This is a guest post by Matt Wardman of the Wardman Wire. It follows on quite nicely from what I said yesterday about the link between the way parties run themselves and what we can learn about what their Government might be like.
The Undemocratic Nature of the BNP
By Matt Wardman
This article is an introduction to a paper I have published showing that the BNP is dangerously focused on, and controlled by, the single person who happens to be the National Chairman, and is therefore unstable as a political party. You can download the PDF here, or read the full text on the Wardman Wire .
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has taken legal action to force the British National Party to change parts of its Constitution to prevent discrimination on the basis of race or religion. The BNP has agreed to use “all reasonable endeavours” to revise its constitution so it did not discriminate in contravention of the Equality Bill.
The debate has moved on to Nick Griffin’s ability to “persuade his party to allow the change“, with Griffin positioned as a leader attempting to persuade the “General Meeting” of his party to moderate its position.
This is the wrong focus, and it seriously misses the point.
The organisation of the BNP is unrecognisable from the democratic model used by other UK parties; rather, it is heavily dominated by the “National Chairman” himself. Rather than watching the party being gently reformed away from a racist constitution by its leader, we should be questioning the way in which the party itself is controlled from the centre.
The BNP Constitution reveals the party organisation and governance, just as it revealed the racial basis of the BNP’s politics.
Nick Griffin is the “National Chairman” of the BNP. As such, under Section 3 of the Constitution, he has full power over appointments to all other executive offices in the party (except the Party Auditor), routine executive, administrative, policy and tactical decisions, all organisational structures and how they are governed, and determine all policies to implement the basic objectives set out in the Constitution.
The National Chairman also exercises comprehensive control over the “General Members Meeting”, under Section 5.6 of the Constitution. This is the Meeting he needs to “persuade” of to change the Constitution in November. Such a meeting can only be called by two parties: the National Chairman at any time he wishes, or the “Advisory Council” after a two-thirds majority vote.
The Advisory Council can call a General Members Meeting over the head of the Chairman, but that Council itself is a creature of Nick Griffin. It consists of the “National Chairman, Deputy Chairman, the national officials of the party and the organisers of the partyís five most effective regions”; all of these are personal appointments of Mr Griffin. In the event of any disagreements, the decision of the National Chairman is also final. Just to be tidy, the Party Auditor – the only official not appointed by the National Chairman – is appointed by the Advisory Council, all of whom are appointed by the Chairman.
Section 13 of the BNP Constitution controls how General Members Meetings are called. It is all quite informal: “No rigid rules shall govern the holding of internal meetings of the party but such meetings will be held as the occasion demands.” And all Members can attend if their party dues are up to date.
Anyone can submit a motion (28 days in advance through the National Chairman), and if the motion is a proposal to change the way the party is governed, it can only go on the agenda with the National Chairman’s consent.
In contrast to the requirements laid on members wanting to submit motions to a General Members Meeting, there are no requirement for the National Chairman to give members a set amount of advanced notice of such a meeting taking place, or indeed to tell them that it is taking place at all.
In short, there is nothing to prevent the BNP National Chairman holding a General Members’ Meeting by inviting a few friends of his own faction round for tea and buns tomorrow, and voting through any changes they wish to make.
The BNP Constitution is more than 6,000 words long. That is a lot of verbiage to summarise organisational arrangements which I’d summarise as “Nick Griffin and a bunch of fig leaves”.
I’d suggest that the undemocratic nature of the BNP Constitution is every bit as crippling to its credibility as is its racism, and that scrutiny of the BNP should now focus on these aspects.
Heresiarch said...
10 Nov 09 at 12:13 pm
The BNP seems to be ahead of the curve here, Matt. Most parties are heading in that direction. Control from the centre, achieved by hollowing-out, by-passing rigging and in some cases abolishing democratic structures, was the defining feature of the “New Labour” revolution. At a slightly less intrusive manner, central control has been imposed (or attempted to be imposed) on the Conservatives, starting with changes introduced under William Hague and now seen, eg, in attempts to override local choice of candidates in key seats. I don’t know much about the LibDems, but even there, I suspect, power has been slowly accreting to the centre.
