections for positions at the April 2003 conference, far from engaging in any manoeuvres, the Socialist Party favoured making things as simple and democratic as possible. The officer board was made up of Dermot Connolly and Brid Smith, a second member of the SWP and an anarchist from the Workers Solidarity Movement. We, with others didn’t have confidence in this officer board, which didn’t meet separately in any case and believed that the conference should just re-elect a steering committee. Our lack of confidence in the ability of the officers to play a positive role in building the campaign has been justified by subsequent events.

We believed the steering committee should meet regularly and allocate tasks to its members as appropriate at the meetings and that that would be a more effective way of building the campaign. Far from trying to shaft Dermot Connolly or anyone else from the campaign leadership, under our proposal, they like anyone else would have the right to stand for the only functioning leading body in the campaign – the steering committee.

Our position was not agreed by the steering committee in advance of the conference and we decided not to put the proposal to the conference as it wasn’t the central issue and it may have diverted attention away from the main purpose of the conference which was to focus on how best to build the campaign and prepare for the battle against non-collection. The Socialist Party make no bones of the fact that we were in favour of trying to limit the influence of wrong methods and incorrect tactics in the leading structures of the city campaign. However instead of an unprincipled grab for control, we stood just one member for one of the four officerships and just four members for positions on the steering committee! Unlike others in the campaign we have never attempted to artificially boost our representation at meetings, including the April Conference of 2003.

<-Next->