Wanted: A Chartism for our times

As Labour prepares to terminate its historic relationship with the very trade unions that founded the party, the questions of democracy and representation assume an even greater importance.

Ending the special relationship that allows automatic transfer of funds from trade unionists to the party, firmly shuts the door on the age of parliamentary-based reformist policies and politics.

In Britain, for the last 100 years or so, that has taken the form of unions mobilising to return a Labour government that would carry out a reformist programme in parliament. In practical terms, of course, that hasn’t happened for a very long time.

That’s why there’s a harking back to the 1945 Labour government that introduced the welfare state and the National Health Service. More recently, the Blairite governments of 1997-2010 were 100% pro-business and indifferent to the demands of the trade unions.

The reasons for all this are not hard to fathom. Corporate-driven globalisation created a world economy dominated by transnational companies and financial institutions. Nation-state powers were consequently reduced to facilitating the market economy. Reformist politics was ejected into the far reaches of the galaxy.

Labour leader Ed Miliband has effectively acknowledged this change, abandoning traditional state intervention in favour of encouraging a kind of “responsible capitalism”. In his dreams!

The Agreement of the People for the 21st Century campaign brings the broken political system out into the open and focuses on the need for a constitutional transformation. Drawing its name from the inspirational struggle of the Levellers during the English Revolution, the Agreement seeks to re-enfranchise a powerless electorate.

In the first part of the 19th century, the Levellers’ fight for democracy was taken up by the Chartists which was the first independent workers’ movement. The Chartists had six demands that won the support of millions of people throughout Britain. It was the eventual winning of the vote and parliamentary reform that made Labour a possibility at all.

Representative democracy has arguably had its day, however. Labour doesn’t even claim to represent working people’s interests and democracy is noticeable by its absence at all levels of society but in particular in the workings of the state which holds the power.

So, taking our cue from the Levellers and the Chartists, we should draw up a contemporary set of demands. Our modern charter could say :

We  declare that the present state is a barrier to the real democratic control of society and has effectively disenfranchised the 99%. The right to vote, won in centuries of struggle, has been undermined. We propose the transformation of the present political system along democratic lines. We favour a transition from representation without power to a popular sovereignty through an Agreement of the People. Our demands are:

1. A people’s convention to develop a democratic constitution for the 21st century that transfers economic power away from the corporations and political power away from the state.
2. Building a new, nation-wide democratic tradition from the ground up through, for example, Peoples’ Assemblies.
3. Rights to justice, transparency and accountability; the rule of law; the right to self-determination within and without Britain and the promotion of equality and diversity globally.
4. Human and social rights, including to associate, demonstrate and strike independently of the state; the right of minority communities to equality in all areas of social life; the right to affordable housing; to free continuing education and training and to free health care at all levels.
5. The right to co-operative ownership in place of shareholder control; to democracy and self-management in all areas/activities of the workplace; to common land ownership in towns and rural areas.
6. the right to live in a sustainable environment shaped by ecological care and not profits; the right of nature, including human beings, to exist free from abuse and despoliation.

In the 19th century, the reformist wing of the Chartists prevailed over the revolutionary or “physical force” wing of the movement which wanted to overthrow capitalism altogether. The physical-force Chartists weren’t wrong – they were just ahead of their time.

Paul Feldman

Communications editor

Marching in the footsteps of the Levellers

Creating a real democracy to replace our deficient, defective system is obviously no simple task. However, the positive outcome of an assembly called around producing an Agreement of the People for the 21st century shows that the project is gathering momentum.

A diverse range of groups and individuals have formed a steering group to complete work on revising the draft Agreement presented to the assembly that was held in London at the weekend (You can watch a live stream here, here and here).   

When finalised, the Agreement will be presented as the framework for a new democratic constitution for Britain. The idea is that the Agreement should embrace political, economic, social, legal, environmental and other rights.

The assembly heard proposals to complete the work within six months and to then launch a campaign to win mass support for the Agreement, to create a movement that will fight for it.

Working groups came up with many proposals to improve and amend the present draft text. These will be incorporated into the process of producing a final Agreement.

Among the many action points was a commitment at an early stage to try to create global links with other progressive organisations and groups. How this can happen was established in the assembly itself, when a representative of Revolucion Democratica from Chile was able to take part in a working group via the internet.

The need to extend participation in the process through online forums (with links to each other) and make use of video presentations was a key proposal which the steering group will work on when it meets for the first time. 

Also crucial will be the search for allies amongst networks of community groups, trade unions, activist organisations and those struggling against the state over cuts, attacks on human rights and for climate change action. This is clearly going to require resources – human and financial – so fund raising will be crucial.

