DOCSLIB.ORG

DEMOCRACY and PARTICIPATION in SYNASPISMOS Haris Golemis, Director of NPI

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DEMOCRACY and PARTICIPATION in SYNASPISMOS Haris Golemis, Director of NPI DEMOCRACY AND PARTICIPATION IN SYNASPISMOS Haris Golemis, Director of NPI (Draft paper presented at the Transform Seminar “Transformative Left Parties in Europe. The question of Democracy and Participation”) Not to be quoted without previous permission 1. Taking into consideration some of the criteria for party democracy and participation mentioned in the bibliography (the equal right of women and men party members to express freely their views, not only in the party press but also in the mainstream media, to establish and participate in tendencies and currents, to have a determinative role in policy decisions etc.), one could not but agree, after reading Synaspismos’ constitution, that it is a model participative party of the European Radical Left. But then, one could reasonably come to the conclusion that democracy does not really pay, since the centralized Greek Communist Party (KKE), a Marxist-Leninist and recently Stalinist party, is considerably stronger in terms of votes, trade-union, party and youth members than Synaspismos. It would need much time and space to discuss the reasons why this happens and the only thing I would like to suggest in this respect is that this situation is not historically neutral. 2. The question of internal democracy has been of primary importance to Synaspismos, since its establishment as a unitary party in 1991. In fact, democracy both within the party and in a future socialist society which, according to the dictum of our late comrade Nicos Poulantzas, “will either be democratic or not be at all”, was one of the issues which has divided, since the split of the CPG in 1968, the two main sections of the Greek, non social- democratic, Left: a) the pro-soviet KKE and b) the various political formations of the Renovating (Communist and Non-Communist) Left. In this historical process, Synaspismos is part of the second group. 3. According to its constitution, “Synaspismos is a party of its members” and “[its[ organization, functioning and actions are based on democracy, transparency, pluralism, functional and power decentralization, renewal of party’s bodies, which should be representative of views, gender and age [of the party members]”. Furthermore, although Synaspismos is “a unitary party and not the sum of separate political groups”, its members can form “tendencies and ideological currents”. 4. Delegates to the party Congress (held initially every 2 and later until now every 3 years) are elected directly by the party members (approximately 15000 before last year’s split) of around 200 basis organizations, mainly according to their tendency affiliation or sympathy. Members of the Central Political Committee (presently 124) are elected at the Congress from more than one list, which correspond to different tendency or tendencies’ alliances. CPC elects the 21 members of the Secretariat also from different tendency lists on a proportional basis. 5. Tendencies have been a key factor affecting internal democracy in Synaspismos and their existence has a historic explanation. Synaspismos (first name: Coalition of the Left and Progress, changed to Coalition of the Left of Movements and of Ecology in 2003) was initially founded in 1988 (during the Gorbatchev era) as a real coalition mainly of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) and the GREEK LEFT (the reformed part of the ex Communist Party of Greece-Interior, after the split of this euro- communist party in 1987), some smaller social-democratic groups and a number of distinguished personalities of the Socialst Left. 6. Three years after the establishment of the Synaspismos, KKE decided to withdraw. The result was a serious party split, with those of its members remaining in Synaspismos turning the coalition, together with the members of the DEMOCRATIC LEFT, into a unitary party under the same name. 7. This crucial and ambiguous decision, taken at a high level of both partners of the coalition, created a new situation which was not easy at all. Members coming from the two conflicting sides of the Greek communist movement suddenly had to co-exist as comrades in the same party, without any previous discussion among themselves about the ideological, political, historical and cultural issues which had divided them in the not so far past. The introduction of tendencies (at the time, a big novelty of the non-communist Left) was actually a way for the survival of the new party, with (actual) segmentation substituting an (impossible) homogenization. 