It is essential to consider the question of democratic centralism not simply as formal principle, but in historical and political context. In so doing, we need to consider the concept of the revolutionary party, and the conditions in which it operates, as well as what is meant by the terms centralism and democracy.

THE PARTY OF A NEW TYPE

Democratic centralism is the organisational principle of the party of a new type. Lenin developed his ideas concerning the revolutionary organisation in the period of spontaneous upsurge of the Russian working class movement in the late 1890's and early years of the 20th century. It was imperative to advance from isolated propaganda circles and to create a centralised organisation of professional revolutionaries. Such a party was needed in order to unite the theory of Marxism with the practice of the working class movement. It was at this time that Lenin developed the Marxist theory that socialist consciousness does not arise spontaneously in the working class, but comes from outside, and the theory that there are different levels of consciousness in the working class .

His concept of the organisation of revolutionaries put this theory into practice. The socialist revolution is the task of the broad masses led by the proletariat. Only an organisation characterised by a unity of will and action and democratic can carry it through and rouse the masses to growing political activity. The party must be a combat organisation which leads a determined struggle for power. For this, it requires not only internal democracy but also an imperious centralism and an iron discipline in action. It requires a substantially proletarian composition, in conformity with its programme, and a stable leadership of professional revolutionaries, democratically selected.

As for the necessity for a stable leadership, Lenin cites the example of Germany, which had a mass organisation, yet for years these millions of members had maintained the same leadership. They valued and re-elected their dozen tried and trusted leaders, 'without whom no class in modern society can lead a determined struggle'. The proletarian class nature of the party does not exclude those sections and individuals who have 'cut themselves adrift' from the alien classes and come over unconditionally to the side of the revolutionary class. Marx, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Luxembourg and others were all of non-proletarian origins, but they became great proletarian leaders.

Unlike social-democratic parties, democracy in communist parties is characterised by the fact that members not only have rights, but also duties. Lenin argued that a member of the communist party must work in a communist organisation. This requirement is an essential precondition for the operation of democratic centralism.

DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM.

Democratic centralism is the organisational principle of the revolutionary party. It constitutes a decision making process which broadly decides the action of the party, In accordance with its constitution, and ensures the effective carrying-out of agreed policy. If democracy is defined as the subordination of the minority to the majority, democratic centralism, which ensures that decisions, once arrived at, are carried out, is the highest form of democracy. Democratic centralism reflects the proletarian character of the party of the working class, the class most consistently championing democracy and capable of organising action on any scale. It creates the best condition for ideological unity and unity in action; It gives wide scope for discussion within the party, for the collective formulation of policies, for independent initiative by all its organisation and for the exercise of party criticism.

Marx wrote that 'It seems absolutely essential to me for the party to ...subject its own past activity to criticism and thus learn to act better'. Lenin wrote that 'the principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local party organisations implies universal and full freedom to criticise so long as this does not disturb the unity of a definite action; it rules out all criticism which disrupts or makes difficult the unity of an action decided by the party’. (CW. Vol. 10, p443) In September 1920 when the interventionists had not yet been driven out of Russia and the existence of the soviet government hung in the balance, the 9th congress of the RCP(B) stated in its decisions that broader criticism of both local and central party institutions was necessary in the internal life of the party and that the Central Committee should indicate means of expanding criticism within the party.

We need to understand democratic centralism as a changing concept. In Lenin's works, the concept can be seen developing out of the struggle, as new opportunities arose and circumstances changed. Lenin discussed the concept of the organisation of revolutionaries in his polemical work 'What is to be Done?'. In this work, the concept of democratic centralism was being developed for the first time. But Lenin did not put the cart before the horse. He argues that ‘the only serious organisational principle for the active workers of our movement’ should be the strictest secrecy, the strictest selection of members, and the training of professional revolutionaries. The organisation of revolutionaries which Lenin described in 'What Is To Be Done' was centralist, and its democracy was an informal one at best. He referred to the necessity at that time to rely, not on a formal system of democracy, but on the comradeship and trust which exists between active revolutionaries and which creates a genuinely democratic atmosphere in an embattled organisation:

'This is absolutely essential for us, because there can be no question of replacing it by general democratic control in Russia. It would be a great mistake to believe that the impossibility of establishing real ‘democratic’ control renders the members of the revolutionary organisation beyond control altogether. They have not the time to think about toy forms of democratism ... But they have a lively sense of their responsibility, knowing as they do from experience that an organisation of real revolutionaries will stop at nothing to rid itself of an unworthy member. '

Lenin's emphasis on centralism was made in open polemic against demagogues who, for the sake of a formal principle, demanded broad democracy in conditions which would have resulted In the arrest of revolutionaries. Such things as elections and full publicity were impossible in autocratic Russia. We need to bear in mind this first exposition of the concept of democratic centralism, which was first applied under autocratic conditions, in order not to make a fetish of formal democracy, since democracy is dependent upon forces which we do not control and cannot yet predict. The concept of democratic centralism is not written in tablets of stone, but changes with current realities, and we do need to guard against a dogmatic understanding of the concept.