  

Support from creative artists is already forthcoming. “The Revolution Will Be Networked” assembly drew inspiration from performances by poets Chip Grim, Cristina Viti and Adnan al-Sayegh. 

The Agreement of the People project takes its inspiration from the struggles of the Levellers and Diggers during the English Revolution in 1647. A new constitutional settlement was needed to complete the switch from the absolute power of the monarchy to parliamentary power.

When the Levellers put forward their Agreement at the famous Putney Debates at meetings of the Army Council of the New Model Army, it emphasised democratic control of power, the rule of law, regular elections, a wider franchise.

Theirs was the first attempt in history to create a constitution, to say how the country should be governed. Although there were two more drafts, the Levellers’ agreement was defeated. Parliament became sovereign but there was no democracy to go with it.

Leveller ideas surfaced again in the American and French revolutions. The famous words in the US constitution about holding “these truths to be self-evident” and “certain unalienable rights” sound like Leveller language.

Fast forward to the 21^st century and, although the right to representation has long been won, the state has undermined this through a direct alliance with corporate and financial power. A market state has established a stranglehold over society.

The plan to produce an Agreement of the People for the 21^st century builds on work done by democracy activists in the previous decade and the Real Democracy working group of Occupy London.

Created at the end of 2011, the group took as its starting point the initial statement of Occupy London, that the “current system is unsustainable. It is undemocratic and unjust”. The group has championed analysis, debates and discussion about our flawed political/state system as well as the English Revolution.

Seven groups have initially declared their support for the development of a new Agreement. This is significant because it cannot be the property of one organisation. It has to win broad support.

The time is right historically to consider what a real democracy would and could look like. We are in good company historically speaking. We are a line that goes back to the Levellers, the Diggers, the Chartists, the Suffragettes. We are with Tom Paine and John Lilburne and many other fighters for democracy and against state oppression.

We know that the tide of history is with us and not the status quo. 

Paul Feldman

Communications editor

Our sham democracy needs replacing - and soon

If you are looking around for arguments that boost the case for creating a real political and economic democracy in place of the sham one we live under, then this week has seen them piled one on top of the other.

How about the inability of MPs on the Commons public accounts committee (PAC) to get to grips with the failure of global corporations operating in Britain to pay tax on their profits? Senior executives from Amazon, Starbucks and Google were accused of secretly hiding their profits in tax havens when they appeared before MPs.

MPs admitted that a director from Amazon was “deliberately evasive” about the company’s operations. And when a Starbucks executive told MPs that the coffee chain made no profits in Britain, MPs found the story too incredible for words.

Ultimately, however, PAC members were up against the law. Google operates in Ireland and Bermuda because they offer attractive tax rates. "Like any company you play by the rules [and] manage costs efficiently to offer fair value to shareholders," said executive Matt Brittin.

In response to that, all Margaret Hodge, the PAC chair, could do was to accuse the corporations of “immoral behaviour”. But there’s no morality and certainly no democracy involved here. The bottom line is all that counts. The state created the rules to benefit global corporations and these are what they play by.

Here are two more examples from today that add to the case for change. The same PAC was back in action this morning, reporting that taxpayers were unlikely to get back any of the £66 billion spent on shares in the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds when they were bailed out four years ago.

That’s the equivalent of about a year’s spending on education by local authorities who have been ordered to cut their budgets by 25%. So the taxpayer is left with a load of worthless shares while the bankers continue to pay out record bonuses to themselves. Nice.

Finally, there’s the record low turn-out for the elections for police commissioners which were held yesterday. Clearly, the vast majority of voters find participation in such elections a waste of time. And they are right. There are already local police authorities that are made up of assorted councillors and others. Why add another tier of bureaucracy?

When you add to this the imposition of the burden of the economic crisis – a crisis they did not create – on the backs of ordinary working people, you have to conclude that the current system is “undemocratic and unjust”.

This truth, contained in the initial statement adopted by the Occupy London general assembly at St Paul’s a year ago, embraces all the institutions of rule that make up the British state/political system.

The evidence is that that this system of rule favours the 1% in a variety of ways and actions and, therefore, cannot be considered democratic in the true sense and meaning of the term. Virtually every element of the establishment is now seen as exposed and corrupt. People are searching for alternatives and answers.

We should not accept that this state/political system is the end of history in so far as the story of democracy is concerned. The time is right historically to consider what a real democracy would and could look like.

To this end, we appeal to all those who support democratic change to work together to develop an Agreement of the People for the 21st century in the spirit of the Levellers who fought for democracy during the English Revolution of the 1640s.

A new Agreement should form the basis of a new constitutional settlement that favours the presently powerless majority. It should propose new forms of democratic decision-making that go beyond representation.

