All That s Left

With his stunning victory in Dublin West, Joe Higgins has become the first Socialist Party TD in the Dail. So runs the opening salvo in a flyer for the relatively recently formed Socialist Party.
No one can contest the first part of the claim. It s a fact. More than that, it s an electoral victory which has already won for Higgins a place in the history books. However, there are many people who would dispute the Socialist Party assertion that Higgins is the only genuine socialist in The Dail.
Particularly, perhaps, his former colleagues in the Labour Party, from which he was expelled in 1989. One such person, who prefers not to be named, regards such claims as pure bullshit and describes Higgin s politics as Trotskyite fundamentalism, totally out of touch.
His supporters, on the other hand, see Joe Higgins as totally in touch, whether that means joining the picket line alongside workers on a UCD building site or marching as part of an inner city Concerned Parents Against Drugs action group.
A 48-year-old former teacher, from Lispole, Co, Kerry, Higgins is the Chairman of the Federation of Dublin Anti-Water Charges Campaign, and a member of Fingal County Council, councillor in the Blanchardstown, Mulhuddart area and vehemently opposed to the rezoning and land speculation in areas such as Lucan and Clonsilla. Higgins also has campaigned against the placing of microwave transmitters in residential areas, is opposed to the massive dump in Mulhuddart and led the campaign to defend Blanchardstown Hospital in 1987. Before becoming a TD he also promised that if elected, I will accept only the wage of an average worker, #15,000 a year before tax. He lives in a Mulhuddart housing estate, where this interview took place.
Joe Jackson: It s claimed you were kicked out of the Labour Party simply because you were a member of Militant Labour.
Joe Higgins: The real reason was that we fought tooth and nail against the strategy of coalitionism the Labour Party joining with conservative parties in Government and abandoning the programme of the party, its independent stand and any radical alternative to the policies of whichever capitalist party they might be in power with. We were a threat to the careerist ambitions of party leaders like Dick Spring and Ruari Quinn. And when they got an opportunity they expelled us, basically to make the Labour Party safe for coalitionism. This was proven in the 1990s when, effortlessly, they passed, without an election, from coalition with Fianna Fail to coalition with Fine Gael, the two dominant right-wing and conservative parties in Irish society.
Others claim that Militant Labour was Trotskyite , cultish, dictatorial, rigidly disciplinarian and basically anti-socialist by its very nature. And that this, fundamentally, was what was unacceptable to the Labour Party.
No. We always stood for the widest democratic rights and freedom of expression, both within The Labour Party and in society in general. In fact, Labour continually lost support in the 70 s and 80 s, not because it went too far to the left but because it insisted on going to the right. And betraying again and again the aspirations of the ordinary working class people it would have claimed to represent. That invited disillusionment and cynicism and that was evident at the end.
As for Trotskyite it depends on what people mean by that. Our ideas are based on the founders of the Labour and International Socialist Movement, and that would include people like Marx, Engels, Leon Trotsky, James Connelly, Jim Larkin, Rosa Luxembourg. But our policies are adapted and applied to modern conditions in the 1990 s, life as we live it today. That said, we haven t joined the stampede of Social Democracy all over Europe, to the right, which means abandoning the ideas of socialism and abandoning the idea that there is a socialist alternative to the market. That is the difference between us, say, and the present Labour Party and indeed Democratic Left, who also have moved in that direction.
Even so, a former colleague of yours, in the Labour Party, claims your motives as a Trotskyite were dark, sinister , that Militant Labour fucked people over, psychologically , demanded one third of their income and, in one case, allegedly bad-mouthed a young man at his funeral, saying he was imbalanced rather than have members ask if we have the answers, why did he kill himself?
Those claims are absolutely untrue. Who died? If anybody alleges that they should come out and say it publicly and we will debate. If they want to put forward some examples I myself will debate it. They re talking about the days when there was a sharp struggle in the Labour Party between the left and the right, and slander and distortion were favoured weapons of the right, which they used against us because they couldn t answer the questions. I ve no doubt, whoever said that to you, was extending that line. Back when they were setting the ground for expulsion there were a lot of unsubstantiated slanders in the media. Against me, against the supporters of the Militant newspaper at that time, that fought, in the Labour Party, for an independent and socialist and left party. As in the people who now constitute the Socialist Party.
And we are an open, thoroughly democratic organisation, party. That accusation about money probably comes from the fact that I did say if I am to be a representative of working class people then I should live, generally, at that level. As a TD I live on the wage of an average worker and I donate the balance, roughly a thousand pounds a month, to the Socialist Party or to the legal defence fund of the anti-water charges campaign and smaller donations to other voluntary, campaigning groups.
How do you deal with the expenses a TD gets?
I will shortly publish what came in the first seven months of me being in the Dail, what it was used for, in the sense of trying to service the needs of the constituency, etc. I believe I should be accountable.
You claim that Dick Spring finally left the Labour Party totally demoralised .
