VII. What Kind of Democracy?

The question of what kind of democracy is required by society is one of the most crucial problems of our era. It is a question of who will rule the society, who will be empowered and who will be deprived of power, which rights are recognized and respected and which are not.

One of the features of the latter half of the 20th century is the systematic separation of words from their meaning, the destruction of the content of language. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the meaning of the word "democracy". Democracy has become one of those words so stripped of content that it can literally mean anything. It can mean the opposite of communism, or universal suffrage, or "free market capitalism". Most people have some vague notion that it has something to do with majority rule, although it is difficult to find such a thing in practice.

The word "democracy" is a Greek word meaning "rule by the people", as opposed to rule by an individual or by a small group of individuals. At that time the "people" constituted only a small percentage of the total population. Over the centuries the concept of who was part of the "people" gradually expanded until by around the middle of the 20th century the franchise had been extended to all adult citizens in most countries. However, the universal franchise does not ensure "rule by the people" because the right to rule the society is never up for grabs in elections. The entire electoral system in Canada and other countries characterized by a system of representative democracy is actually designed to stand between the people and the right to rule the society. It is a system of disenfranchisement.

Democracy has two main features. The first and most important is that the majority should rule. The second is that the rights of the minority should be respected. However, these days majority rule is taken for granted, as if it actually existed, and the problems of democracy are reduced to an issue of the rights of minorities. In fact, in our society it is far easier to defend certain rights of various minorities than it is to establish the right of the majority to rule. The Charter of Rights and provincial Human Rights legislation sets up a framework through which individuals falling into certain categories of minorities can seek redress for discrimination. Of course, this system is seriously flawed and inadequate to protect the rights of minorities within our society, but the point is that even though Canada proclaims itself a democracy, nowhere is there a charter or legislation enshrining the right of the majority to make decisions, to exercise power, to rule the society. All of these powers are monopolized by the institutions of the state and administered through a system of gatekeepers called political parties.

Since the advent of class society, every class which has ascended to power has given rise to models of political rule which serve its interests and maintain it in power. All of these models contain some aspects of centralism and some aspects of democracy or consultation. The democracy is utilized to reach a consensus within the ruling class and the centralism is utilized to impose that consensus on the rest of society.

The model of rule adopted by the revolutionary working class is democratic centralism, a model that is, without a doubt, the most misunderstood and maligned model in existence. Democratic centralism is the organizational principle of any genuinely revolutionary and communist organization and the form of democracy which corresponds to the present needs, not only of the working class, but of the entire society. It is the only form of organization capable of not only recognizing, but also enabling the right to conscience.

In order to understand the nature of democratic centralism it must first be understood that there is no such thing as pure democracy within a class society, just as there is no such thing as pure centralism. Democracy, just as any other form of class rule, is a system by which the class in power can impose its will on the entire society. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the absence of rules and regulations where everyone is free to "do their own thing". No society, whether human or animal, can survive without definite rules of order. The unique feature of human society is our ability to constantly analyze those rules and make conscious adjustments in order to harmonize the interests of the individual, collective and society, or, in other words, to renew the society.

There is a dialectical relationship between centralism and democracy. No matter what form of rule is adopted by the capitalist class, from liberal democracy to fascist dictatorship, centralism has always been the dominant feature. Democracy cannot be the dominant feature because its main content, rule by the majority, would negate the rulers, who constitute a tiny minority. Democracy is reserved for the capitalists and those who serve their interests, while the "rule of law" and "executive decree" is reserved for everyone else. Therefore, under bourgeois rule, centralism is absolute and democracy is relative. In other words, democracy serves the purpose of strengthening the central rule of the minority, the capitalist class, and not to empower the majority.

This model of democracy cannot possibly serve the interests of the working class because the working class actually constitutes the majority of the population. Democracy cannot negate the ruling class if it is also the majority. However, centralism definitely can and does negate the majority. Therefore, in the system known as democratic centralism, democracy must necessarily be absolute, while centralism is relative. In other words, centralism serves the purpose of strengthening democracy. This fundamental difference is crucial in understanding the difference between democratic centralism and bourgeois democracy.

In order for genuine democracy to function, there must be mechanisms to empower the masses of people and to ensure that their decisions are implemented by the society. Canadians have ample experience with the ways in which bourgeois democracy disenfranchises the masses of people and prevents them from imposing their will on society. They also have a lot of experience with various grassroots organizations which use the method of "consensus" or "ultra-democracy" to disenfranchise the members and prevent them from imposing their will. Both methods, and many in between, are used to keep power in the hands of a minority.