Seven organisations are supporting the project to create and fight for a new Agreement of the People which gets under way in London tomorrow. Be there if you can.

Paul Feldman

Communications editor

Wanted: Real Utopias and real democracy

“Democracy has recently become extremely important and the key issue in politics.” You can count the political figures who say and mean that on the fingers of one hand. But that was the uncompromising message delivered by John McDonnell to Occupy London activists.

McDonnell is a rare breed in the shape of a Labour MP with principles and perspective. He had been invited to kick off a debate on democracy as part of the New Putney Debates, developing themes from the original debates in 1647 during the English Revolution.

This particular event, organised by the Real Democracy working group, had McDonnell pouring scorn on those who have claimed that the slow evolution of liberal democracy and its economic counterpart – capitalism - had culminated in the “end of history”, with the present system deemed the optimal form of the political voice of society. His alternative view is worth reflecting on:

“But then along came the economic crisis of capitalism. People woke up realising that they have no control over their lives and that governments cannot control the economic system and cannot supply the basic necessities of life. Unemployment and insecurity is on a scale not seen for a long time. My constituency office is now organising food packages for local people.

“We are at quite a crucial moment in our history. The idea of a system which is perfecting itself has failed. The debate now becomes fundamentally relevant to people as it did in the English civil war. People realised they had an opportunity to question and re-shape everything. Virtually every element of the establishment is now seen as exposed and corrupt. People are searching for alternatives and answers.

“It is a time to start envisaging real utopias, based on democracy.  We need to address the state and the economy and the links between the two. People have lost confidence in the state system we have and the politicians within it. Representative democracy is not the last word.”

A leading supporter of Occupy London responded that the last 30 years had led to a “society without power”. There was something fundamentally wrong and the problem was to animate people to do something about it.

Another raised the issue of globalisation and how it dominated economics and politics: can institutions such as the European Union, the International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organisation and the United Nations democratised or do alternative international institutions need to be created?

The irreconcilable conflict that led to the original Putney Debates was powerfully brought to life in a performance at St Mary’s church, Putney on the exact day and venue that they took place 365 years ago.

Actors Damian LeBas as Leveller and senior military figure Thomas Rainborough, Michael Edwards as Henry Ireton (Cromwell’s son-in-law)  and Dominic Golding as John Wildman (civilian and probably the author of the Agreement of the People) were outstanding in an 11-strong cast, directed by Natasha Langridge in a rehearsed reading of Caryl Churchill’s play, Light Shining in Buckinghamshire.

Earlier, speakers had brought out the inspirational significance of the English revolution, which, said one person, “everything in our political culture today tells us – ignore it, forget about it, it never really happened, and if it did it was only a minor insignificant event”.

Leveller demands in the Agreement of the People, seen as the basis for a new constitution, were far beyond their time and were rejected by the army grandees. But the fundamental thrust of their arguments about suffrage and natural rights were to re-emerge in centuries to come.

A contribution from A World to Win proposed a contemporary form of the Agreement to open up “a new page in democracy that would have to go hand and hand with a social revolution in terms of ownership and control of land, the economy and finance.”

The New Putney Debates have opened the doors for a wide discussion on different approaches: “make and mend”, regulation within the existing institutions or a revolutionary change. The Revolution Will be Networked assembly on November 17 will take up this challenge.

Corinna Lotz

A World to Win

The Levellers' light shines on

Some 365 years ago this weekend, soldiers known as “agitators” and their civilian supporters, sprang a political surprise of historic proportions. They openly challenged the leaders of the New Model Army about the future direction of the English Revolution.

Charles I, who had provoked a civil war against Parliament which had gone on for five years, was the army’s prisoner. Oliver Cromwell was still searching for a compromise with the king, whereby Charles would remain as a figurehead, constitutional monarch.

The agitators, elected representatives to an Army Council, wanted none of it. Influenced by a political organisation dubbed the Levellers by their opponents, the rank and file demanded a republican constitution – without the monarchy or the House of Lords.

And they set out their demands in what they called an Agreement of the People and produced it like a rabbit out a hat at the Army Council that opened in St Mary’s Church, Putney, on October 28, 1647. Dominating the Putney debates, which went on until November 8, was the demand for the extension of the franchise.

The Agreement also raised for the first time the question of natural rights – those that come with being a human and not from the state. It put at the top of the agenda the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. The Agreement suggested that power lay with the people and that parliament was subordinate to them.

The Agreement spread like wildfire throughout the army. John Lilburne, a leading Leveller also known as “freeborn” because he advocated natural rights, inspired a second version which was due to go before Parliament in January 1649. But this was overtaken by the decision to put Charles I on trial for treason against his people. The king was executed at the end of January. England became a republic. Monarchy and the House of Lords were abolished.

