Scottish Debate | Home | News | Donate | Join 

The Scottish debate

Click here to read the CWI's reply to this document

[Next]

The question has been put to us by the comrades in the faction: Do you support democratic centralism, yes or no? Our reply to this is - that depends on what the comrades mean.

In this debate comrades have asked us to define democratic centralism in a kind of ten easy-to-remember points. The question however is not that simple. The character of democratic centralism within an organisation is determined by the living struggle of the working class and the dynamic development of the revolutionary organisation.

The same questions regarding a simple definition were put to Trotsky. He said: "Neither do I think that I can give such a formula on democratic centralism that once and for all would eliminate misunderstandings and false interpretations." He continues. "The regime of a party does not fall ready made from the sky but is formed gradually in the struggle. First of all it is necessary to define strategic problems and tactical methods correctly in order to solve them. The organisational forms should correspond to the strategy and the tactic. Only a correct policy can guarantee a healthy party regime. This it is understood does not mean that the development of the party does not raise organisational problems as such. But it means that the formula for democratic centralism must inevitably find a different expression in the parties of different countries and at different stages of development of one and the some party."

The relationship of democracy and centralism is determined by concrete circumstances. When an organisation is working in illegal conditions either underground by force of the state or is working in political illegality within another organisation - which was the case with entrism within the Labour Party - then there will be a tendency to centralism.

In illegality under the capitalist state it would risk security to hold a public conference, or unnecessarily circulate organisational information. Not all members of the party would be told of what was happening with other comrades in other areas because of security reasons, severely limiting internal democracy.

When we were working within the Labour Party, in illegal political conditions where we denied the existence of an organisation, it was difficult to publicly display the open structures of the organisation, or to freely circulate written political material. Even the language used was coded.

In these conditions we were working against a hostile bureaucracy who wished to expel us. There was an agreed strategy and comrades were not free to stand up at Labour Party meetings if they disagreed with the strategy and declare that we were an organisation as this would have led to reprisals. This is not the situation within the Scottish Socialist Party where we are the leadership.

Again back to Trotsky: "Democracy and centralism do not find themselves in an invariable ratio to one another. Everything depends on the concrete circumstances or the political situation in the country, on the strength of the party and it's experience, on the general level of it's members on the authority its leadership has succeeded in winning."

In this period, especially within a working class socialist party like the Scottish Socialist Party, the emphasis has to be on openness, transparency and democracy. The comrades in the faction appear to believe that we should go to the branches and structures of the Scottish Socialist Party having previously worked out a position which we would then vote for en masse.

Ironically, the comrades from Dundee who make up the majority of the faction have not acted in this way themselves. At the founding conference of the Scottish Socialist Party, the comrades from Dundee voted against the general position of Scottish Militant Labour (as it was then) on various constitutional amendments moved by our opponents. And at least one comrade who is associated with the faction recently broke ranks at a Dundee branch meeting to support a resolution from the Republican Communist Network on republicanism.

On another occasion, Philip voted against the majority of International Socialist Movement comrades and along with the Republican Communist Network in favour of inviting John McNulty of the sectarian-republican Socialist Democracy organisation in Belfast to speak at the Socialism 2000 event.

We have no problem with Philip and other comrades voting in different ways. When we are intervening in the Scottish Socialist Party, we are not confronting an open class enemy in the shape of the bosses, or a disguised class enemy in the shape of the trade union bureaucracy. Therefore it is unnecessary to operate as a tightly-knit caucus.

Moreover, if we did operate in this way our influence would not be enhanced within the Scottish Socialist Party: it would be diminished. Any suggestion that meetings of the Scottish Socialist Party are rubber stamps for decisions taken elsewhere will arouse hostility even among those workers in the Scottish Socialist Party who are most sympathetic to the International Socialist Movement.

We obviously expect all International Socialist Movement comrades to defend the basic ideas and principles of Marxism. We are in favour of discussing and where possible reaching agreement within the International Socialist Movement on key issues that will be of major importance to the party. However if we cannot convince comrades on a particular issue we are not in favour of coercing them to support that position.

The discussion on drugs policy is a concrete example of this approach. Not surprisingly, some comrades were uneasy with the policy being proposed. The fact that those comrades were free to put their point of view at the Scottish Socialist Party day school on an issue which is now of critical importance in Scotland added to the discussion and helped clarify some issues.

Genuine political unity cannot be achieved by mind control. We are totally opposed to any suggestion that an International Socialist Movement comrades expressing different positions within the Scottish Socialist Party would be subjected to disciplinary action - and we would ask the comrades in the faction to clarify their position on this question.

Neither are we in favour of caucusing before every Scottish Socialist Party branch meeting or National Council. Comrades should have the opportunity to discuss with other Scottish Socialist Party members tactical and strategic and programmatic issues without having to phone up a member of the Political committee to "get the line".

Also, the International Socialist Movement does not need to have a cut and dried position on every issue that arises. At the recent conference policy papers were passed on issues as diverse as animal rights, prison reform and children's rights which we have never really discussed before within Scottish Militant Labour or the International Socialist Movement.

This boils down to a question of confidence in our own membership. If you have a membership who are politically, developed, can think independently, and can apply the method of Marxism to contemporary, political, strategic and tactical issues then you can have the confidence that they are distilling these ideas and approach in the Scottish Socialist Party branches and meetings.

In a recent Socialism Today article on the case for a new workers party Peter Taaffe, the general secretary of the Socialist Party of England and Wales, criticises the Socialist Workers Party for using strength of numbers to railroad through their position at a meeting of the Lewisham London Socialist Alliance. We can only conclude that Peter thinks that this is an inappropriate form of democratic centralism for the Socialist Workers Party to adhere to under the concrete circumstances of leading and intervening in the London Socialist Alliance.

If the Socialist Workers Party joined the Scottish Socialist Party and were coming to every branch meeting or National Council with pre-prepared resolutions then we may have to modify our approach. As Trotsky says: "Everything depends on concrete circumstances."

A key aspect of democratic centralism is control over the leadership by the rank and file. It is particularly relevant when it comes to action, especially of public leaders. If the International Socialist Movement conference agrees a policy then the members of the political committee would be expected to fully implement it.

However given that the Scottish Socialist Party does and will have public leaders, many elements of democratic centralism are more relevant at this stage to the development of the Scottish Socialist Party than the International Socialist Movement.

Indeed, the constitution of the Scottish Socialist Party itself upholds this key ingredient of democratic centralism. For example, the constitution states that "all elected Scottish Socialist Party members must be prepared to represent local/area/national policy and be accountable to the appropriate body; accept personal pay no more than the average skilled workers wage; participate in non-violent direct action campaigns and activities in pursuit of the aims and objectives of the Scottish Socialist Party."

[Continue...]

Scottish Debate | Home | News | Donate | Join