The adulation accorded to Dick Spring, in the media, on his retirement, flew completely in the face of the facts. What the media actually was doing was congratulating Dick Spring for having brought the Labour Party to the right, making it part of the establishment and therefore neutralising it as any kind of a vehicle for radical change that would threaten the domination of capital in society, which the print media, in particular, is very much a part of. The fact is that he left the Labour Party at the same level of weakness as when he took over in 1982. As for Ruari Quinn, he will bring the Labour Party further to the right, if that is possible. I have absolutely no faith in his socialist base. Labour is a shell of an organisation. There isn t an active life in the party. The left has been expelled, or demoralised, or both. And the vibrant forces for socialist change are outside the Labour Party.
So you personally do still believe in the ideal of revolutionary change?
Yes. I still stand for revolutionary change in society, meaning that the major sources of wealth, such as the banks, major industry, should be taken from the hands of the tiny controlling minority that wield enormous power in society. And that those resources should be run under the widest democratic participation of ordinary people. We have seen in the revelations that have come forward in tribunals and various scandals that when you strip away the democratic veneer of this society as in the political parties, the Dail etc that our society really is run by a cabal of big business, and the superwealthy in league with the establishment politicians. As we see increasingly, they were a law unto themselves. They used and abused the Dail, for example, to bring about a tax amnesty for gross violators of the taxation system, while ordinary people paid. A total change is necessary, where economic power is transferred to ordinary people.
Do you agree that many ordinary people also feel that so-called forces of the left, such as trade unions, are in the pockets of both big business and Government?
With notable exceptions, as in the ATGWU, which doesn t subscribe to the so-called Social Partnership , the trade unions, at leadership level, have been drawn into a situation which, over the last ten years has resulted in massive increases in the profits of business and draconian curbs on pay increases for ordinary workers. Social partnership is a myth. Ask the workers in Ryanair what they know of social partnership. Look at the appalling abuse on building sites all over the country, particularly in Dublin. We have workers routinely sacked for refusing to work in the black economy for sub-contractors. Five bricklayers, for example, were sacked from Michael Smurfit s #38 million site in Clonskeagh, where Crampton is the main builder. And in the High Court a judge ignored evidence of what they were being asked to do and gave an injunction to Crampton against their picketing. That is quite incredible. But a blind eye is being turned to this, in both the legal and the political system. When I tried to raise it in the Dail last week, Bertie Ahern just looked at me like a young seal cub as if he d just heard of it for the first time. They know these abuses are going on. It s the big builders who contribute hugely to political parties and so, no, the political parties are not taking the part of the workers.
Zoe Developments recently were heavily criticised by a High Court judge in relation to negligence on their building sites, which resulted in deaths. Do you think that judge went far enough?
Forty-five workers have died over the past three years, which is an awful indictment of the building industry. But, no, I think the law is far too lax in that regard. Where there is negligence they should be charged with manslaughter rather than a fine of a few thousand pounds, which is all the law provides for. If it s negligence on behalf of the company or principals in the company, they should be charged with manslaughter.
Criticising the tribunal enquiry into the Ansbacher accounts, you said it had far too narrow a focus, and was crippled deliberately.
Yes. There should have been a much more vocal attack, by people claiming to be on the left, on the golden circle and the croney-ism that predominated in Irish economic and political life. The fact that the Labour Party was part of the Government that gave the second tax amnesty in 1993, when hundreds of millions of pounds were written off to big business, spoke volumes for where that party stood. When I moved in the Dail, in September, that the terms of reference should include an examination of whether anybody that was involved in the Ansbacher had benefited from the tax amnesty, only about five deputies stood to support that motion. Labour and Democratic Left refused to support that motion. And it is quite clear that Fianna Fail and the PDs are desperate to cover up the Ansbacher accounts. I suspect it is because some of the most powerful and influential people in Irish business had funds therein. And, perhaps, some major contributors to those parties. The list of the Ansbacher names should be publicised. The entire list of the people who benefited from the tax amnesty should be publicised, along with the amount of money that was written off. But the present political parties won t do that. With regard to Ansbacher, however, there is a possibility that they can t contain the truth, because things have already gone so far.
But do you have any specific information, say, when you call for a widening of the terms of reference into the tribunal set up to investigate the rezoning of land in north Dublin? You mentioned, specifically, land close to Dublin Airport and at Laraghcon in Lucan, Co. Dublin.
The reasons for not rezoning were so strong and convincing that there must have been strong pressure on the right-wing political parties who coalesced to push through the rezoning. It was outrageous enough to merit an examination and the people responsible should be called in front of the tribunal to answer why they pushed through something that was inexplicable.
But who are these people , do you think?
Councillors who were responding to the demands of landowners. For example, the land south of the Airport Aer Rianta said it would need those lands and that the only effective rezoning would be to massively increase the value when the time can when they would have to be purchased by the State body. Why, therefore, were they rezoned? That s a question that should be put to these people.
Do you know the answer to that question?
I know that Fianna Fail and Fine Gael and the PD s, in the course of the development plan, responded massively to the demands of landowners. I know there is a very close relationship between landowners and developers and those parties. When rezonings are so unjustified and so blatant and so against the interest of the community they must be investigated. In the Lucan area 98% of the community in a local referendum voted against that rezoning. Why, then, did the parties weigh in and push it through?
