How the state plans to shut down dissent

Later this month, the Trades Union Congress is backing a march and rally in Manchester against the ConDems’ carve-up of the NHS. Next year, a repeat campaign could be deemed illegal under legislation due for debate in parliament today.

The TUC is not exactly a scaremongering organisation. So when general secretary Frances O’Grady warns that the Transparency of Lobbying, non-Party Campaigning, and Trade Union Administration Bill is “attack on free speech worthy of an authoritarian dictatorship” there is just cause for alarm.

She points out that the Bill has been drawn so widely that it will “shut down dissent for the year before an election”, adding: “No organisation that criticises a government policy will be able to overdraw their limited ration of dissent without fearing a visit from the police.”

Introduced in response to assorted scandals, one half of the Bill contains proposals to create a register of lobbying firms. The rest is actually a draconian attack on the freedom to campaign. With the date of the next election fixed for May 2015, campaigns from May 2014 could fall foul of the new rules if they are passed. Breaching these will become a criminal offence.  

At present only activities designed with the intent of influencing an election result are regulated. The Bill will instead will regulate activity that may affect the result of an election. That could embrace any criticism of government policy

The amount that third party campaign groups can spend in the year before an election is reduced by more than half to £390,000. The Bill proposes that staff time and other costs should now be included in the limit, whereas before only materials and activities like leaflets and ads were regulated. The TUC believes that the cost of its 2014 Congress alone could take it over the limit.

Naturally, political party conferences are given an exemption in election spending limits. Self-seeking or what!

While the Bill is clearly an attack on the trade unions, particularly those affiliated to the Labour Party, its scope is much wider. Charities and campaign groups like Greenpeace look certain to get caught in the net.

Human rights lawyer Helen Mountfield QC, in a legal opinion for the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO), says that “uncertainty about what the law requires is likely to have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, by putting small organisations and their trustees/directors in fear of criminal penalty if they speak out on matters of public interest and concern."

And worse. The Bill is so vague that anyone who spends over £5,000 on anything that can be in any way said to potentially affect an election will be caught up. That would cover many political blog sites and online campaign groups like 38degrees. 

Even the Electoral Commission, which is in charge of regulating elections, has expressed concerns about the Bill to the government. Are ministers bothered? No they are not. Andrew Lansley, infamous author of the NHS wrecking legislation, has accused opponents of “scaremongering” and claims the Bill will introduce “transparency” into campaigning. As we know, Lansley is a man of his word so that’s alright.

As for the lobbying industry – which is valued at £2 billion a year – the Bill won’t make much difference. The 70 firms that lobby for access to ministers or promote certain policy changes, are the tip of an iceberg . Major corporations and interest groups have their own in-house teams. They, naturally, won’t be affected by any register.

The reality is that corporate interests and the interests of the state are inextricably entwined. That is because the political machinery of the country has always been ready to serve the dominant economic and financial interests which, as we speak, are capitalist in their nature.

While the process doesn’t always run smoothly, the broad agenda is the same. The business of government is, more openly than ever before, business itself. That’s why the welfare state has been wrecked by successive governments and replaced by a market-corporate state.

Policing of dissent and opposition is reaching new heights. On top of the mass surveillance and penetration of movements by state agents, campaigning itself is to face criminal sanctions if the proposed rules are transgressed. A democracy this isn’t. A corporatocracy it is.

Paul Feldman
Communications editor

         

Real democracy needs a new constitution

Watching the impressive Steven Spielberg film Lincoln brought home how important a constitution is to a country and the momentous, often historic, struggle it takes to bring it into line with contemporary social circumstances.

The original US constitution gave effect to the American revolution that threw off British colonial rule. Lincoln’s 13th amendment, which is the subject of the movie, put in writing what had happened on the battlefields of the Civil War by outlawing slavery which the original constitution ignored.

What the amendment also did was to create the conditions for a rapid development of US capitalism by creating a new workforce of African-Americans who were free to sell their labour in factories and on the farms. A federal state strengthened by the outcome of the Civil War supported and facilitated this process – then and now.

What has this got to do with us in Britain, you may ask? As ordinary Americans have discovered, their existing constitution is predominantly the shield for a state that reinforces the status quo of corporate and financial power.    

In Britain, although there is no codified constitution unlike the US, a variety of laws and conventions give rise to the same situation. Power, real decision making power, is held by a set of state institutions that exist to serve not the people but the so-called corporate masters of the universe.

We don’t live under a true democracy but, in practice, a corporatocracy. A horrible word to be sure, but one that nicely sums up the effective coincidence of politics and big business.

Which is why a number of organisations have launched an appeal to win support for a project which they have called “Towards an Agreement of the People for the 21st Century”. This connects with the historic struggle of the Levellers who championed democratic rights during the civil war between the Crown and Parliament.

They say: “Today increasing numbers of people are disillusioned and alienated by a political process which is impoverishing millions through austerity, inequality and privilege. The struggle for democracy, begun by the Levellers in the 1647 Agreement of the People and taken forward by the Chartists and Suffragettes, continues. But advances in democratic rights and civil liberties are being undermined.

“The concentration of bureaucratic, financial and corporate power has led to the transition from a welfare state to a market-driven state which deregulates, outsources and privatises services. Parliaments in Westminster, Cardiff and Edinburgh are totally inadequate as a means of popular representation, democratic control and accountability.”

         

They are calling for a “new constitutional settlement” to “advance democracy and place power firmly in the hands of the majority” and are inviting individuals and groups to support the project in principle.

Supporters of the project so far include John McDonnell MP, A World to Win, Real Democracy working group of Occupy London and the National Community Activists Network.

A draft Agreement of the People for the 21st century is also being circulated for comment, amendment and revision. The draft proposes that a new constitution should set out new human and social, economic, environmental and indigenous rights.

These include the right to co-operative ownership in place of shareholder control and to democracy and self-management in all areas/activities of the workplace,  the right to live in an environment shaped by ecological care and not profits and the right to hold and use land held in common.

To help achieve these aims, the draft adds, we should “encourage the building of a new, nation-wide democratic tradition from the ground up through, for example, diverse Peoples’ Assemblies, as a means of transforming the state”.

That political and social change that we need to end austerity, create a real democracy and establish effective control over the decisions that shape our lives absolutely requires a new constitution as a framework. Mobilising people, organisations and communities to achieve an Agreement of the People for the 21^st century is a real priority. You can email your support for the project to agreementofpeople@btinternet.com

Paul Feldman

Communications editor