Within a few months, Lilburne and his supporters were themselves under arrest for treason. They published a third version of the Agreement in May 1649, smuggling it out of the Tower. Within a few weeks, a series of mutinies in the army saw many regiments adopt the Agreement and denounce Cromwell. The mutiny was put down at Burford in Oxfordshire and the Levellers crushed.

What can we learn from struggles and debates almost four centuries old? Surely, it is that the breakdown of power and state relations between classes is an opportunity to find new democratic solutions. The Levellers showed that is possible to win support for a constitutional settlement that is revolutionary and looks to a future that does not yet exist.

Also significant is the fact that a revolutionary political settlement cannot be achieved through compromise. Although the Levellers did not succeed, the revolution was required to establish the triumph of parliament over absolute monarchy which, despite the restoration in 1660, remained the case.

The English Revolution was made on behalf of an emerging new capitalist class. The gentry, financiers and the big merchants held in check by the crown’s control over the economy and politics. They did not engage in civil war to share power with those below. Attempts by the Levellers to persuade Cromwell, the Grandees and Parliament to adopt the Agreement were doomed to failure.

Although the principles of the Agreement were eventually implemented in the American and French revolutions (with the US constitution referring to “self-evident” truths and “certain unalienable rights”) of the late 18th century and in Britain by 1867, the issues arise in a new way.

The representation the Levellers demanded has long been won. But the power remains elusive and out of reach. The present state is undemocratic and a pawn of corporate interests. An Agreement for our century is needed that looks forward to a new page of democracy.

* The New Putney Debates sponsored by Occupy London’s working groups are getting under way. Sunday’s events are devoted to the English Revolution and features Caryl Churchill’s play Light Shining in Buckinghamshire about the civil war. And on November 17, an assembly will be held in London to work on an Agreement of the People for 2012.

Paul Feldman

Communications editor

Unfinished business of England’s October Revolution

In the early days of October some 365 years ago, the Levellers movement began drafting two documents that would become the political high points of the English Revolution which had developed out of the war between King Charles I and Parliament.

The Case of the Armie Truly Stated was published on October 15, 1647 and by the end of the month, the Levellers had also produced An Agreement of the People for a firm and present peace upon grounds of common right.

Astonishingly, for the times, the New Model Army led by Oliver Cromwell had yielded to pressure to allow for a Council of the Army to meet. It was made up of officers and rank-and-file soldiers, whose representatives were thenceforth known as Agitators.

With the army camped at Putney and Charles I held prisoner, the civil war seemed over. What the two documents set out was a constitutional settlement that had no place for monarchy or the House of Lords. Moreover, they emphasised that power should lie with the people and that the vote be given to all “free men”, with parliaments elected every two years.

These earth-shaking documents came before the Council of the Army at stormy debates held at a church in Putney that lasted from October 28 until November 9. The Case of the Armie Truly Stated declared:

Whereas all power is originally and essentially in the whole body of the people of this nation, and whereas their free choice or consent by their representers is the only original or foundation of all just government, and the reason and end of the choice of all just governors whatsoever is their apprehension of safety and good by them, that it be insisted upon positively, that the supreme power of the people’s representers, or Commons assembled in Parliament, be forthwith clearly declared.

The Agreement stated:

That the power of this, and all future Representatives of this Nation, is inferior only to theirs who choose them, and doth extend, without the consent or concurrence of any other person or persons, to the enacting, altering, and repealing of laws, to the erecting and abolishing of offices and courts, to the appointing, removing, and calling to account magistrates and officers of all degrees, to the making war and peace, to the treating with foreign States, and, generally, to whatsoever is not expressly or impliedly reserved by the represented to themselves.

What the Levellers put on the table were questions that still resonate today about the relationship between rulers and ruled, between property and politics, the independence of the legal system and the nature of power and the state.

It was Cromwell’s son-in-law Henry Ireton whose response at Putney summed up the bourgeois nature of the revolution that brought an abrupt end to absolute monarchy and created the social conditions for the subsequent emergence of capitalism.

Ireton said the vote was rightly restricted to those who have “a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom”, namely “the persons in whom all land lies, and those in corporations in whom all trading lies”. He added that “liberty cannot be provided for in a general sense if property be preserved.” Sounds very much like the corporatocracy that rules Britain today!

Although representation through the vote was eventually conceded (but not completely until 1929), the sovereign power of the people mooted by the Levellers (and the proto-communist Diggers) remains as out of reach as ever.

The English Revolution of the 1640s erupted because the relationship between the state and the people had broken down in an irretrievable way. You could argue that the existing relationships between the capitalist state and the people is equally fractured. The state rules for and on behalf of corporations and banks and against the people.