8. Since that time and until recently, Synaspismos has been divided in two main factions, the “Left Current” (consisting mainly of the ex-KKE members) and one or more “Renovating” tendencies, which at the end were united in the “Renovating Wing”. During the last party Congress (June 2010), the big majority of delegates elected from the list of the “Renovating Wing” walked out, after their appeal for the withdrawal of Synaspismos from SYRIZA (Coalition of the Radical Left), an Alliance of Synaspismos with several small political groups of left-eurocommunist, trotskyist, post maoist, populist socialist etc orientation, formed in 2004 with the consent of all Synaspismos tendencies, was turned down by the leadership. A little bit later, the “Renovators” established the Democratic Left (DIMAR), accusing Synaspismos and SYRIZA for left extremism. Soon after the Congress, the “Left Current” was also split, with its bigger part merging with the movementist and left Eurocommunist “Red-Left Network” and “independent” members to form the tendency of “Left Unity” (AREN). AREN and “Platform 2010” of those Renovators who remained in Synaspismos form the new party majority, which also supports the leadership of Alexis Tsipras. 9. Today, for a foreigner ignorant of Greek politics it would be a big surprise to learn that those for the policies of DIMAR and of the Synaspismos’ tendency “Left Current" were at the same party some months ago and for the last twenty years. The Democratic Left is praised by PASOK for its “responsibility” as opposed to SYRIZA, claims that Synaspismos is a party of protest and not of proposals (a strange claim since its members participated in all past party Committees that always produced bulky programmes) and don’t miss the opportunity to declare its opposition to actions of civil and political disobedience. On the other hand, the “Left Current” declares openly in the mass media and the website “Iskra”, created after the last Synaspismos’ Congress, its full disagreement with the party line on the issue of the crisis, being friendly to the idea of a Greece’s withdrawal from the euro-area and the EU, as well as for the need for a “new bolshevism”. 10. Having rejected democratic centralism, Synaspismos has been constituted as a party of “political” and not “ideological” unity. Although not all party members, belong to tendencies/ factions, nobody denies that these and the President are the real pillars of Synaspismos. The President is elected on a competitive basis (in Synaspismos’ history, with two exceptions, candidates for this position ranged from two to four) directly by the Congress delegates and not by the Central (Political) Committee as used to be the rule with General Secretaries in the Communist Parties. 11. Some people believe that direct election of the party leader epitomizes party’s internal democracy and inclusiveness and mediates the power of the factions’ leaders. Although this is true to a certain extent (despite the actual election of the President from one or more factions), its benefit could be countered by the fact that in this way the party leader is not “primus inter pares”, as demanded by the participative and not-presidential ethos of the Renovating and Radical Left (according to our view), but a person who potentially could act even without the previous consent or even consultation of the party bodies. 12. Has the tendency-based organizational structure of Synaspismos contributed to the promotion of internal democracy, mainly in terms of inclusiveness, and furthermore has it increased its efficiency as an actor for the transformation of the Greek society? This is not an easy question. With a certain degree of exaggeration, one could claim that in some periods of the party life tendencies/ factions were actually “parties within the party”, with their own leaders, internal discipline based on the concept of democratic centralism (the same democratic centralism, which has been abandoned by the party itself), websites, friendly journalists, political alliances and members of the Greek and the European Parliament. This situation cannot be described as an apotheosis of democracy. Party members have been free to express their views in basis organizations or in the CPC, but the factions’ rule have effectively prevented them from any real participation in the production of Synaspismos’ policies, especially if they did not belong to any tendency or disagreed with its leadership. 13. The sharing of power between the main factions has also increased the usual distance between MPs, MEPs or elected officials in institutions of local authorities and the party. During the party history and until recently, in crucial matters, some of them tended to be more loyal to their faction than to the party itself and its majority line. Another side-effect of the existence of tendencies/ factions has been the almost “tenure” of some MPs and MEPs, which could not easily be interrupted, since this would disturb the factional equilibrium. To change this situation, the existing party constitution provides for limits in the terms of office for MPs (max. 6 years, then a pause and then another 6 years), but everybody believes that this can be applied only on voluntary basis. Few would doubt that the situation described above does not disseminate a message of internal party democracy to the Greek society. 14. The truth is also that the way the SYRIZA alliance functions reduces, in fact, internal party democracy and inclusiveness.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Slovenia Before the Elections
