Democratic Centralism?

antrim | rights, freedoms and repression | opinion/analysis Thursday December 16, 2004 16:07 by Davy Carlin

Democratic Centralism?

In this short piece I will give a frank {point – based }summary of my experiences of Democratic Centralism {DC}. This shall be done from the position of having being both in a DC organisation and working closely with others from similar DC organisations.

Democratic Centralism?

In this short piece I will give a frank {point – based }summary of my experiences of Democratic Centralism {DC}. This shall be done from the position of having being both in a DC organisation and working closely with others from similar DC organisations.

I believe that such discussion is important as if one does not engage or initiate such discussion then lessons cannot be learnt. But as I have always said one needs to first begin to acknowledge as to learn, as to then therefore go forward with that knowledge. Although DC in itself {in theory} can be both an effective and democratic tool within a revolutionary organisation, it can also be an undemocratic and authoritarian instrument in practice. For oneself I firmly believe that such an instrument of ideological organisation {DC} should be an instrument that can adapt to new situations, more especially now within the course of new movements. In effect, as stated previous, to adapt without diluting, to not be rigid but to remain firm. To also embrace but to lead with strong engagement, to collectively create a campaign while also acknowledging individual creativity within in. To not fear diversity and difference. But to attempt to pull those parted and individual fingers and thumb together into a clenched fist for a common cause to move as one while engaging, discussing and debating as many, and in the process - while at the fore -attempting to win persons to a revolutionary understanding..

I have seen though from various quarters those who hold the mindset of yesteryear, of the party mindset of the 1980’s, and now trying to work that still etched understanding through both their parties and within the new movements, and in each case, maybe, or having been detrimental to one or both. As a Revolutionary Socialist the understanding of why the system should be overthrown is fundamental to ones beliefs - therefore it is not the question of the why - but practically - in real terms - of the how. Therefore fundamental to that is the way in which we organise, more especially within any given period and specific situations. Dogmatism and purism can be an ideological framework for some during a period or retreat, while for others in a similar period rigidness, uniformed conformity and indeed authoritarianism and revisionism all play their part. Yet in a period of moving forward the old guard - the ‘traditionalists’ {in the dogmatic DC sense} I have found in many organisations find it hardest to adapt. Some through a mindset - others I believe simply because they have known no other way.

Therefore lets move on to the practical. I say from the onset these are but a brief summary of my thoughts, and of course many may disagree as is there right, but this is my experience, my thoughts, and the lessons I have drawn from them, no more no less. Some will brush them off, others may criticise, but I hope some will begin to acknowledge. I have raised many of these points over the last several months with many comrades from and within various organisations both verbally and in written correspondence.

Although some activists from various organisations and none - say they do not read Indymedia I know that they do – and therefore hope that some may take these points on board.

I say firstly that I believe that a Revolutionary party is needed and therefore in saying that, that some form of DC is needed. For oneself though as stated before, it is the very nature of both {in the organisational sense and at times the ideological sense} rather than whether or not such is needed where in lays my problem.

1} Decision making processes need to be open, democratic and fully participatory, as do the publications for activists. There should not be an ideological elite – that is, that full information should be afforded to all activists on various issues as so to make a qualified assessment of a given situation. There cannot be those that believe {undemocratically} that they can decide what bits and pieces will or will not be given if comrades are to make a decision on something. I have heard this concern raised often within many organisations. Secondly new activists should be encouraged to write and participate in such ventures if they feel they wish to develop that activism and publications should be ‘open’ to that.

Of course mistakes will be made {both by longer term members and more especially by those recently involved} and if and when the case - such should not be dismissed or censored but encouraged, advised’ and developed. If not they will of course find other avenues for their expression. I believe some of the older members of such organisations could lend a lot of support to the development of activists in this avenue, but firstly a more open approach is needed to do this. There must be a blend of the more experienced and those activists developing that experience – this within every avenue of a said organisation. The gap between super activists and super ideologues should be narrowed thus potentially providing leading activists within the movements who can carry and win the arguments, while to the fore.

2} Secondly I believe that dogmatism, lack of acknowledgement that mistakes have been made – therefore activists having no faith that lessons had been learnt – therefore having little faith in further decisions made, revisionism, abstraction and formula politics will indeed put activists of, more especially if active within the diverse movements.

3} I find that some who may have been around a long time may understand the dynamic of their party - but not the dynamic of the movement. The way in which they seek to organise and their style of argument can be of putting to many, They operate in a sense of being in a diverse movement while attempting to impose a rigid party style rather than embracing the movement and acknowledging its creativity and diversity - this while attempting to win others through a more loose but nevertheless firm style of initial engagement. For an non party activist within such a present diverse movement to initially come up against an organisationally and ideologically rigid form would be and is extremely off putting. This situation will and has left such organisations behind in such movements. Again I believe a throw back to yesteryear.

4}This type of situation I had acknowledged and witnessed within some of the very leading members of the SP in Belfast, but this situation had begun to arise within the Belfast SWP. The number of genuine activists over the last eighteen months who had started to raise such about the Belfast SWP had grown – {about the change they had seen developing – rigid – down your throat, dogmatic etc} to an extent that they eventually stated that they could not and would not work with certain members of the SWP. This was raised by genuine activists who are to the fore in trade unionism, in solidarity, Women’s, Gay rights and writers groups etc. Some of them in parties although many not. And over time while the numbers increased the concerns though where the same.

I had raised this with the person’s concerned and their response was the very same response as that of a leading SWP comrade from Dublin who came up to speak with me at that time. In fact it is the similar response that I have heard from many ‘long termers’ within left, Socialist, Republican or anarchist organisations. That is, ‘who gives a fuck’ - sure he – she’s a Republican, an Anarchist, a left Republican or sure they are from such and such other Socialist organisation’ etc. Again such comments do not fully understand the dynamic of the movement.

While the movement is also in a sense a collective of like minded organisations and individuals on specifics, who would agree on many points – as well as differ on many - it also holds individuals who are to the fore in real terms in implementing the concept of think globally and act locally. May it be local Anti Privatisation, Anti Racism, Anti War, solidarity, women’s rights, gay rights, Anti sectarian campaigns etc. They could be in political parties or they could be in none – but what they have in common is being to the fore in their local campaigns with the support and indeed respect with not only those activists who work with them but on many occasions within the wider activist networks. They have put in the graft on the ground and are sincere in moving the issues forward – they are as I termed genuine activists. Therefore to attempt to simply dismiss such concerns raised by such activists by attempting to pigeon hole them misses the bigger picture. As while it may convince others in the same organisation as oneself – which is fair enough – if that is solely ones goal. It will not however convince that whole layer of activists within that network or indeed within many activists networks {who are part of the movement} - who work and engage with that said person - who may see them at work within such campaigns over the years and hold respect for their activism and ‘leadership’.

In effect it will be seen - and has been seen by some as sectarianism, and therefore diminishes support forthcoming from those said activists and networks. Of course one can tell the difference between the sectarians raising concern simply to be sectarian and genuine activists raising concerns as genuine concerns. But for many organisations they lump them all into the same pot - as so to brush the concern under the carpet where all the sectarians go – this may make it easier in the short term as so not to deal with the issue and concerns raised, in the long term it will though be detrimental to that said organisation if it does not change its ways and distinguish between both..


Again this is the eighties mentality I had seen in many organisations more especially the SP in Belfast where eventually many many activists would no longer work with them or participate in meetings or platforms with them etc due not only to their harsher words against genuine activists, but more especially the way in which they where working {or attempting to – or not} with others.

5} As I stated, a revolutionary party is needed. In my experience within the Belfast SWP not only had we collectively initiated many important campaigns but we collectively where able to argue and win the direction of change in others. Such collective understanding is essential. Important to this was the way in which we actually moved forward, open, fraternal, acknowledging and listening to others views while putting our points across in a concise, fraternal and reasoned way, starting not with the differences but with the commonalities, while discussing the differences in course of common struggle. Our inputs where not. Sectarian. long winded, divisive, dogmatic, or knee jerk reactions to attacks. We had stood above all that, reached out, won respect, ‘authority’ and so delivered – and people knew we would deliver while still engaging in a firm way with our point of view while respecting others views. Yet one can almost tell at meetings due to a dogmatic long winded – and at times down your throat intervention that one is from a particular party, based on the organisational methods of the back room smokey bar debates of yesteryear. Again one needs to adapt not only to the dynamics of the movement but indeed to be a driving force for that dynamic.

6} Finally for the moment – one should not fear debate, one should thrive on it. If one fears debate then I believe that they have little confidence in their stand. I remember attending public meetings organised by all shades of the left and centre left in Belfast over the years. And in each case I can remember a time when I was sitting in the audience with my hand raised high in the air {the only hand} and the chair from whatever organisation who had organised the meeting looking around the room asking in hope ‘Anybody got a question or point’ eyes looking everywhere but towards me. On some occasions the situation would have been hilarious if it was not so sad - this when they actually asked their own comrades ‘oh have you got a point’ where they would shake their head in the negative and so the chair would continue to search in vain for a hand in the air – any hand but mine. Again many genuine activists witnessed this over the years in relation to others and myself. Again I believe all parties on the left are guilty of this. A case of a public meeting where only sections of the public can intervene.

These are just some points of the top of my head as I had an hour or two to spare very late last night. Of course there will be the political inevitability of some remarks – more especially via the mindsets of yesteryear. I must say though as I have said before that I hold much respect for many activists in the SWP, SP and many other organisations but feel it important that such important issues should be discussed openly. This more especially with the debate on the Should – Should political parties {including that of Revolutionary Socialist ones} be part of the Movement?. While this is an important debate - I believe we should start the beginning with the,

What?

What type of Revolutionary Party? D