WeeklyWorker

29.11.2001

What sort of democracy?

What is democratic centralism? Not the bureaucratic travesty that has blighted the left for most of the last century. Harry Paterson and Alan Stevens put the record straight

In the run-up to the December 1 conference, the SA internet discussion list has seen a refreshingly healthy and interesting debate on democracy in general and democratic centralism in particular. This debate, like some other discussions on the e-list, reflects a concern about the future structure and functioning of the alliance itself.

As we know, tension has been heightened by the squaring off of the two largest groups, the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party. There is widespread belief that the SWP is holding back the development of the Socialist Alliance and sees it almost exclusively as a vehicle for electoral intervention (just as the Anti-Nazi League is brought out for demonstrations against racism). On the other hand, the backward-looking proposals from the SP are widely seen as a futile attempt to clip the wings of the SWP - combined with threats that Taaffe?s sect will walk away if the SWP constitution is agreed (walk away, we might add, from a project it has done its best to undermine anyway).

This lack of seriousness towards the SA on the part of both the SP and SWP reinforces the view that both these organisations are motivated by a desire to achieve the best possible outcome for their respective sectional interests. It is in this situation that the question of democratic organisation has been raised on the Socialist Alliance discussion e-list. It will be useful, then, to examine some of the understandable, but mistaken views held by certain comrades on the questions of democracy and democratic centralism.

We could broadly identify three threads of opinion. Firstly there are those, such as ourselves, and comrades from the Alliance for Workers? Liberty such as Nick Holden, who see democratic centralism as a desirable and necessary organic process integral to the programme and tactics of revolutionaries. Then there are less forthcoming comrades from the SP and SWP, whose presentation of democratic centralism (or ?democratic unity? in Taaffeite parlance) is hopelessly gutted of its revolutionary class content and consequently its value to the workers? movement. Indeed the mechanical and one-sided SP/SWP interpretation of democratic centralism distorts it so it is transformed into a stifling bureaucratic centralism. And finally there are independent comrades such as Dave Parks and Dave Osler, who in rejecting the SP/SWP version throw out the baby with the bathwater and call instead for mere formal democracy.

Interestingly, the deadening effect of the SP regime is being increasingly acknowledged by some within its own ranks. One comrade from the south coast had this to say in correspondence with one of the authors of this article: ?I think your [Harry Paterson?s] article ?For democratic centralism? was very good. Similar concerns have now led to my resignation from the SP.? (While we are pleased to note the comrades? rejection of undemocratic centralism, it is a shame that the comrade chose to resign from the SP rather than stay and fight.)

Another comrade who wished, unsurprisingly, given the nature of the SP?s internal regime, to remain anonymous had this to say on the UK Left Network discussion list: ?As a member of the Socialist Party I have to say ... that if your opinion in the SP differs from that of the leadership or party hacks then life is made very difficult. The SP and Militant always bragged about the fact that we didn?t have faction fights like every other left group and that factions or disagreements where wrong. I now believe that this is very unhealthy and am no longer blinded by the likes of our leaders.?

Comrades will also be well acquainted with the regime that masquerades as democratic centralism inside the SWP. Despite Tony Cliff, its guru and founder, having something of worth to say on this question in the 70s, the SWP remains mired in a regime in which top-down frenzied activism rules. So-called factions are permitted only during a two-week pre-conference period and, like the SP and many others, public polemics between comrades, differing opinions and an open press are an anathema.

Despite their mutual antipathy the SP and SWP, ironically, share the same fundamental perversion of democratic centralism. These comrades adopt a one-sided, mechanical approach and elevate control and the interests of the leadership faction above democracy. In doing this they sever the dialectical unity and mutual interpenetration of democracy and centralism - a unity that both mediates and promotes revolutionary practice. Instead they have ended with a bureaucratic and stultifying regime that seeks to gain historical legitimacy by passing itself off as ?democratic centralism?.

The sectarian refusal to implement the essential dialectical and inherently revolutionary nature of democratic centralism sees our allies substituting in its place a dry, lifeless and unhappy marriage between a bit of democracy and a lot of bureaucracy. The real revolutionary dynamic of democratic centralism is lost. This is particularly tragic in the case of the SWP, squandering the commitment of many young, enthusiastic comrades.

Given the distorted, bureaucratic regimes bequeathed to our class - not only here but all over the world during the 20th century - it is hardly surprising that sincere socialists display such an aversion to what they, mistakenly, understand by democratic centralism.

Comrade Osler writes: ?Our organisations should be vastly more democratic than bourgeois democracy. The frightening thing is, most of them are actually less so. There certainly isn?t a culture of freedom of speech, assembly or belief in the SP or the SWP. I know that comment is going to provoke some rejoinders, but think of this. Most broadsheet newspapers publish a wide range of views, from Foot, Pilger or Monbiot on the one hand to Amiel, Waugh and Philips on the other.

?None of the larger circulation socialist newspapers do though. When Action for Solidarity dares run a pro-war reader?s letter, many comrades howl in outrage. And that says it all. That mindset has been conditioned by democratic centralism. However, we as socialists recognise that bourgeois democracy is always limited and weak, and seek an extension of democracy throughout society. We can prefigure this by the democracy we display in our own organisations? (Socialist Alliance Press Group, November 17).

Comrade Parks had this to say: ? I have been following the very interesting discussion about democratic centralism over the last week or two. I will be blunt. I think the obsession with democratic centralism is the major reason why the left is so divided and isolated. I think there are arguments for using democratic centralism in times of illegality, but otherwise it strikes me as being the perfect formula for the creation of sects that do nothing but create an obstacle to creating a socialist political alternative.