    PERSPECTIVE Realignment of the party system – Slovenia before the elections ALEŠ MAVER AND UROŠ URBAS November 2011 The coalition government under Social Democrat Prime make people redundant. Nevertheless, the unemploy- Minister Borut Pahor lost the support it needed in Parlia- ment rate increased by 75 per cent to 107,000 over three ment and early elections had to be called for 4 Decem- years. This policy was financed by loans of 8 billion eu- ber, one year before completing its term of office. What ros, which doubled the public deficit. are the reasons for this development? Which parties are now seeking votes in the »political marketplace«? What However, Prime Minister Pahor overestimated his popu- coalitions are possible after 4 December? And what chal- larity in a situation in which everybody hoped that the lenges will the new government face? economic crisis would soon be over. The governing par- ties had completely different priorities: they were seek- ing economic rents; they could not resist the pressure of Why did the government of lobbies and made concessions; and they were too preoc- Prime Minister Borut Pahor fail? cupied with scandals and other affairs emerging from the ranks of the governing coalition. Although the governing coalition was homogeneously left-wing, it could not work together and registered no significant achievements. The next government will thus Electoral history and development be compelled to achieve something. Due to the deterio- of the party system rating economic situation – for 2012 1 per cent GDP growth, 1.3 per cent inflation, 8.4 per cent unemploy- Since the re-introduction of the multi-party system Slo- ment and a 5.3 per cent budget deficit are predicted – venia has held general elections in 1990, 1992, 1996, the goals will be economic.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise of Syriza: an Interview with Aristides Baltas
    THE RISE OF SYRIZA: AN INTERVIEW WITH ARISTIDES BALTAS This interview with Aristides Baltas, the eminent Greek philosopher who was one of the founders of Syriza and is currently a coordinator of its policy planning committee, was conducted by Leo Panitch with the help of Michalis Spourdalakis in Athens on 29 May 2012, three weeks after Syriza came a close second in the first Greek election of 6 May, and just three days before the party’s platform was to be revealed for the second election of 17 June. Leo Panitch (LP): Can we begin with the question of what is distinctive about Syriza in terms of socialist strategy today? Aristides Baltas (AB): I think that independently of everything else, what’s happening in Greece does have a bearing on socialist strategy, which is not possible to discuss during the electoral campaign, but which will present issues that we’re going to face after the elections, no matter how the elections turn out. We haven’t had the opportunity to discuss this, because we are doing so many diverse things that we look like a chicken running around with its head cut off. But this is precisely why I first want to step back to 2008, when through an interesting procedure, Synaspismos, the main party in the Syriza coalition, formulated the main elements of the programme in a book of over 300 pages. The polls were showing that Syriza was growing in popularity (indeed we reached over 15 per cent in voting intentions that year), and there was a big pressure on us at that time, as we kept hearing: ‘you don’t have a programme; we don’t know who you are; we don’t know what you’re saying’.
    [Show full text]
  • Download/Print the Study in PDF Format
    GENERAL ELECTION IN GREECE 7th July 2019 European New Democracy is the favourite in the Elections monitor Greek general election of 7th July Corinne Deloy On 26th May, just a few hours after the announcement of the results of the European, regional and local elections held in Greece, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras (Coalition of the Radical Left, SYRIZA), whose party came second to the main opposition party, New Analysis Democracy (ND), declared: “I cannot ignore this result. It is for the people to decide and I am therefore going to request the organisation of an early general election”. Organisation of an early general election (3 months’ early) surprised some observers of Greek political life who thought that the head of government would call on compatriots to vote as late as possible to allow the country’s position to improve as much as possible. New Democracy won in the European elections with 33.12% of the vote, ahead of SYRIZA, with 23.76%. The Movement for Change (Kinima allagis, KINAL), the left-wing opposition party which includes the Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK), the Social Democrats Movement (KIDISO), the River (To Potami) and the Democratic Left (DIMAR), collected 7.72% of the vote and the Greek Communist Party (KKE), 5.35%. Alexis Tsipras had made these elections a referendum Costas Bakoyannis (ND), the new mayor of Athens, on the action of his government. “We are not voting belongs to a political dynasty: he is the son of Dora for a new government, but it is clear that this vote is Bakoyannis, former Minister of Culture (1992-1993) not without consequence.