In 'What Is To Be Done' (Ch. IV E) Lenin noted the elements of party democracy as full publicity, enabling everyone to ensure that party members will do the work for which they are suited, feel the effects of their own mistakes, and prove to all their ability to recognise and avoid mistakes, resulting in the ‘survival of the fittest'. However, the breadth of inner-party democracy depends almost entirely on the conditions in which the party functions. Writing in 1902, Lenin noted these elements of party democracy in order to argue that they could not be adhered to under the conditions in which the party then worked. He maintained that:

‘Broad democracy in party organisation, amidst the gloom of the autocracy and the domination of the gendarmerie, is nothing more than a useless and harmful toy ... It is worth recalling the fact that Lenin refers to the German socialist party as an example of a democratic organisation, since it possessed the two conditions of the ‘broad democratic principle', full publicity and election to all offices. He argued that it would be absurd to speak of democracy without publicity, and that such publicity could not be limited to the membership: ‘... No-one would call an organisation democratic that was hidden from everyone but its members by a veil of secrecy.'

It would be easy to write-off Lenin's arguments as relevant only to the conditions of Czarist Russia. However, it is essential to realise that, even in politically free countries, the functions of the revolutionary organisation precludes full publicity. To quote Lenin, 'No revolutionary organisation has ever practised, or could practise, broad democracy, however much it may have desired to do so.'

The breadth of inner-party democracy must be seen in relation to the conditions in which the party functions. We need to understand democratic centralism as a changing concept, and apply it as befits our current objective circumstances. The concept, and hence the operation of the principle, changes according to objective realities. When Communists become a vanguard in actual reality and not just in name, we cannot expect the capitalist class to oppose the existence of an effective revolutionary party by making speeches in parliament alone. A serious revolutionary party must be prepared to go underground if necessary, and be capable of adapting its practice in order to achieve that. The revolutionary movement must not turn democratic centralism Into a fetish. It remains a form of organisation, and this form, this principle of organisation changes with objective circumstances. Under extreme conditions the democracy practised by the party may be an informal one, and broad democracy, i.e. elections and full publicity, is not a principle. A fuller development of inner-party democracy may be hindered by objective circumstances for certain periods.

Lenin wrote 'What Is To Be Done' not simply in response to Russian conditions, but also British conditions. Lenin first translated and studied the book 'Industrial Democracy’ which eulogises the spontaneous development of the British working class and trade union movement. Lenin's work repudiates not only the organisational theories of Russian opportunists, but also the Fabian concepts of Sidney and Beatrice Webb.

The relation between centralism and democracy is illustrated in 'One Step Forward, Two Steps Back' (1904) In this work, Lenin describes the centralist organisational principle of the communists and distinguishes it from the autonomous organisational principles of opportunism, which is characterised by vagueness and amorphousness. He explains (I paraphrase) that the opportunists proceed from the bottom upwards, and, therefore they propound autonomism and 'democracy' to the greatest extent, an approach which the over-zealous take to the point of anarchism. The Communists proceed from the top downwards, and uphold the rights and powers of the centre in relation to the parts. The top of the Communist party is the party congress, the supreme organ of the party. The congress includes representatives of all the active organisations. It is the congress which appoints the central institutions, which then become the top until the next congress. Thus the centralist organisation does not repudiate democracy, but depends on democratic decisions taken by members at the congress.

Democratic centralism is the form which offers the best prospects for a united revolutionary organisation both internationally and in this country, at a time when much of the communist movement has been liquidated organisationally, and what remains is so divided that it is rendered useless as a representative of the revolutionary class. The ideology of Marxism-Leninism is today under attack from all sides, ironically at a time of developing capitalist crisis. Yet far from uniting, faced with the prospect of the eventual liquidation of the revolutionary wing of the working class, the movement continues to split in a crisis which affects all sections of the left.

The historical question which divided communists in the past should be resolved. They are questions which can and should be decided within a single organisation. Informed by our past experience, our theoretical, political and organisational work today must be determined by current realities; we must be ever conscious of the responsibility of leading our class to power. Unlike the multiplicity of 'vanguard' groups, which profess similar programmes yet compete like brands of soap powder in the market place, the revolutionary organisation must unite all forces and guide the movement in actual practice and not in name alone. United in a single democratic organisation, we could begin to take on that historic task.