Read this article in:
19 August, 2009
in resisting apartheid in South Africa or stayed out of party politics in post colonial Kenya, resisted incorporation into the organs of state in Francophone Africa or stayed out of elections in Zimbabwe?
Common sense tells us there are probably as many answers to these kinds of questions as there are different political situations and economic contexts in which the question is asked. So in order to begin to develop a broader response that may apply across different national situations we need to try and figure out some principles to apply to different situations.
The first question we may ask is what we mean by political? There is the narrow view that sees political as being limited to party political issues and therefore elections. This tends to be a liberal view that attempts to artificially separate economics from politics. This view often argues that unions have no political role and usually goes further to argue that whilst unions have a right to exists they are negative institutions that prevent the free market from operating ...well, freely. If we think about it though this makes no sense at all. How can politics be separate from economics? It's like saying that ice and water are two completely different and unrelated things because one is solid and the other liquid and conveniently assuming away the effect of temperature. You see the connection between politics and economics every time you watch the news or read a newspaper. A politician says this or that and it affects the value of the currency. Labour legislation is changed to attract investors and workers suffer as a consequence.
Unions are clearly not political parties but they most definitely are organisations of economic interest and by their very reason for existence must intervene in the economic arena to further the interests of the people that create and build union organisation, the working class. If the union does not have this as a purpose it simply can not be called a union.
If we accept that politics and economics are linked then as unionists we have to accept that political engagement is unavoidable. But does this mean simply throwing our support to one political party or another?
To answer this let us look at the other argument that sees politics and economics as inseparable. Here, to continue our ice and water analogy, temperature would be the mode of production in the society and it is not assumed away at all. If the society is based on the political economic system of capitalism the system it self dictates that the state must represent the interests of one class over the other for unless there is growth through the exploitation of labour the system itself can not continue to work. The simple understanding of this view would therefore see any political party that does not want to change the economic system and is trying to become the ruling party, as much the same as all the others. This view can make sense. Consider America, where people often say it makes no difference whether you vote for the Republican or Democratic party, there is only one party the Capitalist party.
Can this mean there no space to win benefits for the working class and therefore political engagement is pointless? As power collides in society there is space to win concessions that are in the interests of the working class.
Another possibility is where rulers come to see the whole system as being for their own purposes or benefit, We have seen this before in Africa, where sytems can come to resemble feudalism or even worse slavery, where the ruling party start to take on the image of royalty and the leader is king. In such a situation the capitalist class and working people may even find themselves in a strange alliance.
History shows us many points where workers have been able to take advantage of divisions in power to further our interests. The working week has been shortened, unions have won rights, at times bargaining has delivered improved living conditions and so on. So if as labour leaders, we avoid these opportunities then we fail to represent the fundamental mandate of workers.
There is no denying that the labour movement can play an influential political role in a country. But how should we decide to step into the political arena? Maybe a candidate used to be part of the trade unions, or maybe the party is offering some support for the union federation's building project, or maybe and so the reasons continue...These kinds of reasons have all been seen before but have also been shown as false reasons emerging because union leaders alone and not working class organizations as a whole has taken decisions to support a candidate.
We need clear reasons (a strategy), clear undertakings from a political parties (a manifesto that supports a working class agenda), vigilance to ensure that promises are kept (accountability from unions and parties), education that builds worker's understanding and ownership of decisions (practiced democracy) and the process of deciding support and carrying it out must build working class unity. Beyond representing workers who have been dismissed or bargaining for wages the historic mission of the trade union movement has always been to unite the working class around their common interest.
Should any of these elements be absent then the political engagement of a trade union is likely to go against the interests of workers. Too often in the past the blood of workers has been shed in the interests of bourgeoisie politics and the politics of division and personal enrichment. It is the absolute responsibility of workers and union leaders to ensure this does not happen.
Common sense tells us there are probably as many answers to these kinds of questions as there are different political situations and economic contexts in which the question is asked. So in order to begin to develop a broader response that may apply across different national situations we need to try and figure out some principles to apply to different situations.
The first question we may ask is what we mean by political? There is the narrow view that sees political as being limited to party political issues and therefore elections. This tends to be a liberal view that attempts to artificially separate economics from politics. This view often argues that unions have no political role and usually goes further to argue that whilst unions have a right to exists they are negative institutions that prevent the free market from operating ...well, freely. If we think about it though this makes no sense at all. How can politics be separate from economics? It's like saying that ice and water are two completely different and unrelated things because one is solid and the other liquid and conveniently assuming away the effect of temperature. You see the connection between politics and economics every time you watch the news or read a newspaper. A politician says this or that and it affects the value of the currency. Labour legislation is changed to attract investors and workers suffer as a consequence.
Unions are clearly not political parties but they most definitely are organisations of economic interest and by their very reason for existence must intervene in the economic arena to further the interests of the people that create and build union organisation, the working class. If the union does not have this as a purpose it simply can not be called a union.
If we accept that politics and economics are linked then as unionists we have to accept that political engagement is unavoidable. But does this mean simply throwing our support to one political party or another?
To answer this let us look at the other argument that sees politics and economics as inseparable. Here, to continue our ice and water analogy, temperature would be the mode of production in the society and it is not assumed away at all. If the society is based on the political economic system of capitalism the system it self dictates that the state must represent the interests of one class over the other for unless there is growth through the exploitation of labour the system itself can not continue to work. The simple understanding of this view would therefore see any political party that does not want to change the economic system and is trying to become the ruling party, as much the same as all the others. This view can make sense. Consider America, where people often say it makes no difference whether you vote for the Republican or Democratic party, there is only one party the Capitalist party.
Can this mean there no space to win benefits for the working class and therefore political engagement is pointless? As power collides in society there is space to win concessions that are in the interests of the working class.
Another possibility is where rulers come to see the whole system as being for their own purposes or benefit, We have seen this before in Africa, where sytems can come to resemble feudalism or even worse slavery, where the ruling party start to take on the image of royalty and the leader is king. In such a situation the capitalist class and working people may even find themselves in a strange alliance.
History shows us many points where workers have been able to take advantage of divisions in power to further our interests. The working week has been shortened, unions have won rights, at times bargaining has delivered improved living conditions and so on. So if as labour leaders, we avoid these opportunities then we fail to represent the fundamental mandate of workers.
There is no denying that the labour movement can play an influential political role in a country. But how should we decide to step into the political arena? Maybe a candidate used to be part of the trade unions, or maybe the party is offering some support for the union federation's building project, or maybe and so the reasons continue...These kinds of reasons have all been seen before but have also been shown as false reasons emerging because union leaders alone and not working class organizations as a whole has taken decisions to support a candidate.
We need clear reasons (a strategy), clear undertakings from a political parties (a manifesto that supports a working class agenda), vigilance to ensure that promises are kept (accountability from unions and parties), education that builds worker's understanding and ownership of decisions (practiced democracy) and the process of deciding support and carrying it out must build working class unity. Beyond representing workers who have been dismissed or bargaining for wages the historic mission of the trade union movement has always been to unite the working class around their common interest.
Should any of these elements be absent then the political engagement of a trade union is likely to go against the interests of workers. Too often in the past the blood of workers has been shed in the interests of bourgeoisie politics and the politics of division and personal enrichment. It is the absolute responsibility of workers and union leaders to ensure this does not happen.