Democratic centralism begins with the principle that the masses of people are supreme; they are the final decision-makers and they have the right to conscience. This principle is the same in the case of a small organization or the entire society. If the people are the decision-makers, then there must be mechanisms both to obtain their opinions as well as to ensure that they make informed decisions. Within a communist organization, that mechanism is the basic organization. The basic organization mobilizes its members to actively participate in political affairs, educates them, organizes them and inspires them to exercise their leading role. It insists that every member of the basic organization must participate both in arriving at decisions and in implementing them. If it were to accept that only some members have to participate in arriving at decisions then the will of the majority could not or would not be determined. If it were to accept that only some members had to implement decisions, while others were exempt, then the will of the majority could not be exercised and the right to conscience would be reduced to a mere formality.

When you have a national organization, you must also have mechanisms to ensure that the decisions of that organization reflect the will of the majority of the members and that those decisions taken by the majority are implemented. In a communist party the congress represents the highest decision-making body and its delegates are elected by the basic organizations to represent their opinions. The congress sets the overall goals and work for the next period and elects a central committee to ensure that those decisions are carried out between congresses.

This structure is totally different from the bourgeois parliamentary parties in which the members may adopt various decisions at their conventions, but there is no permanent body in place between conventions to ensure that those decisions are implemented. As a result, the parliamentary wing of these parties routinely ignore the decisions "democratically" decided by the members.

This, then, is where the centralism of democratic centralism comes in. It is the mechanism by which the will of the majority is enforced. In a communist party, neither the central committee, nor any leader, has the right to change or ignore the decisions of the membership as represented in the congress. To do so would be to reduce democratic centralism to the level of bourgeois democracy, to the level of a fraud and to reduce a communist party to the level of a bourgeois party. In a genuine communist party, centralism is the mechanism to ensure that democracy is respected, that the will of the membership is supreme, and not a mechanism to impose the will of the central committee or of some individual "leaders" on the membership.

All of these mechanisms rest on the foundation of the basic organization. If the basic organizations do not function, if the members are not involved in the decision-making process and are not educated to make informed decisions, then democratic centralism means nothing. It is reduced to a hollow shell, devoid of content, to another form of bourgeois democracy or even to the level of fascism.

Then there is the second aspect of democracy, that of respect for the rights of the minority, the most basic of which is the right to conscience. Communists do not divide the people on the basis of race, religion, gender, lifestyle, etc. Therefore, within a communist organization the only kind of minority that it makes any sense to discuss is the minority opinion. The principle that is followed within a communist organization is that every member is equal and every opinion is equal. Of course, some individuals and some opinions may be more persuasive than others, but that does not necessarily mean that those individuals or opinions are correct. In fact, almost by definition, all correct opinions begin as minority opinions. Therefore, one of the central principles of democratic centralism is the right to conscience or the right to express one's opinions without fear of the consequences. Once a decision is taken, it is binding on everyone, whether or not they agree with it, and the minority must also implement that decision. However, they cannot be forced to relinquish their opinions. Violations of this principle can lead to very dire consequences for a communist organization, as we can see from the experience of various ruling communist parties.

The discipline of implementing decisions taken by the collective is the only discipline of a communist organization. This is not to say that this discipline is insignificant; it is the discipline almost universally and instinctively embraced by the working class. It is a discipline of those who participate in the movement consciously and with a plan and who understand the importance of the unity of the collective in waging the class struggle. There is a stereotype of communism which refers to the "iron discipline" of a communist party. This stereotype would lead one to conceive of a communist organization as a military organization with military discipline. This is the furthest thing from the truth. Even communist military organizations do not exercise the kind of "iron" discipline characteristic of bourgeois armies and all major decisions are voted on by the soldiers themselves.

Of course, during periods of insurrection or crisis it may be necessary for a communist organization to emphasize centralism over democracy and to insist that orders be carried out without question. However, to suggest that in a communist organization there is a military command structure in which a "leader" gives orders and everyone else must blindly obey is to turn things on their heads. A communist party does not have "leaders" who make decisions and give orders and "members" who carry out orders. Both the decision-making and the leadership is collective in nature. What kind of communists would call on the working class and people to storm the heavens and overthrow the dictate of the minority and then meekly submit to the dictate of some "leader"? Self-discipline based on conscious and voluntary agreement with the political aims of an organization or collective is far stronger than any discipline imposed from above.

