17
Sep
12

When is an executive not an executive?

When the SP says it isn’t would seem to be the answer if the Cork CAHWT’s September Regional Delegate Meeting is anything to go by.

My statement distributed before the meeting outlined my concerns on this issue and at the meeting I moved an amendment to the motion initiated by the SP regarding the remit of the new Cork Regional Coordinating Committee (CRCC).

The SP initiated motion was:

The new Co-ordinating Committee will not replace any of the working groups. The Regional Delegates Meeting, in electing the Co-ordinating Committee, gives it the authority to make necessary decisions between Regional Delegate Meetings. Any such decision can be reversed by the Regional Delegates Meeting. The Co-ordinating Committee shall be answerable and accountable to the Regional Delegates Meeting in all respects and the Regional Delegates Meeting shall have the right of recall over the Co-ordinating Committee.

My amendment was:

Replace:

The Regional Delegates Meeting, in electing the Co-ordinating Committee, gives it the authority to make necessary decisions between Regional Delegate Meetings.

With:

The Regional Delegates Meeting, in electing the Co-ordinating Committee, gives it the authority to make emergency decisions on new situations that arise between Regional Delegate Meetings that strictly requires a decision to be made before the Regional Delegates Meeting meets, and only in that context may the Co-ordinating Committee direct the activity of the regional working groups.

My reasoning being that the phrase “necessary decisions” is obviously open to a variety of interpretations and we should be more precise in defining the remit of this new committee.

SP comrades who spoke during the discussion gave a variety of examples of the type of decision that they thought would be made by the new CRCC. All these examples were of new situations that would be covered by the amendment with no examples that would not be covered by the amendment.

Yet during the discussion it was argued by SP (and SWP) comrades that the amendment was “bureaucratic” and “too restrictive” and it would “paralyze” the CRCC and indeed the campaign as a whole. These fairly serious accusations were no doubt part of the reason a majority of the delegates voted with the SP & SWP in support of the motion, despite no evidence being presented to back up these accusations. This duplicitous style of argumentation has much more to do with the politics of trade union bureaucrats or Labour Party careerists than the revolutionary socialism the SP & SWP claim to stand in the tradition of and using it does them no credit at all.

We are now left to wonder what exactly the “necessary decisions” are that the SP & SWP see the CRCC making.

The only possible explanation I can see is that the SP & SWP do indeed see the CRCC as being an executive type body that will be responsible for directing all the activity of the campaign in-between Regional Delegate Meetings, even if they don’t want to call it an executive.

Curiously I think the SP genuinely believes that the new coordinating committee is not an executive type body despite the content they want to give it being exactly that of an executive. This is in much the same way as they believe that their presentation of a left-reformist programme with a call for socialism tacked on the end is somehow an application of Trotsky’s method of the Transitional Program.

Advertisements

0 Responses to “When is an executive not an executive?”



  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Categories

Archive


%d bloggers like this: