Post A Follow Up Discussion Page
Posted by Stephen on 23rd November 2000
Hi Lawrie,
The democratic regime that you have outlined is one that I think very few would disagree with. Unfortunately, it is the actual practice of "democratic centralism" by the left that usually results in bastardisation. I do not know of any section of the left where your idea of democracy is in operation. Certainly my own experience of Militant was that it was a "top-down" organisation like most other left groups, Trotskyist, Leninist, Stalinist, whatever... Therefore, I think that there is a fundamental flaw in the theory of democratic centralism that it can be so easily and so often abused.
Necessary centralism and discipline in action are certainly principles that as an AFA activist I can relate to. But you don't run an army in the same way that you would run a party. AFA, for example has solid principles about physical and ideological confrontation of fascism. When we have taken to the streets against the fascists we operate from a 'plan' or strategy and tactics for the day that has already been discussed and democratically arrived at. But on the ground, on the day, that strategy is implemented through the structure of the Stewards Group with the chief steward playing a central role... ie making on-the-spot tactical decisions. In that sense, I suppose that you could say that AFA practice a form of 'democratic centralism' where it matters and where it can literally mean the difference between physical victory and defeat; freedom or jail.
But the problem arises when a political party attempts to use what are largely military (or paramilitary) structures as the basis for democracy within the organisation. The Irish Republican Movement have had their problems in adapting to democracy within their organisations after the ceasefire, and now that politics is taking the leading role over militarism. In the past when the war was being fought it was easily understood why it was that the military 'command' structure was necessary. Now it is much more difficult to justify an essentially military structure still operating, when what is needed is a demonstration of that party's democratic committment. More open structures could mean further political recruits to the party.
Any party that has pretensions to govern has to show itself to be better than what we already have... that means, for a working class party that seeks to empower ordinary people in their communities and workplaces, pursuing a position of ultra-democracy within, and united, disciplined activity without.
To achieve maximum democracy within an organisation requires the participation in the democratic process of the maximum numbers of the membership. The left, when they work outwith their own organisations (and even within in most cases), invariably veer towards 'delegate conferences' as a safeguard to a particular sect's (or section of the leadership's) political dominance rather than gearing that organisation towards the maximum involvement within it of its natural constituency, the working class. Therefore, first, second and third comes the interests of the sect rather than the class...
And that is what could be referred to as the left's "democratic deficit". Not only do they deny workers a voice within their own ranks, they actively create the conditions that negate the democratic safeguards placed upon them within other organisations as well.