Occupy London working groups are holding a series of events as the New Putney Debates this month and next, and on November 17, an Assembly will be held in London to work on a new Agreement of the People. Both events provide opportunities to complete the unfinished business of England’s October Revolution.

Paul Feldman
Communications editor

An Agreement of the People for 2012

In the light of the ConDems plan to turn Britain into a total market state and Ed Miilband’s plan for Labour to “save capitalism from itself”, we present a 2012 draft of the Agreement of the People (with deference to the Levellers and their 1647 version debated at Putney).

 Whereas the current British state political system is undemocratic and unjust in that:    

• The state is a highly centralised, alienating power that has established itself above society as a whole. 
• This power is exercised primarily on behalf of dominant economic and financial interests.
• Legal authority does not come from the people as citizens, but from the Monarchy, Lords and Commons. 
• The House of Commons is a powerless assembly rather than an independent transforming legislature.  
• Members of Parliament do not exercise any real control over ministers or civil servants.  
• A surveillance state secretly monitors and tracks the legitimate activities of activists, trade unionists and protesters.
• Increasing numbers of “arms-length” quasi-state agencies have been created which are totally unaccountable at central and local level.
• Local government has lost its relative autonomy and is now reduced to carrying out central government orders and decisions.  
• The state has abandoned primary responsibility in a number of areas including housing, higher education and care in older age in favour of markets.
• The states refuses to take steps to cut carbon emissions and other measures to meet the challenge of climate change.

We therefore declare that the present state is a barrier to the real democratic control of society and has effectively disenfranchised the 99%. We therefore propose an initiative that has as its aim the transformation of the present political system along democratic lines.

We propose the goals of building a new, independent and decentralised democracy, from below, creating an inclusive written constitution that serves to protect and enhance our liberty and embraces the aspirations of the powerless majority.

To reach these goals we aim to:  

·         encourage the building of a new, nation-wide democratic tradition from the ground up through, for example, independent Peoples' Assemblies, as a means of transforming the state

·         develop a working coalition of civil and human rights activists, constitution campaigners and all those interested in decentralisation, self-organisation and complete electoral reform

·         carry out actions by non-violent means in support of the rights and issues we stand for

·         develop a peoples' constitution that will defend existing rights under attack and create new ones that deepen and extend democracy

We advocate a new constitution for a 21st century democracy, moving from a constitutional monarchy to a constitutional democracy. This new constitution should have as its guiding principles:

·         justice, transparency and accountability from those elected by the people to govern

·         a decentralised, participatory and inclusive democracy

·         self-government and management in all spheres of social, economic and political life

·         absolute equality before the law

·         an independent, democratically appointed judiciary to uphold the new constitution and the rule of law

The rights set out below, which a new constitution would incorporate, should form the basis of the new democratic state:

Human and social rights

·         The right to organise, associate, demonstrate and strike independently of the state

·         The right to a representative electoral process in balance with a new participatory system

·         The right to set up independent People's Assemblies with decision-making powers and control over resources

·         The right of minority communities to equality in all areas of social life

·         The right to affordable housing for all those in need

·         The right to free continuing education and training

Economic rights

·         The right to co-operative ownership and self-management

·         The right to democracy in all areas/activities of the workplace

Environmental rights

·         The right to live in an environment shaped by ecological care and basic human needs

·         The right of nature, including human beings, to exist free from abuse and despoliation.

Indigenous rights

·         The right to hold and use land held in common

·         The right of communities to continuity of culture, traditions and habitat

·         The right to the free movement of people based on 'no borders' principles

Paul Feldman
Communications editor

A version of this draft was first presented at a democracy day school held by Occupy's Real Democracy Working Group in London.

National Trust in assault on modern Diggers

A strange case is due to be heard in Slough County Court later this week. The National Trust is seeking an order for possession against “Diggers2012 and Persons Unknown”.

The NT also wants a “perpetual final injunction” against the “Diggers” of Runnymede Eco-Village. A ruling in its favour would prevent any camps on Cooper’s Hill in Runnymede, west of London, near where the Magna Carta was signed in 1215.

So who are these Diggers and why is the NT so determined to evict a small and peaceful group of people? A couple of months ago a group of democracy campaigners occupied less than an acre of woodland just up the hill from the monument to the Magna Carta.

The land in question, previously part of Brunel university’s campus, presently belongs to a private property developer, which makes the NT’s action seem more abritrary.

Campaigners set up tents and built a long house of logs, wattle, daub and cob. Despite a torrential summer, rains and evictions, they created a self-sustaining community.

