Democratic Centralism is the name we give to the Leninist (i.e. Marxist) theory of organisation. These two words, which have diametrically opposite meanings, express the dialectical character of the Marxist approach to this question.
In simple terms, it means: 'full freedom in discussion, complete unity in action". But these two opposite poles - democracy and centralism - cannot be mechanically combined, but are in fact in a continual "struggle", the "balance" between democracy and centralism tipping to one side or the other, depending on conditions democracy the means of building centralism; centralism the means of achieving democracy.
There are very many misconceptions about the meaning of "democratic centralism", mainly as a result of the bad name given to the theory by misuse of the term by Stalinist parties and Trotskyist sects. Many fine socialists, even Marxists, say they don't agree with democratic centralism. Usually this "disagreement" is connected with negative experiences with a "political guru" or some kind of imposed political conformism.
Another misconception is that "democratic centralism" refers to a specific set of rules which may or not be applicable in a specific situation, usually not. In fact, "democratic centralism" is not just owned by Marxism - it is the basic principle of organisation in all working class organisations, to the extent that they are genuine, healthy organisations of the working class.
The book that has most often been used to justify sectarian application of Lenin's theory is What Is To Be Done? written in 1902. In 1908, Lenin wrote that: 'The basic mistake made by those who now criticise What Is To Be Done? is to treat the pamphlet apart from its connection with the concrete historical situation of a definite, and now long past, period in the development of the party, ...the organisation [the book] advocates has no meaning apart from its connection with the "genuine revolutionary class that is spontaneously rising to struggle"'.
In "Left Wing Communism" - An Infantile Disorder, Lenin asks the question of 'why the Bolsheviks have been able to build up the discipline needed by the revolutionary proletariat?'. He says: 'First, by the class-consciousness of the proletarian vanguard, by its tenacity, self-sacrifice and heroism. Second, by its ability to link up, maintain the closest contact, and - if you wish - merge, in a certain measure, with the broadest masses of the working people - primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian masses of the working people. Third, by the correctness of the political leadership exercised by this vanguard, by the correctness of its political strategy and tactics, provided the broad masses have seen, "from their own "experience", that they are correct. ... The creation [of these conditions] is facilitated by a correct revolutionary theory, which, in its turn, is not a dogma, but assumes final shape only in close connection with the practical activity of a truly mass and truly revolutionary "movement"'
Thus, our approach to organising in the working class is guided by the stage of development of political consciousness in the workers' movement as it is today, and by the relation of our party to the class. The following excerpt from Zinoviev's History of the Bolshevik Party puts the task of building of a workers' party into a real context:
'Neither the working class nor a workers' party is born all at once. The working class takes shape over decades: ... only gradually when history raises all ... those basic questions which separate people into different sides, make enemies of friends and place them on different sides of the barricades and produce civil war - only then does stratification, crystallisation, splitting and re-unification begin and only then does a definite party finally take shape. And this process which is closely tied up with people's lives will terminate in a complete form only with the era of the complete victory of socialism, that is when classes and parties disappear.... one has to learn how to generalise and probe into events and facts which embrace in their radius of action millions and tens of millions of people.'
Our approach to organising has to be seen in this context. While "democratic centralism" clearly expresses our ideal, we also have to know how to work towards that goal in circumstances where there is no agreement on basic questions of program, strategy or tactics, and where people carry with them conflicting loyalties, prejudices and experiences; where members of our own party also have obligations to their trade unions or other social movements and there may be limited understanding of the pressures and issues affecting other members. And this actual task of working towards a really mass party of the working class is every bit as much a part of the Leninist theory of organisation, democratic centralism, as its essence.
Another widespread misconception about democratic centralism is that propagated by left groups and bureaucratic cliques who place an absolute priority on the obligations placed on individual members of a party, or so-called "caucus solidarity", over and above obligations to the wider workers movement.
Trotsky said on this question:
"In the trade unions, the Communists, of course, submit to the discipline if the party, no matter what posts they occupy. This does not exclude but presupposes their submission to trade union discipline. In other words, the party does not impose upon them any line of conduct that contradicts the state of mind or the opinions of the majority of the members of trade unions."
I think there is an easy way to explain democratic centralism.
Our understanding of "democratic centralism" is tested out every time we have to make and carry out a decision in any workers organisation. For example, discussion is most thorough-going and effective when it is open and unfettered. But everyone knows that a discussion in which the participants have divergent views rapidly degenerates into farce unless there is a firm chair; and that a firm chair can only be effective when the chairperson enjoys respect and knows how to do the job.
A good chairperson knows that little progress will be made until mutual trust and respect is built even if this requires quite a lot of patience - and sometimes 'dictatorial' action by the chair to ensure that proper conditions for discussion is maintained.
Sometimes it will be difficult to get any real consensus until the participants have gone through a few basic experiences together. Once a high level of mutual understanding has been established, the chair often fades into the background and formal meeting procedure becomes irrelevant. Experience shows that while majority decision-making has to be applied in the last resort, unless 100% consensus is achieved in the discussion, trouble comes in the next stage, when it comes to carrying out a decision.
Once a decision has been made any organisation knows that it is very ineffective unless everyone goes along with the decision. This is usually only possible if the discussion has created real commitment to a decision. The common experience of carrying out an activity together is the basis of discussions at the next meeting, even if the action turns out to be quite misconceived.
All these things are well-known to anyone who has worked in working-class organisations. Equally well-known are the pit-falls and deformations - egotism, sexism, misunderstanding, impatience, hidden-agendas, factionalism, timidity, etc., etc. Democratic centralism is nothing more nor less than the theory we learn when we learn how to work in organisations in a way which enhances collective action and fosters collective understanding.
How do we work in a situation when the meeting finds that there are two mutually opposed groupings on a particular question? The answers you will give to this question will shed light on how democratic centralism approaches an "alliance" between two different tendencies in the workers' movement - respecting the right of each to have their own perspective, but trying to find a basis for joint action and a gradual consensus of views.
How do we work in a situation when consensus has not been reached but urgent action is required? You will have to look at a situation where the "centralism" pole of the equation gets priority and possibly "the committee" is given a mandate to resolve the question
Democratic centralism is no mystery; nor is it some unattainable ideal or aberration of history. It is simply the same principle of working class organisation we practice in every union meeting, or strike committee or whatever - but extended to cope with the massive historical problem of building a workers' party along the lines of the idea explained by Zinoviev above.
The extension of a principle which is intuitively understood at the level of a small number of individuals to cover mass movements is no small matter - that's why it took a Marxist of the stature of Lenin to formulate the theory. But we all enrol in the school of democratic centralism as soon as we begin to participate in the workers' movement.
1350 words