    [Show full text]
  • The Agonistic Model of Democracy and the European Union
    The agonistic model of democracy and the European Union Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Philosophischen Fakultät der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel vorgelegt von Caroline Maria Kalkreuth Kiel 08.03.2021 Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Dirk Nabers Zweitgutachterin: Prof. Dr. Paula Diehl Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 11.06.2021 Durch den Prodekan für Studium und Lehre, Prof. Dr. Michael Elmentaler, zum Druck genehmigt: 21.07.2021 DEDICATION To Simon TABLE OF CONTENT 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1! 2. RESISTANCE TO THE PROCESS OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION .................................. 11! 2.1!CHANGING!DISCOURSE!FROM!PERMISSIVE!CONSENSUS!TO!RESISTANCE!..........................................................................11! 2.2!THE!STUDY!OF!EUROSCEPTICISM!.........................................................................................................................18! 2.3!RESEARCH!GAP!...............................................................................................................................................40! 2.4!CONCLUSION!.................................................................................................................................................44! 3. THROUGH THE LENSES OF THE AGONISTIC MODEL OF DEMOCRACY .................. 47! 3.1!MOUFFE’S!TRAJECTORY!FROM!MARXISM!TO!POST?MARXISM!.....................................................................................48!
    [Show full text]
  • European Left Info Flyer
    United for a left alternative in Europe United for a left alternative in Europe ”We refer to the values and traditions of socialism, com- munism and the labor move- ment, of feminism, the fem- inist movement and gender equality, of the environmental movement and sustainable development, of peace and international solidarity, of hu- man rights, humanism and an- tifascism, of progressive and liberal thinking, both national- ly and internationally”. Manifesto of the Party of the European Left, 2004 ABOUT THE PARTY OF THE EUROPEAN LEFT (EL) EXECUTIVE BOARD The Executive Board was elected at the 4th Congress of the Party of the European Left, which took place from 13 to 15 December 2013 in Madrid. The Executive Board consists of the President and the Vice-Presidents, the Treasurer and other Members elected by the Congress, on the basis of two persons of each member party, respecting the principle of gender balance. COUNCIL OF CHAIRPERSONS The Council of Chairpersons meets at least once a year. The members are the Presidents of all the member par- ties, the President of the EL and the Vice-Presidents. The Council of Chairpersons has, with regard to the Execu- tive Board, rights of initiative and objection on important political issues. The Council of Chairpersons adopts res- olutions and recommendations which are transmitted to the Executive Board, and it also decides on applications for EL membership. NETWORKS n Balkan Network n Trade Unionists n Culture Network Network WORKING GROUPS n Central and Eastern Europe n Africa n Youth n Agriculture n Migration n Latin America n Middle East n North America n Peace n Communication n Queer n Education n Public Services n Environment n Women Trafficking Member and Observer Parties The Party of the European Left (EL) is a political party at the Eu- ropean level that was formed in 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • Germany's Left Party Is Shut out of Government, but Remains a Powerful
    Germany’s Left Party is shut out of government, but remains a powerful player in German politics blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/09/19/germanys-left-party-is-shut-out-of-government-but-remains-a-powerful- player-in-german-politics/ 19/09/2013 The Left Party (Die Linke) received 11.9 per cent of the vote in the 2009 German federal elections, and is predicted to comfortably clear the country’s 5 per cent threshold in this Sunday’s vote. Jonathan Olsen outlines the party’s recent history and its role in the German party system. He notes that although the Left Party appears willing to enter into coalition with the other major parties, it is not viewed as a viable coalition partner. Despite being shut out of government, the party nevertheless remains an important part of German politics. Although the government that emerges after Germany’s federal elections on 22 September will largely depend on the performance of the two biggest parties, the conservative block of CDU/CSU and the Left-Center Social Democrats (SPD), the impact of smaller parties on the ultimate outcome should not be underestimated. Thus the failure of the Free Democrats (FDP) to clear the 5 per cent hurdle necessary for legislative representation would most likely lead to a “Grand Coalition” of CDU/CSU and SPD, while an outstanding performance by the German Greens could make possible (though unlikely) an SPD-Greens coalition government. The third of Germany’s smaller parties – the Left Party – will not have the same impact on coalition calculations as the FDP and Greens, since all of the other four parties have categorically ruled out a coalition with it.
