Author: Nick Lowles | Date: August 2007

The politics of a banana republic

Nick Griffin and the British National Party have a problem with democracy. It is an alien concept to fascism and one that is regularly derided in party literature and speeches. After all, it was Griffin who once wrote that power was obtained through the boot and fist rather than the council chamber. It was Griffin who once reproduced a noose on the front page of his Rune magazine as a hint at what awaited their opponents when he was swept into power.

And so it is that democracy appears to have no place within the BNP. Despite certain victory in the party leadership election Griffin simply cannot adhere to common democracy, a level playing field or even an honest debate. In fact, he appears so opposed to an honest debate he personally has decided that the party members do not need one.

Bizarrely, Griffin has even appointed himself as the de facto returning officer for his own election. While the title has formally been given to Nick Cass, a close confidant of Griffin, this is simply for show. It was Griffin who wrote to his rival’s campaign team to set out the rules of the contest. They were arbitrarily concocted, with no consultation with his opponent, and clearly skewed to benefit himself and bar the possibility of any debate within the party.

Writing to Chris Jackson’s campaign manager, Mike Easter, on 30 June, Griffin spelt out how the election would be run. It is hard to imagine Griffin keeping a straight face as he typed up the document.

“In setting this I am mindful of two key aims: To ensure that the process is both fair and seen to be fair; and to minimise the opportunities for troublemakers to damage the party,” he opened.

Each candidate would be allowed to make a 200-word statement that would be carried in the members’ bulletin, British Nationalist, and a longer 800-word statement would be available, to members only, on the party website.

However, he then announced that the election campaign would be a two-week affair, removing any room for honest debate.

While both candidates would be allowed to speak at meetings around the country, there was to be no hustings or personal campaign literature produced.

“In order to avoid giving an unfair advantage to the incumbent, or encouraging the illicit collection of membership data, neither candidate nor their agents or supporters shall distribute any information, in any form, by post, phone or email, except in response to a direct request from an individual member for information for him or herself.”

This was the end of the diktat, at least as it appeared on the party website for public consumption. In the full letter to Easter, Griffin went further:

“In setting the date of the election I am mindful of the fact that you do not approve of the Red-White-and-Blue family festival and also have again not applied to attend the Summer School. Clearly this would place you at a disadvantage if the election took place after these major BNP events. In addition, even a long campaign would not reach more than a limited number of members at meetings and, in view of the bitterness of the ad hominem attacks already made by some, no good purpose would be served by holding hustings meetings in a few places or in dragging the campaign out.

“As per the precedent set by Mr. Tyndall when he laid down how the 1999 leadership election was to be run, neither candidate nor his agent nor supporters should make any comment to the media about the contest until it is over. This is an internal matter for the BNP and interviews to a fundamentally hostile media are not acceptable. Any approaches should be dealt with by way of a simple statement along the lines of ‘The election is a matter for the members of the BNP and I have no comment to make.’”

Griffin even went on to attack the Jackson camp for circulating a press statement that criticised the leadership’s running of the party. It “should not be reissued” Griffin ordered. However, in view of the allegations of financial mismanage-ment, the BNP leader ordered the party’s Treasury Department to produce a detailed defence of his leadership.

Unsurprisingly, the Jackson camp was furious, seeing this clearly for what it was: an attempt to avoid any form of real debate or engagement with the party members.

“The timescale that you are proposing is quite ridiculous and would prevent any meaningful campaigning,” Easter replied. “Is this the purpose of the suggestion? Don’t you want members to discuss and debate how the Party should be organised and run?

“We require a timetable that is sensible and counter propose the timetable set by precedent, so that ballot papers go out at the end of August and are returned by the end of September. Such a proposal is also in tune with section 4,4, of the Party Constitution. Further, because of annual holidays, August is regarded politically as a ‘dead’ month.

“Failure to agree such a reasonable proposal will be regarded by us as a refusal to hold an election.

“Your letter talks about ‘seen to be fair’ and ‘opportunities for troublemakers to damage the party’. Your proposed timescale blows ‘seen to be fair’ out of the water even before considering any further sections of your letter. ‘Troublemakers’, who have you in mind? How can they damage the party? What relevance have they to this election?”

The conditions set down by Griffin differed greatly from those under which he himself gained control of the party in 1999. Back then the election period lasted almost three months and each side was given the party membership list. In addition, Griffin had the resources of Tony Lecomber’s Patriot magazine. Now, with his own profile within the party well established he is keen to prevent his rival doing likewise.

In another development Cass, supposedly an independent judge overseeing the election, waded in to give his full support to Griffin. Writing on the Britain Forward blog he declared:

“I personally don’t think Chris Jackson will be a better leader or is capable of being a better leader than Nick. Nick griffin [sic] has been the best leader this party has had and is currently the best leader the party can find.”

Cass has since claimed that this letter was a forgery, but not everyone is convinced, especially given his open support for Griffin in Yorkshire.

Even without Griffin’s stringent rules there was only ever going to be one outcome to this election. However, a number of surprising Jackson supporters have appeared within the party. Searchlight has previously identified one as Jonathan Bowden, the party’s education officer, though it must be stressed that he has his own eye on the top job and merely sees Jackson as a useful stalking horse.

Simon Smith, the Black Country organiser and Sandwell councillor, signed Jackson’s nomination paper and was reported even to have hosted a campaign rally in his area. Former Yorkshire councillors Richard Mulhall and James Lewthwaite have also both sided with Jackson. Lewthwaite is especially surprising, though this might have more to do with internal problems within the Bradford branch, which have seen him fall out of favour with Paul Cromie, the local party chairman.

Altogether, five founder members, two advisory council members, three councillors, eight branch organisers and 20 election candidates have come out openly for Jackson.

Griffin will remain leader with an overwhelming majority but the doubts and criticisms, especially over financial mismanagement and errors of judge-ment, will remain. Indeed, Griffin’s steadfast refusal to answer his critics through open debate will only fuel the rumours and suspicion. Already, during the course of this brief leadership election, new allegations are emerging.

> Home < | > Print friendly < | > back < | > top < |