?Now I?m sure my views are a minority amongst those who come from the groups who say they are democratically centralist, and of course all the groups will say they have near to perfect democracy with their version of democratic centralism. Oh yes! What can you say? In reality the bulk of people who think that democracy is a crucial and necessary ingredient of socialism rapidly become disillusioned with all the flavours of democratic centralism that are offered.

?Yes, I have seen Harry Paterson and others argue for democratic centralism in a way that is certainly more attractive to myself, but none of the groups practise it. Maybe some are better than others, but I will never join a democratic centralist organisation. I think democratic centralist groups are inherently undemocratic? (ibid November 26).

We find little to dispute in the condemnation of the unhealthy and repressive sect regimes constituting the bulk of Britain?s revolutionary left. However, it has to be hammered home time and again that what is on show in these supposedly monolithic organisations is not democratic centralism. Unfortunately, this fundamental misconception has now become almost accepted wisdom amongst many Socialist Alliance comrades.

It is worth emphasising that our concern is above all else to advance the interests of the working class, not the interests of this or that sect. Lenin famously said that in its struggle for power the working class has ?no other weapon but organisation? (VI Lenin CW Vol 7, Moscow 1977, p412). Our task then is to develop the highest form of organisation possible. We believe, and the history of the Bolsheviks proved, that the highest form of organisation possible is a democratic centralist revolutionary party.

Rather than democratic centralism being a mere constitution, or simply a useful organisational tool, or a convenient admixture of two separate things, it is essentially a single revolutionary political process. Democratic centralism, whilst having two main aspects, is highly complex and multifaceted. It is in a constant state of change and development and is inseparably interconnected with theory and practice. Even many of the comrades who reject the bureaucratic distortions and formally favour democratic centralism have difficulty with it. They see the formal shell, describe it in mechanical, abstract terms and completely miss its movement, its revolutionary dynamic.

Formal definitions are quoted from the past without thought of the stage of development of the party and class, without reference to the differing concrete circumstances in which parties operate and with no notion of the progressive political process which lies at its heart. We usually get a list of formal rules. A mere empty shell to be filled with who knows what. There is nothing wrong with rules so long as they are not abstracted out and act as substitute for the political process.

We must therefore understand the content of democratic centralism, how it is developed consciously, purposefully, as an integral part of building a party rooted in the class, how it works and evolves organically to meet constantly changing circumstances - from an immature phase whilst a party is being formed through to a mature (but still changing) phase of a functioning mass revolutionary party.

Its purpose is to win and maintain genuine voluntary unity around acceptance of a revolutionary programme. The kernel, therefore, is a political one; the revolutionary party is the medium between theory - ie, the ideas we espouse in our programme - and our practice as a revolutionary collective. Therefore we do not strive for democratic centralism simply to ensure the necessary openness and culture needed to arrive at something approximating scientific truth. We also do so to further the fight for revolutionary politics, not just any set of perspectives. Thus the two - democratic centralism and a revolutionary programme - are dialectically linked. They are, in fact, inseparable.

Here is a brief schematic, showing some of what we ought to expect of all members and committees to give the flavour of democratic centralism?s political and cultural direction:

In a nutshell: unity in action; freedom to criticise.

The wholly erroneous and unMarxist idea that reigns in the SP, SWP and many other organisations is that it is disloyal, undisciplined and divisive to voice differences with each other in public. This crude and crass inversion of Leninism is more accurately attributed to the poison of Stalinism.

Even under the most repressive conditions when the Bolsheviks operated illegally, they conducted furious open debates and tirelessly fought for their ideas. Of course the purely formal aspects of democracy were necessarily absent - elections and the like - but never the substantive democracy, the freedom to criticise, discuss and debate. It was through this rigorous substantive democracy that the central bodies accumulated the experience of party actions and which in turn consolidated trust in the central bodies amongst members. Under dire concrete conditions the Bolsheviks maintained the maximum democracy possible - and a greater degree of democracy than we see on much of the left in Britain today.

Democratic centralism is comprised of the dialectical unity of both its components. Not a bit of democracy and a bit of centralism, but the maximum democracy and the maximum centralism that concrete circumstances allow. They mutually interpenetrate - operating through each other. The democratic aspect ensures the full participation of all members in every aspect of the development of the party?s knowledge, experience, programme and tactics. Democratic centralism facilitates conditions allowing the most free-flowing and wide-ranging debate: internally, externally and in all party publications. In this inclusive, collectivist environment the likelihood that the action we take is based on correct revolutionary principles is greatly increased.

The centralist aspect enables leadership that coordinates and guides every aspect of work and development, ensures continuity, allows swift tactical adjustments to new circumstances and ensures that the whole acts as one. United actions are the practical tests of theory, programme and tactics in class struggles. The veracity and strength of what has been agreed. The ongoing debate, generalisation of experience, refinement of policy and the fullest implementation, testing and analysis of united actions creates a dynamic, ongoing feedback mechanism that constantly enriches and refines the best revolutionary praxis.

All party members thus operate in conditions strongly favouring the development of critical self-activating revolutionaries and formidable class fighters and leaders, rather than the paper-selling automatons that comprise the bulk of our revolutionary organisations at present. Such a political/cultural process that so concentrates strength into a power much greater than the sum of its individual parts enables us to strike with tremendous force as one fist - and be accurate in our aim.

Sect politics - ie, the construction of exclusivist groups around a narrowly defined set of special ideas - is an impediment to building such a party and a diversion from the proper conduct of the class struggle. Good riddance to sect politics. The continued existence of such nonsense into the 21st century is a bane we can do without. There is hope, however. These and many other related issues are now being raised. As comrades gather for the Socialist Alliance conference, we have an opportunity to begin the political process that leads to the building of a mass party.