    [Show full text]
  • Codebook Indiveu – Party Preferences
    Codebook InDivEU – party preferences European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies December 2020 Introduction The “InDivEU – party preferences” dataset provides data on the positions of more than 400 parties from 28 countries1 on questions of (differentiated) European integration. The dataset comprises a selection of party positions taken from two existing datasets: (1) The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File contains party positions for three rounds of European Parliament elections (2009, 2014, and 2019). Party positions were determined in an iterative process of party self-placement and expert judgement. For more information: https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/65944 (2) The Chapel Hill Expert Survey The Chapel Hill Expert Survey contains party positions for the national elections most closely corresponding the European Parliament elections of 2009, 2014, 2019. Party positions were determined by expert judgement. For more information: https://www.chesdata.eu/ Three additional party positions, related to DI-specific questions, are included in the dataset. These positions were determined by experts involved in the 2019 edition of euandi after the elections took place. The inclusion of party positions in the “InDivEU – party preferences” is limited to the following issues: - General questions about the EU - Questions about EU policy - Questions about differentiated integration - Questions about party ideology 1 This includes all 27 member states of the European Union in 2020, plus the United Kingdom. How to Cite When using the ‘InDivEU – Party Preferences’ dataset, please cite all of the following three articles: 1. Reiljan, Andres, Frederico Ferreira da Silva, Lorenzo Cicchi, Diego Garzia, Alexander H.
    [Show full text]
  • Dimensions and Alignments in European Union Politics: Cognitive Constraints and Partisan Responses
    Working Paper Series in European Studies Volume 1, Number 3 Dimensions and Alignments in European Union Politics: Cognitive Constraints and Partisan Responses DR. SIMON HIX DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE Houghton Street London, WC2A 2AE United Kingdom ([email protected]) EDITORIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE: GILLES BOUSQUET KEITH COHEN COLLEEN DUNLAVY ANDREAS KAZAMIAS LEON LINDBERG ELAINE MARKS ANNE MINER ROBERT OSTERGREN MARK POLLACK GREGORY SHAFFER MARC SILBERMAN JONATHAN ZEITLIN Copyright © 1998 All rights reserved. No part of this paper may be reproduced in any form without permission of the author. European Studies Program, International Institute, University of Wisconsin--Madison Madison, Wisconsin http://polyglot.lss.wisc.edu/eur/ 1 Dimensions and Alignments in European Union Politics: Cognitive Constraints and Partisan Responses Simon Hix Department of Government, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom Abstract As the European Union (EU) has evolved, the study agenda has shifted from ‘European integration’ to ‘EU politics’. Missing from this new agenda, however, is an understanding of the ‘cognitive constraints’ on actors, and how actors respond: i.e. the shape of the EU ‘political space’ and the location of social groups and competition between actors within this space. The article develops a theoretical framework for understanding the shape of the EU political space (the interaction between an Integration-Independence and a Left-Right dimension and the location of class and sectoral groups within this map), and tests this framework on the policy positions of the Socialist, Christian Democrat and Liberal party leaders between 1976 and 1994 (using the techniques of the ECPR Party Manifestos Group Project).