Inspired by the revolutionary 17th century Diggers’ movement, they believe that everyone should have the right to live on disused land, to grow food and to build a shelter. “No country,” the eco-villagers insist, “can be considered free, until this right is available to all.”

By choosing Runnymede, they sought to invoke the spirit of the site, where almost 800 years ago, feudal barons compelled King John of England to sign a charter of rights which later passed into law. It was the first major challenge to the king’s claim to divine rights which placed monarchy above the law.

Despite the revoking of many clauses in subsequent centuries, Magna Carta is now part of the uncodified constitution of England and Wales. In the words of one judge, it is “the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”.

But the issues of those days are not dead historical matters. Some 70% of the UK’s  60 million acres of land is owned by 6,000 landowners - 1% of the population. The top four landowners are the Forestry Commission, the Ministry of Defence, the royal family and the National Trust. Land ownership by a tiny minority remains at the heart of economic and political power.

As historian John Gurney writes: “The Runneymede activists’ demands might, at first sight, appear to present something of a paradox. On the one hand, they address very real twenty-first-century problems, among them today’s serious housing shortages and the reluctance of politicians of all major parties to take action to bring rents and house prices down to affordable levels. Allied to this is the issue of how best to promote viable strategies for sustainable living on an increasingly crowded planet.”

This October, democracy campaigners are celebrating the anniversary of the Putney Debates of 1647, when the rank-and-file of the New Model Army  challenged all the “grandees” who ruled the land. Two years later, political-religious campaigner, Gerrad Winstanley and his True Leveller followers took over vacant or common lands in south east England to cultivate land.

In an extraordinary experiment at early communism they shared the crops amongst themselves. But experiment ended when landowners sent brutal thugs to beat the Diggers and destroy their colony.

As today’s True Levellers point out, the authorities may be irked by the possibility of a “rabble of common people” spoiling the party when the Magna Carta’s 800th anniversary is celebrated in 2015. In any case, challenges to landownership must always be put down, in case such a virus should spread at a time when squatting of any kind has become a criminal offence.

The Runnymede Eco-Villagers deserve support and protection just at a time when demonstrating an alternative to capitalism in crisis is vital.  We salute their vision and courage.

Corinna Lotz

A World to Win secretary

Meanwhile, back in the real world

The establishment have milked it for all it’s worth but tomorrow, after the last stage-managed event surrounding that diamond jubilee is over, for the vast majority of the population it will be back to reality with a bang.

For the jobless teenagers bussed in from Bristol, Bath and Plymouth to sleep rough and work for nothing as stewards during the Thames procession on Saturday, it will be back to grinding poverty and a total absence of a worthwhile future.

For the unemployed it will be another week of fruitless searches for jobs; for those with disabilities, it will mean fending off intrusive medical tests (run by a private company on a pay-by-results contract) intended to force them into menial jobs.

For tens of thousands of homeless households tomorrow will mean another night in temporary accommodation, disrupting children’s education and making it impossible to bring up a family in a sustainable way.

For public sector workers, it’s the start of another month of jobs cuts and increased pension contributions deducted unilaterally on the orders of the ConDem government. And another year of a pay freeze while food prices, in particular, continue to soar.

For those lucky enough to have jobs, Wednesday will for many see a return to a hostile work environment where management makes sure everyone knows their place, getting to work on an overpriced, overcrowded transport system.

An unprecedented, co-ordinated state operation, incorporating the media and led by the BBC, has driven reality into a corner in favour of relentless pomp and pageantry that has gone on for hour after hour, day after day.

No matter that people are being slaughtered by the Assad regime in Syria, or that the Obama administration is using drones to execute at will in Pakistan, or that the global economy is irreversibly heading for a second, far worse crash. More important, beacons are being lit across Britain, loads of boats are struggling down the Thames and some pop stars are holding a concert outside Buckingham Palace.

The last few days have seemed virtually authoritarian in atmosphere, with a contrived “celebration” organised to mark what? The fact that a privileged woman, a huge landowner with several palaces, immense wealth, including a hidden collection of masterpieces, has held an unelected position for 60 years.

Discredited politicians have tried to use the occasion to create a sense of flag-waving Britishness that died with empire and is not particularly supported by the citizens of Wales and Scotland, let alone the minority population in the north of Ireland.

The ConDem government, perhaps the most despised in recent history, no doubt hopes that the queen’s diamond jubilee has taken some of the attention away from its austerity policies which have helped to deepen the recession triggered by the financial crisis of 2007-8.

Of course, the monarchy is not the all-powerful ruler who cites divine authority from God. That period of history ended with the execution of Charles 1 by Cromwell’s parliamentary forces in January 1649.

