If RiD’s point is directed at me I’d be happy to respond. Its not a question of discontent with official positions existing within parties. Its how it is handled and what place it has in the internal affairs of the party. I would hold that the treatment of dissidents from official positions is of a far higher standard in Labour than in SP, SWP and SF. Consider the forbearence for example in how Partrick Nulty was allowed do his worst against the agreed party positions within only a couple of weeks of having been selected as a candidate and then elected a TD under the official Labour platform.
The contrast with the other parties could hardly be greater in my opinion. SP and SWP and WP follow Leninist principles of democratic centralism in which it is NOT ALLOWED to publicly disagree with the official positions of the party. Moreover the history of these parties is littered with individual junior and senior members expelled or forced to leave with lots of bad blood and verbal abuse. The party model of a Leninist party is that it is better to have a small number of the kind of people the leadership would approve of than a mainstream kind of party in which anyone pretty much would be welcome to join and pay a modest subscription. SF is very similar to the DUP in brooking no public dissent and purging those who are disruptive to the leadership. Can anyone name one dissident who is allowed to express an opinion in SF? At least the DUP can cliam that its values are fairly consistent and members knew the kind of party they were joining. SF on the other hand has transformed itself from the republican position they espoused 20 years ago.
↧
Comment on Those LP councillors who’ve just jumped ship: “Undemocratic centralisation” – what could they be getting at? by richotto
↧