A New Form of Democracy?

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

A New Form of Democracy?

Update on the Firefighters’ Pay and Conditions National Negotiations

How the Contradictions between the Big Powers Are Revealing Themselves

Up and down the country, various forums of the people are electing delegates to the People’s Assembly for Peace. People are taking a stand and want to be counted.

Local Stop the War groups, trade unions, political forums – all are calling meetings and calling on people to represent the will for peace.

This broad movement is reflecting both the upsurge in the movement against war and for the renewal of society, as well as the disquiet that people feel that the form of representative democracy which is epitomised in parliament is a fraud and is in contradiction with the people’s will.

The elections to the People’s Assembly for Peace, which will take place on Wednesday, March 12, from 10am to 5pm at Central Hall, Westminster, are giving rise to a widespread debate about the nature of democracy. In the course of this debate, it is clear that the people’s sentiment is not to be bound by the old forms. The actual practice of the elections is confirming the necessity for the people’s forums, including the People’s Assembly itself, to be tribunes of the people, and not be limited by the old arrangements whereby an assembly such as parliament becomes a shell, where decisions are made in cabinets and back-rooms, by executives and in closed deals, and not by the full assembly of the people themselves.

It is in historical moments such as this that old prejudices are being cast aside. People are demanding that they themselves set the agenda. They are demanding that the prevailing conditions which determine that the various sections of the people, including the workers, are marginalised are overturned.

The People’s Assembly and its elections and agenda, in which the people’s voice is decisive, is opening the possibility to the alternative being brought into being in a concrete way.

Such an assembly, which is proactive, and not simply a protest that the parliament on the other side of Parliament Square is undemocratic, would represent something new. The forums where the people participate in elaborating their views and taking decisions are finding favour among the democratic forces. They are part of the struggle which is being joined, in which it is the old political leaders are being backed into a corner, to ensure that it is the will of the people for peace which will come out on top.

This is a critical moment, and one in which both the people’s forces and the workers themselves must be brought into play. The fight for an anti-war government has a crucial place at this critical moment, and is one in which the progressive forces are proud to participate and in which the workers must be organised to lead as the most steadfast and self-less force.

The broad movement must fight for the alternative, and the advanced forces must ensure that the orientation for an anti-war government is heard and considered. These are the demands which this historical moment is throwing up as the most reactionary world forces are organising for war and trying to fool the people into giving up the fight and giving up the initiative. The struggle for the New must prevail!

The FBU reports that the negotiations at ACAS have now been completed and the employers have "gone away" to formulate an offer on all issues. This will be presented to the union at ACAS on Thursday morning. The FBU Executive Council will meet on Thursday afternoon and a full report will be made to the meeting of FBU Brigade Officials to be held the following day.

The employers clearly understand that if no offer is tabled on Thursday, then the FBU Executive Council will consider new strike dates giving the necessary seven days’ notice.

The two sides at ACAS have spent some time trying to agree an updated job description for a firefighter given the enormous change in technologies, training and workloads both in quantity and nature since the 1977 Pay Formula was introduced.

At one stage the Fire Brigades Union put forward a formula based very much on the Bain Report’s description of what a modern Fire Service should seek to do.

The employers’ side, represented by seven senior officials, asked for an adjournment and then went away for an hour to talk among themselves. They came back and indicated total opposition to important aspects of the Union’s position.

The latest FBU strike bulletin comments that the employers are apparently totally confused about Bain. Of course when Bain recommends job cuts they accept his recommendations unreservedly. But when Bain has something half sensible to say when describing what a modern Fire Service might do, then the employers fail to even recognise from whence the advice came.

The strike bulletin points out that the FBU has not gone soft on Bain. Like Bain we want less fires and less fire-related deaths. But unlike Bain we recognise that such ends can only be met by considerable new investment in the Service including paying all FBU members the professional rate for the job.

Andy Gilchrist, the General Secretary of the FBU, in a circular to members, emphasises that the FBU expects the Employers to take this opportunity to end this dispute by making a serious offer on pay to our members. Should an offer be received on Thursday, then this will be reported to the Executive Council in the afternoon, and then to a meeting of Brigade Officials to be held in London on Friday, March 7. Consultation will then take place with the Membership before Recall Conference on March 19.

The union's conference is the sovereign body of the FBU.

Ahead of Friday’s meeting of the UN Security Council and a further report by chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, the disagreements and contradictions between the big powers show no signs of ending.

On Wednesday the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and Russia reiterated that their joint objective remains the "full and effective disarmament of Iraq", in compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1441. In a joint statement the three made clear that they believed that this objective could be achieved by the "peaceful means" of the UN inspections and they called for the speeding up of these inspections. At the same time they clearly stated, "In these circumstances, we will not let a proposed resolution pass that would authorise the use of force," and they added, "Russia and France, as permanent members of the Security Council, will assume all their responsibilities on this point." This is a clear reference to the possible use of a veto by both countries in opposition to the new resolution proposed by Britain and the US, which these governments wish to use as another justification for their aggression against Iraq. It is also reported that the government of China is broadly in support of the position adopted by France Germany and Russia, that the crisis over Iraq must be settled peacefully. China is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council with the power of veto.

Both the British and US governments however, have maintained their warmongering stance towards Iraq, despite another recent statement from Hans Blix, which spoke of Iraq’s increasing co-operation with the UN inspectors. Speaking in Washington on Wednesday, US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, urged the UN Security Council to support the new British and US sponsored resolution. But he made it clear that the US reserved the right to attack Iraq whatever the UN Security Council decided. "If the Security Council is unable to take action, despite our best efforts to work with it, we must in the interests of our own safety and, we believe, the safety of the region and the world, reserve the option to act with a coalition of willing nations if the Council does not act", Powell stated. In recent days both Tony Blair and Jack Straw have made statements defending the view that Security Council Resolution 1441 provides sufficient authorisation for military action against Iraq. Both Britain and the US have dismissed Iraq’s recent destruction of its Al Samoud missiles as nothing more than a publicity stunt, a view also at odds with the statement of Hans Blix, which referred to Iraq’s actions as "real disarmament".

The increasingly polarised positions adopted by the big powers are an expression of their own particular interests in regard to Iraq but are also a manifestation of their contention for economic, political and military advantage in the Middle East and throughout the world, as well as being a response to the growing demand of the people worldwide that there should be war under no circumstances. The war plans of the US and Britain are designed to ensure that the US secures strategic and economic advantage in Iraq and throughout the Middle East so as to be able to dominate Europe and use its position of strength as a springboard to dominate Asia. The other big powers are naturally opposed to this aim, while the French and German governments retain ambitions to make the EU a dominant power in the world. In this struggle, therefore, the big powers are not operating from any principled position but are manoeuvring for their own geopolitical interests. The increasing contention between them is a major factor creating international instability and the growing danger of war.