But it symbolises the fraudulent nature of what passes for democracy despite the immense struggles of the Levellers of the English Civil War, the radical movement of reformers of the late 18^th century, the Chartists of the 19^th century and the Suffragettes of the 20^th century.

Present democracy is little more than a show, a façade behind which corporations and financial institutions, markets and bond dealers, call all the shots. The monarchy is part of that theatre, with Her Majesty’s government the accomplices who direct the state to give big business what it wants and needs.

A fresh constitutional settlement is urgent to meet the aspirations of a disenfranchised majority of working people, replacing the power of the corporatocracy. Such a democracy could never include an unelected, hereditary head of state but would instead express the power of those whose labour actually makes society possible. Tomorrow is as good a time to start on this project as any.

Paul Feldman

Communications editor

History points the way

The idea of organising independently of the state in order to challenge the established political order, which we put forward in the shape of People’s Assemblies, is not new or foreign to British social history.

From the Levellers in the English Revolution of the 17th century, to the Chartists of the 19th century, through to the trade unions in the period following World War One, ordinary people have combined to confront the state.

The Levellers were the left-wing of the New Model Army established by Oliver Cromwell in the Civil War with Charles I over who ruled England – the absolute monarch or Parliament. Regiments elected representatives or “agitators” to the Army Council and these were recognised by the commanders. Levellers took many of these positions.

In the famous Putney Debates held in October 1647, the Levellers challenged Cromwell with a draft Agreement of the People, which gave everyone the vote and insisted that Parliament should pass no laws “evidently destructive to the safety and well-being of the people”.

The Chartists, who campaigned for the vote for working men, held various Conventions during their struggle which began in the late 1830s when an estimated 300,000 people assembled at Kersal Moor near Manchester. Typical slogans on the day were “For Children and Wife we’ll War to the Knife” and “Bread and Revolution”.

In 1839, the Convention of the Industrious Classes met first in London and then Birmingham. It considered what to do in the event that Parliament rejected the Chartist petition signed by 1.2 million people. Delegates adopted the formula of “peaceably if we may, forcibly if we must”. A manifesto of “ulterior measures” included a month’s general strike, a resort to arms and a trade boycott.

In 1848, galvanised by a revolution in France, the Chartist movement made a final attempt to achieve its demands through a petition backed by a demonstration of over 200,000 at Kennington. The government feared a revolution and blocked the bridges across the Thames.

The Chartists then convened a National Assembly for May 1 as a would-be rival seat of power to Parliament. Its aim was to continue sitting until the Charter was law. The Assembly took on policies way beyond the Charter, including the severing of the connection between church and state, the repeal of the union between Britain and Ireland, the employment of poor on public works and even a recommendation of arming the people. An insurrection launched in August 1848 was defeated.

After the February Revolution of 1917 in Russia, which overthrew the Tsar, the idea of Soviets or Workers’ Councils, which had spearheaded the movement against autocracy, spread through Europe. The Labour and Socialist Convention held at Leeds on 3 June 1917 was held expressly “to follow Russia”.

The conference attended by 1,600 delegates adopted a resolution that called on the labour movement to establish councils of workers and soldiers' delegates to work for, among other things, the complete political and economic emancipation of international labour. During the brief General Strike of 1926, workers’ council were established in some towns and became the effective power in the area.

Now that the right to vote has been neutered by an undemocratic Parliamentary system in serious decay, the conditions are emerging to reassert more fundamental rights to do with power and control over our lives. That is why we not only say “Hang on to your vote” at the election but also urge the building of People’s Assemblies as a possible mechanism for carrying through revolutionary change in the traditions of the Levellers, Chartists and trade unionists of earlier eras.

Paul Feldman
Communications editor

A way out of the political crisis

When political systems become corrupted and lose their legitimacy, history shows that ordinary people will try to establish new forms of government. And if there was ever a time to draw on this long struggle for democracy it is now.

And make no mistake about it, this is a people’s struggle that we are talking about, not some manoeuvring by political elites who have always sought – and too often succeeded – to direct popular anger in ways that benefit themselves.

Two enduring episodes point to a way forward out of the present impasse of constitutional crisis and economic/financial meltdown. The first is the struggle waged by the Levellers during the English Civil War of 1641-9 and the second is that of the Chartists.

Levellers were the most politically conscious and organised section of the rank and file of the New Model Army, which under the leadership of Oliver Cromwell had defeated the forces of Charles I in the war between Parliament and the King.

In the winter of 1647, with Charles I held prisoner at Hampton Court, army representatives – or “agitators” as they were known – came together with civilian activists and senior officers to discuss the principles of a new political system. The Levellers put forward “An Agreement of the People” for debate at St Mary’s Church in Putney.