The situation is more extreme (as everything is more extreme) in the BNP, I’ve no doubt. But this is perhaps largely because Griffin can get away with more personal control, not because he wants it any more than leaders of mainstream parties do.
JuliaM said...
10 Nov 09 at 12:17 pm
“…and that scrutiny of the BNP should now focus on these aspects.”
That would certainly have the advantage of not getting sidetracked in the ‘you disapprove of the BNP so you must approve of mass immigration’ that these threads tend to devolve into, wouldn’t it?
John said...
10 Nov 09 at 12:46 pm
(I don’t know much about the LibDems, but even there, I suspect, power has been slowly accreting to the centre.)
You just should have used the first 7 words.
Matt Wardman said...
10 Nov 09 at 1:23 pm
My original paper that this came from was written to tryand explore some alternative critique lines on the BNP other than “they are racists”.
The points that struck me about the BNP was that it is all personalised in Griffin, making him a “Fuhrer” by the dictionary definition, and that the “I’ll try and get my party to be more reasonable about our constitution” was therefore just marketing flim-flam.
I can see nothing to prevent Griffin turning it into a Social Democrat setup if he and a few mates have a Damascene Conversion, which would be … fun.
If they did move to a more democratic setup, it may or may not be accompanied by the move towards the mainstream that happened (if I havem my history correct) in the Austrian Freedom Party.
How purely “democratic” parties should be is an interesting question – I’d say it’s a fairly subtle balance, and the balance changes between periods of opposition and government as the party has or does not have popular support. We don’t want party leadership by ballot any more than we want Government purely by Referendum.
I don’t have an intimate knowledge of the inside of any UK party, but my theory on New Labour is that the process was to win control then pull up the ladder afterwards to protect the leadership, by a variety of measures including altering the control of the policy-making process, neutering the Conference, having approved candidates parachuted in, and others including dirty backroom tricks.
The irony is that in doing so, the natural mechanism for longer term change was made crystalline, so that now it is almost impossible to replace the “Project” with the “Next Project” without shattering everything. How quickly they can resolve that will determine how quickly they can bring new ideas for Government.
Matt Wardman said...
10 Nov 09 at 1:24 pm
@Heresiach
How far is that desirable?
Techno Mystic said...
10 Nov 09 at 8:13 pm
I heard recently that Nick Griffin has copyrighted the BNP logo and won’t let anybody use it on their personal blogs.
It’s bizarre.
Matt Wardman said...
11 Nov 09 at 6:14 am
Heh. Copyright Law allows it for valid editorial reasons.
I wonder if his estate could trademark the image of Churchill and go for Griffin on that basis.
Edwin Greenwood said...
11 Nov 09 at 4:14 pm
I don’t think Griffin’s control is quite as complete as you suggest. Recall the business of the EHRC prosecuting the party over its “Whites only” membership policy. When the BNP initially went to court and then caved in, there was a certain amount of smug chortling among the Righteous Left. I suspect however that Griffin was executing a planned manoeuvre to frighten the hard-core elements of his membership into accepting the unavoidable rule change instead of splitting off to form a new party.
I agree with the Heresiarch that the BNP differs from the other parties more in degree than in essence in this regard. Can we seriously claim that the modern Labour party is afflicted by serious internal democracy.
Matt Wardman said...
11 Nov 09 at 5:12 pm
Edwin
I’d be interested in your comments on my more detailed paper linked from this article.
Rgds
Matt
Gregory Carlin said...
12 Nov 09 at 6:34 am
When you bus Roxbury kids into Southie, you get poor whites on welfare voting for reaganomics.
When you integrate prisons, you get the Aryan Brotherhood, a shamrock tattoo in either case.
There is a void there, that thing.
Gregory