    [Show full text]
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Making of SYRIZA
    Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line Panos Petrou The making of SYRIZA Published: June 11, 2012. http://socialistworker.org/print/2012/06/11/the-making-of-syriza Transcription, Editing and Markup: Sam Richards and Paul Saba Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above. June 11, 2012 -- Socialist Worker (USA) -- Greece's Coalition of the Radical Left, SYRIZA, has a chance of winning parliamentary elections in Greece on June 17, which would give it an opportunity to form a government of the left that would reject the drastic austerity measures imposed on Greece as a condition of the European Union's bailout of the country's financial elite. SYRIZA rose from small-party status to a second-place finish in elections on May 6, 2012, finishing ahead of the PASOK party, which has ruled Greece for most of the past four decades, and close behind the main conservative party New Democracy. When none of the three top finishers were able to form a government with a majority in parliament, a date for a new election was set -- and SYRIZA has been neck-and-neck with New Democracy ever since. Where did SYRIZA, an alliance of numerous left-wing organisations and unaffiliated individuals, come from? Panos Petrou, a leading member of Internationalist Workers Left (DEA, by its initials in Greek), a revolutionary socialist organisation that co-founded SYRIZA in 2004, explains how the coalition rose to the prominence it has today.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Full Issue (PDF)
    JULY/AUGUSTl 996 VOLUME XXV NUMBER 4 Sl . 50~.,o,_o_ - ... , DEMOCRATIC ,., , . ~ 6 AMA11.~ , ·X 523 1 06 1 PUBLISHED BY THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA -."" M 'Y . E D T 0 R A L DSA's Perspective on the 1996 Elections A STATEMENT FROM DSA's NATIONAL PouncAL COMMITTEE he key goal for progre.ssives an~ socialms in_t~e 1996 elec­ • supporting civil rights by defeating the California Civil T tions is to defeat the Republican right. To do thtS involv~ three Rights Initiative (which would actually take away key rights important usks: for people of color and women); • defeat Bob Dole; • advancing the principle of health care for all by support • retake Congre.ss from the Republicans; and for iniuatives on HMOs; and • enlarge and strengthen the Progressive Caucus in • strengthening the principle of a living wage for all by sup­ Congress. pon for the initiative rai~ing the minimum wage. To most of us on the le.ft the 1996 Presidential race offers little In addttion, the Progress Caucus has developed a •progressive in the way of hope for positive social and economic change. Polls today Prom1~e to America• which includes eleven agenda items from corporate suggest that President Clinton has a commanding lead. But it's far to early responsibility to a living wage to downsizing the military budget. In Wash­ to declare victory. And of course a Ointon victory would be a partial one ington, DSA has been working ~-ith the Caucus and the Committee on at best. Econoffilc Insecunty to develop public bearing~ on issues related w this Four years ago, Clinton won the Presidential election by fo­ agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • Janice Godrich - Why I’M Standing for Election As the Left Unity Candidate for PCS Assistant General Secretary
    Janice Godrich - Why I’m standing for election as the Left Unity candidate for PCS Assistant General Secretary It has been a privilege to have been elected annually by members since 2002 as PCS President. I am standing for election as the Left Unity candidate for the post of PCS Assistant General Secretary and ask that you consider voting for me. It is the most important decision I have taken in over 35 years as a PCS activist. I am standing for election on the basis of my experience, my record of achievement and most importantly our policies set by our democratic conference for the future direction of our union. If elected I pledge to only take an average workers wage. I have vast experience as an activist. I have been a PCS rep and activist since 1981. I began like most of you as a workplace rep in what was then the Employment Service, now DWP. I was soon elected as a regional rep and then served as Group President before being elected by PCS members as our national president a record 17 consecutive times. Nobody has been elected by all PCS members as often as me. I am clearly the most electable candidate and best placed to secure this post for Left Unity. My record of achievement is second to none. I have negotiated at all levels of the union and on a wide range of issues. From my beginning as a local rep, through my leadership of the Employment Service to 17 years as President I have negotiated, campaigned and won for our members.
    [Show full text]