The Wardman Wire

This is a short study of aspects of the BNP Constitution relating to Party Governance and policymaking machinery. The PDF version (120k) can be downloaded here.

The BNP has recently been under pressure due to the spotlight being placed on the parts of its Constitution which make distinctions based on race. Nick Griffin has stated that he will attempt to have these clauses changed via a “General Members Meeting”.

This Briefing aims to show that essentially all the party machinery can be controlled directly and personally by the National Chairman (Leader) of the Party, and that claims to a normal, democratic, independent decision-making role for the party membership have no basis.

Fascinating questions come to mind, such as what would happen to the BNP if Nick Griffin changed his views; he would really be quite difficult to eject from the party.

I suggest that it is time to broaden the scrutiny of the BNP beyond questions of race.

Background – Successful Pressure on BNP on Race

The Equalities Commission has been successful in forcing the BNP to change those parts of its Constitution which aim to prevent people who are not of an “Indigenous Caucasian” background (whatever that means). From the BBC:

BNP leader Nick Griffin has agreed to ask his party to amend its constitution so it does not discriminate on grounds of race or religion, a court heard.

The UK’s equalities watchdog had argued the BNP broke the Race Relations Act by restricting members to “indigenous Caucasian” people.

Firstly, it is a good thing that the BNP is being forced to make these changes.

The question is now whether Nick Griffin will be able to get the changes through a BNP general meeting in November (source: BBC):

But Robin Allen QC, counsel for the commission, said Mr Griffin had agreed to present party members with a revised constitution at its general meeting next month and the party had agreed not to accept new members in the meantime.

The BNP agreed to use “all reasonable endeavours” to revise its constitution so it did not discriminate on what are termed “protected characteristics” in clause four of the Equality Bill – which include race, gender and religious belief.

But BBC correspondent Andy Tighe said it remained to be seen whether Mr Griffin could persuade his party to allow the change.

This is the wrong question, and it seriously misses the point.

The BNP may put on a show of having a big members’ meeting; but in fact the BNP Constitution makes these meetings, just like the entire party, entirely subservient to the will of the party leader. The spotlight should now be directed onto the way the BNP runs itself, or rather is run by the “National Chairman”.

I’d like to point out a few features of the BNP Constitution concerned with party organisation and General Members’ Meetings of the kind to be used for reviewing the Constitution in November.

Nick Griffin is all powerful in the BNP

Nick Griffin is the “National Chairman” of the BNP.

Nick Griffin has the following powers (BNP Constitution Section 3):

1) Once elected, the National Chairman shall have full executive power over all the affairs of the party. This will include:-

(a) Power of appointment to all other executive offices in the party, with the exception of the Party Auditor.
(b) Power to determine, and where necessary change, all organisational structures within the party and to determine all rules and procedures whereby such structures are governed.
(c) Power to determine all routine executive, administrative, policy and tactical decisions made by the party.
(d) Power to determine, and where necessary change, all policies relating to the political objectives of the party whilst remaining within the framework set out in Section 1 of this Constitution.

Nick Griffin controls the calling of BNP General Members Meetings

The BNP sovereign body, which can alter the Constitution, is the “General Members Meeting”.

However, according to the BNP Constitution Section 5.6, a BNP “General Members Meeting” can only be called by the “Advisory Council” or the “National Chairman” (i.e., Nick Griffin):

6) The only other power (note: in addition to appointing “Bequest Trustees”) of the Advisory Council shall be that it may call a General Members’ Meeting by a two-thirds majority of Advisory Council members voting in a properly convened meeting, even if this is opposed by the National Chairman. Alternatively, the National Chairman may call such a meeting at any time he deems it necessary.

And – inevitably – the Advisory Council is entirely a creature of the National Chairman. Again, from Section 5 of the BNP Constitution:

1) The Advisory Council will be made up of the National Chairman, Deputy Chairman, the national officials of the party and the organisers of the party’s five most effective regions. In the event of any disagreement as to who is to serve on the Advisory Council, the decision of the National Chairman shall be final.

2) The Advisory Council shall meet not less than three times a year and, while the agenda for such meetings shall be set by the National Chairman, there shall be a section at each such meeting where any member of the Advisory Council may raise matters of any other business.

So Nick Griffin can control the calling of General Members’ Meetings too.

How are General Members Meetings called and controlled?

Section 13 of the BNP Constitution controls how General Members meetings are called. They are best described as “informal”:

1) No rigid rules shall govern the holding of internal meetings of the party but such meetings will be held as the occasion demands.

and all members can attend:

2) In the event of the National Chairman or the Advisory Council calling a General Members’ Meeting, all members of the party shall have the right to attend and vote, subject to the provisions of Section 2, Sub-section 6 of this Constitution

(Note: Section 2, Sub-section 6 simply requires payment of membership fees to be up to date)

and anyone can submit a resolution through the National Chairman, provided it is 4 weeks in advance:

3) Any member wishing to submit a resolution for consideration for inclusion on the agenda of a members’ meeting must have a proposer and seconder for such a resolution who are both paid-up full members of the party and must submit the resolution to the National Chairman not later than 28 days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

If anyone wants to change the way that the party organisation or key meetings work, their resolution must be accepted in advance by the National Chairman:

4) Any changes in Sections 1,4, 5 or 13 of this Constitution must be approved by a two-thirds majority vote of members attending a General Members’ Meeting. Any member wishing to submit a resolution incorporating such change or changes for inclusion on the agenda of such a meeting must first obtain consent from the elected National Chairman for such inclusion, having in the first place submitted the resolution for consideration in accordance with Sub-section 6 of this Section.

And, of course, General Members Meetings can only be called by the National Chairman or the Advisory Council, (which, as I described earlier, is his creature):

5) General Members’ Meetings may only be called by the National Chairman or by the Advisory Council in accordance with Section 5 of this Constitution.

The significant points here are that there are requirements placed on members – resolutions must be submitted 4 weeks in advance, but there are no requirements placed on the National Chairman when calling a meeting.

In short, there is nothing (unless I missed it) preventing a National Chairman holding a General Members’ Meeting by inviting a few friends of his own faction round for tea and buns tomorrow, and voting through whatever changes they want to make this week.

BNP: Not a democratic party

There are a lot of words that describe this organisational setup, but “democratic” is not one of those words.

Wrapping Up

In my view the undemocratic nature of the BNP Constitution is every bit as crippling to its credibility as its racism. One way in which the argument to demonstrate that the BNP is a shallow parody of a political party will be won, will simply be by making sure that its undemocratic nature is discussed in the public domain.

There is no shortage of further evidence to be found in the BNP Constitution.

I hope that this begins to happen when Nick Griffin appears on Question Time.