The issue of dealing with differences of opinion does not end with the principle that minority opinions are respected, while decisions are implemented by all. To leave matters at that would allow differences of opinion to fester and undermine the unity of the collective. While consensus-building within an organization can be a powerful tool in building and strengthening unity under certain circumstances, it can neither be relied on as a decision-making mechanism nor as a method of examining the relative merit of various ideas and opinions. As a decision-making mechanism, it can prevent an organization from taking any action; as a method of examining ideas, it almost necessarily caters to the most banal and backward ideas.

The method adopted by communist organizations to sort out differences is the method of criticism-self-criticism. This method has nothing in common with the Maoist practice of forming a circle and berating people with "bad ideas" in order to force "confessions" out of them. In fact, for all intents and purposes, criticism-self-criticism is simply the adoption by social science of the method of peer criticism utilized by the natural sciences. It is the method of separating ideas from the individuals espousing them, examining them dispassionately and critically, testing them against the yardstick of experience and following their logic to its conclusion. This is one of the most powerful tools of natural science and is one of the reasons for the rapid advance of science over the past 500 years. It is a very good method of getting at the essence of an idea and determining its relative value. The individual presenting the idea also pursues this method in a self-critical manner. To a very large extent, this method can succeed in removing egoism from the decision-making process; debate is replaced by discussion; ideas are examined rather than individuals, and so forth. Thus, differences of opinion are used to strengthen the collective, rather than tear it apart.

The experience of the communist movement over the past 50 years demonstrates very clearly that the attack on the communist quality of a party begins with an attack on the norms and forms of organization, especially on the organizational principle of democratic centralism and the method of criticism-self-criticism. Khrushchev introduced the methods of character assassination, rumours and gossips, intrigue and, ultimately, coercion in order to undermine communism and substitute his personal dictate in place of the leadership of the collective. Mao Tsetung used similar methods and gave rise to the theory of "two-line struggle" within the party as opposed to criticism-self-criticism. Both branded any disagreement with their views as an attack on their personal authority. The right to conscience was violated both within their parties, as well as within the society as a whole.

The 5th Congress of CPC(M-L) adopted the position that authority within a communist organization can only be the authority of the collective. There can be no such thing as the authority of an individual, the division of the organization into "leaders" and "followers". A communist party is an organization comprised of leaders of the working class. How can such individuals submit to the authority of some individual? Our Party has never tolerated secretaries of organizations who place themselves above the collective and appropriate special "rights" to themselves to dictate to the collective. It has never agreed with leadership by individuals or the method of rumours and gossips, character assassination and waging political struggle against one's own comrades. It has never agreed that the norms of the Party or its Constitution should be instruments to be wielded by "authority" to violate the right to conscience of the membership. It has consistently opposed both dogmatism and any tendency of individual members to convert themselves into "yes-men" of some supposed "authority-figure". These are the hallmarks of opportunist organizations and not of a communist party.

There are many organizations in which differences of opinion are personalized and viewed as attacks on the "leader", in which anyone with different opinions is attacked as a "heretic" or worse and in which differences of opinion are viewed as the basis of splits. Such organizations cannot be considered communist or revolutionary. In fact they cannot even be considered to be part of the movement for enlightenment which was initiated by the great scientific personalities of the Renaissance and later periods. The consequences of this kind of attitude can be seen in Russia, China, Cambodia and elsewhere, and we have seen many such organizations come and go in Canada since the 1960s.

A modern society demands that the communists must be the most enlightened, broad-minded and objective individuals. A communist party must represent the highest development of democracy within the modern conditions. It must be a model for the entire society. There is no room in a communist organization for egotism, for rule by individuals, or for rule by decree. These characteristics are a caricature of communism, a stereotype based on both real and imaginary errors committed by individuals and parties in the past. If communism is to re-emerge as the leading force of the 21st century it must be the most ardent fighter for human rights, especially the right to conscience, both internally and externally. Those organizations which are not of this quality, which demand loyalty to their "leader", right or wrong, their system, right or wrong, or their line, right or wrong, will never be capable of inspiring the working class to take up its historic mission and usher in a modern society fit for human existence.