What s your response to the Moriarty Tribunal, set up to look into the financial affairs of Charles Haughey?
There was a definite attempt, within the establishment, to use Haughey as the scapegoat. It wasn t just one man, it was an entire system. And the whole political system in this country is hugely indebted to the super-wealthy. To me there is not a massive difference between political parties receiving huge sums of money from big business and a private individual receiving huge sums of money. Inevitably, that money is donated to political parties so that they look after the interests of people who donate. And I ve no doubt that they do gain handsomely from their donations. But Fianna Fail has used Haughey as a scapegoat, to deflect attention from the entire system that the whole lot of them are up to their neck in. We must remember that the information about Dunne s financing of Charles Haughey came into the public arena by accident.
On a more personal level, I see Simon & Garfunkel staring out there from your vinyl collection. Was that the music of your youth. Do you still listen to pop?
If I do, it would still be to music from my younger days. I don t have much time to develop new tastes.
If, say, Oasis wanted to play in the Phoenix Park this year, would you have any problem with that?
You would have to have a balance between the rights of residents and these gigantic concerts, You d have to look at every single situation separately. But, to be honest with you, I see the music industry as being quite cynical in many ways, exploiting young people in particular. Especially in terms of the profiteering in the industry: rock stars becoming millionaires and living in mansions, light years removed from those who have to scrabble together a few pounds to go to their concerts or buy their records or CDs. At one time, in the 60s, perhaps, people felt that music could be a powerful assistance to bringing about social change but who, in the Irish music industry now is challenging the establishment, such as it is?
Someone like Christy Moore, surely, to mention just one.
That s right but he is the exception. The major acts, like U2 and whoever, have joined the establishment. The music business, to me, is just a cynical industry designed to amass fortunes for a relatively small group of bands and managers and record companies. It s hugely exploitative.
But whether they are exploiting their audience or not, surely you can recognise the joy a group like U2 bring to their audience when they perform, say, their PopMart gig in Lansdowne Road.
I m all for young people enjoying themselves at concerts, but there s enough magazines and features in Irish newspapers playing up that side of things. I m just adding the necessary corrective, the more cynical view of all this.
Do you believe people should be free to enjoy themselves at concerts, or elsewhere, through taking drugs, as in cannabis, without being criminalised?
You cannot speak of drugs in one block. In areas of Dublin, in particular, heroin has caused devastation in working class communities. And I have stood, will stand and march with working class people to stop that. Nobody has the right to bring that devastating drug into communities. With regards to cannabis there is massive hypocrisy among the establishment and among politicians in general. It s very dangerous to lump cannabis on the same level as heroin. If young people were to think that because all drugs were equally denounced by politicians, that cannabis is much the same as heroin, that would be a big mistake. And that s happening right now because certain politicians are pushing that line. And this knee-jerk reaction, an absolute refusal to discuss these issues in more depth, is very damaging. There should be an informed and intelligent debate on all drugs but particularly with regards to cannabis, in relation to whether it should be decriminalised, legalised, whatever.
What really concerns me is that the gangsters that bring in heroin probably make far more from smuggling cannabis they do from heroin. And the cannabis profits are often seed capital for the heroin. Their control has to be broken. I m also worried that young people are interfacing with the criminal element in that the person who deals them the cannabis is often the same person who could give them heroin. In that way, people can be introduced to heroin. So there definitely is an urgent need for debate.
Where would you, personally, stand on the question of whether to legalise or decriminalise cannabis?
I honestly haven t made up my mind. That s why I say we need an intelligent debate. Some questions must be rigorously answered. As in, are there health effects? But I want an open, honest debate, without this cowardice of politicians at the moment, who are terrified to open their mouths along these lines. I also have been working very hard to try and set up community-run treatment centres for young people who are in trouble with heroin and there is a crying need for that. A politician like Tony Gregory has spoken out, bravely and often, on this, but the establishment politicians have criminally neglected working class areas in this sense. That s how heroin got a grip. And there certainly isn t the urgency among politicians in general, that is needed, to confront this problem. I have young people pleading for help and the places aren t there at the present time. That s what s criminal. But I have pushed for local residents in virtually every parish to organise themselves in this sense, as far as they can. But they need more help, desperately.
Do you think that churches in every parish should give over some of their land, or buildings, to house these centres?
Wherever there is a need for premises, whichever institution is there, privately owned, Church, whatever, should make those buildings available.
So would you support calls for the Church to make such buildings available?
I would. But the problems we ve had is trying to convince, on a number of levels, private landlords that they could rent places. But let s not forget that the Church is very much part of the establishment. With a few notable exceptions the Catholic church works hand-in-hand with the State, to protect its own interests.
Where do you stand in relation to the issue of refugees?
It s quite pathetic that a figure such as 4,000 refugees has been turned into some kind of major crisis. Sections of the media carry responsibility for that, as do some politicians. Some of the headlines have been outrageous. The most vile, perhaps, was refugee rapist on the rampage. And when you consider the millions of our people that have sought refuge in