Yet the invasion of Iraq shows that this is as phoney as Blair himself. Not only did the government plainly lie to and ignore the public, it did so in the firm knowledge that it could not be held accountable to population for some time to come. The same can be said of the internal regime within the Labour Party, which must be one of the least democratic organisations in the whole of the UK. You only have to read the new party rule book to find out there is no way now that any local branch can initiate a resolution and democratically see it pass up the levels for debate at conference.
Not that passing resolutions amount to much, of course. In the past any motion which conflicted with reasons of state was quickly ignored once the leadership was in office. So even if a motion did get to conference and was passed, it will not make any difference to government policy. The party leadership is no more accountable to the membership than the government is to the voters.
Which shows the limitations of representative democracy. Electing a handful of leaders to govern for you is madness. It does not work. Instead you get the abuse of power (or, more correctly, its use) to ensure the health of state and capitalism. You get the triumphant assertion of the leadership's authority over their party and the population. Yet again, the "sovereign power," the people, is ignored by its "servants," its rulers. What seems strange is that people are surprised by this. After all, it is the basic assumption of democracy -- that the people cannot govern themselves and can only appoint those who can. Why be surprised when those placed into power use that power against those who gave it away?
But, perhaps, party members will, yet again, be happy to ignore the past and instead listen to the party leadership as they dust off the radical sounding rhetoric they avoid the rest of the year? Perhaps they will, yet again, ignore the gap between what is said at conference and what the leadership does afterwards? They did give the Bomber of Baghdad a standing ovation, in spite of the fact Blair told them that he will listen but not, apparently, hear. Amidst the promises against centralism and "top-down" leadership, Blair promised he had no "reverse gear." The next day he vowed to ignore the conference vote on foundation hospitals! Does he know what "top down" means?
So we know what we can expect when Blair calls for his new discussion with the British people about the choices that face the country. Whether it is on Iraq or GM, Blair will dismiss everything we say and go on with his agenda of making the UK save for capitalism.
Of course, in practice, Blair has went into reverse on many issues, at home and abroad. His u-turns on Iraq are well known, for example on whether Saddam was a threat or the need for a second UN resolution. As are his u-turns on re-nationalising the electricity industry and the railways, removing the "market" from the NHS, reforming the anti-trade union laws, and so many other terrible things the Tories had introduced and which he had denounced while in opposition.
But that was then, this is now. Blair, without mentioning such matters in Labour's manifesto, is busy extending Thatcherism. He lied about not having "a reverse gear." When facing the rich and powerful he will happily switch gear and go into reverse. Not so, of course, when facing those he claims to be representing, the people. When faced with the demands of working people, of trade unionists, of patients within a crumbling NHS, of pensioners trying to make ends meet, the unemployed, asylum seekers and the rest of the general population, then he shows his "mettle." As Thatcher showed, true leadership is all about kowtowing to the powerful few while attacking (in their own interests, of course!) the many.
Yet the delegates, like Blair, refuse to hear what is inconvenient. The lure of a third term in office is what counts, hence the ovation for the man who ignores them and the country. Ah, it will be said, what is wrong with you people? Do you really want the Tories back? But we do have the Tories. Blair's agenda is not reformist, it is Thatcherite. His politics are about benefiting the rich and powerful, not to the bulk of the population. Hopefully the few remaining genuine socialists will reconsider their membership and look, like so many outside the party, for alternatives.
Are there alternatives? The left will argue that working class people should put their faith in some new "socialist" leadership rather than Blair and company. We reject that path. We say that they should put their faith in themselves and their own ability to make changes by their own, direct, action and solidarity. That is what anarchism is all about. And it is, as history shows, the only way to change the world for the better.
The source of the rot is clear. Electioneering, by placing the focus on representatives, turns the struggle away from mass direct action in the streets and workplaces and into the hands of a few leaders working within capitalist institutions. Collective struggle is slowly but surely replaced by the individualist actions of atomised voters and the leaders who fight on their behalf. All of which undermines constructive activity in our workplaces and communities and the building organs of working class power which can create a real alternative to the state and capital. Moreover, the pressures exerted on the politicians by the state bureaucracy and big business soon ensure they start being "realistic" and "responsible." Should we be surprised? Why expect the capitalist state to allow itself to be used to attack capitalism? The state is an instrument of minority rule and cannot be used to end that rule.
Why repeat the mistakes of the past? Why follow a path which, everywhere it is follows, results in radical rhetoric masking reformist practice and, ultimately, produces creatures like Blair? Why follow, like the German Greens, the path of Labour and Social Democracy to opportunism and betrayal? Surely the fate of these parties proves beyond doubt that Bakunin was right on the issue of electioneering? He predicted that the use of electioneering would water down socialist policies and turn radicals reformist. It was for this reason he urged direct action based on workers' self-organisation. Yet today we still see people argue that we must elect dedicated socialist politicians as part of the struggle of socialism!
But why learn the lessons of history when we can repeat it?