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.