The Agreement contained a truly revolutionary thought that, in the event, was far ahead of its time. The existing Parliament was to be dissolved and a new one elected for a period of two years. As to the powers of this Parliament, it would be “inferior only to theirs who choose them” and be limited by “whatsoever is not expressly or impliedly reserved by the represented to themselves”. In other words, the people would control what Parliament could do, and not the other way round.

Edward Sexby, agitator and trooper, set the tone. The most powerful advocate of the rights of the common soldier told Cromwell bluntly:

The cause of our misery is upon two things. We sought to satisfy all men, and it was well; but in going about to do it we have dissatisfied all men. We have laboured to please a king and I think, except we go about to cut all our throats, we shall not please him; and we have gone to support an house which will prove rotten studs – I mean the Parliament, which consists of a company of rotten members. [emphasis added]

Although the King was executed two years later, the Levellers’ main demands for universal suffrage and control over Parliament were thwarted by leaders who represented a new ruling class. Two centuries later, the baton was passed in the historical sense to the Chartist movement. By then, Britain had been radically transformed. Capitalism had created a vast urban working class which had no political rights, while the new bourgeoisie had consolidated the power they inherited from the Civil War.

The Chartists, the first independent political movement of the masses, organised monster petitions, strikes and rallies in the struggle for the vote. And they organised several Conventions during two decades of Chartist activity from 1838.

One particular Convention considered itself an alternative to Parliament and vowed to sit until its demands were met. This is how we could pick up the baton from the Chartists. A Convention on Democracy, representing all those who favour truly democratic power, especially in terms of the economy, could present a way forward. Such a Convention could lay down a challenge to the existing power structures of capitalism and prepare the revolutionary change in society that our predecessors have laid the groundwork for.


Paul Feldman
AWTW communications editor

How to make the right to vote count

May Day is international workers’ day, when the labour movement celebrates its social and economic achievements. Winning the right to vote is undoubtedly one of the landmark successes in the history of workers’ struggles against the employing classes and the state. So it is more than a little ironic that May Day in England and Wales coincides with local elections which the majority of the electorate will simply boycott.

There are a number of reasons why voters are increasingly disillusioned with the political process and decline to use their vote, which is a right they rightly cherish alongside the right to vote. In the case of local government elections, the councils involved have little independent power. Where once councils could raise funds locally and decide their own priorities – a principle established in Elizabethan times – today they are tightly constrained by spending and policy decisions made in Whitehall. In effect, they are the agencies of central government. This constitutional change was carried through by the Tories in the 1980s and has been reinforced by New Labour since 1997.

Furthermore, there is little to distinguish the mainstream political parties one from the other. So when it comes to real choice at the ballot box, there is not much on offer. This is reflected in low turnout at elections and a general disdain for politicians and parties, who have generally lost substantial numbers of members and in the case of New Labour hardly exist as a campaigning force. Many voters, understandably, feel disenfranchised by the way the system has evolved into a kind of mush of managerial “politics”, with the parties converging and competing for the privilege of managing the state in favour of corporate and financial interests.

Where new institutions have come into existence like the Mayor in London, they were created in an autocratic style around personalities who exercise enormous power with little oversight or accountability. During the campaign for Mayor, incumbent Ken Livingstone – trying hard not to be seen as the New Labour candidate that he is - and main challenger Boris Johnson, a populist right-wing Tory, spent time stealing each other’s policies and promising everything to everyone, including police officers in every school. It was not a contest to warm the political heart or drive you to the ballot box.

The democratic side of the British parliamentary state has to all intents been “hollowed out”, to borrow an expression used by Al Gore to describe what has happened in America. It is a state that, in any case, is incapable of tackling the major issues like climate change, inequality or even housing supply. As a consequence, the hard-won right to vote has lost what modest power it once had in terms of influencing what happens in public life. The words of the 17th century Leveller Richard Overton, who was on the left-wing of the English Revolution, are worth recalling in this regard. He was a great pamphleteer and in 1646, during the first of two Civil Wars between parliament and the Charles I, issued a warning to those who had failed to represent the people’s interests:

“We are well assured yet cannot forget, that the cause of our choosing you to be Parliament-men was to deliver us from all kind of bondage and to preserve the commonwealth in peace and happiness. For effecting whereof we possessed you with that same power that was in ourselves to have done the same; for we might justly have done it ourselves without you if we had thought it convenient …” (“A Remonstrance of Many Thousand Citizens”).


More than 350 years later, to echo and paraphrase Overton, it is time to justly do it ourselves and sweep away the farce that passes itself off as democracy in favour of genuine people’s power in an entirely new and liberating constitutional settlement. That would give a new, concrete meaning to the right to vote.

Paul Feldman
AWTW communications editor