Socialism and government [Archive]

Vladimir Innit Lenin

12th December 2009, 03:39

I don't really use quotes from two historical figures as the central theme of an argument. However, I will do my best to answer the question.

My personal belief is in the devolution of executive power to the lowest possible level. 'Town hall' democracy, or grassroots democracy, as is theoretically exercised in Cuba, is something that I am a huge fan of. I will do my best to elaborate and explain this clearly, although it is 3.30am and i'm extremely tired, so apologies if this does not make sense.

If we start by identifying the basic levels of geopolitical administration in a country. Let us say these are Town, District, County/City, Region, Country.

Town representatives are elected, let us say 9 representatives per town. These 9 representatives then choose 1 of their cohort to join the district council. Let us say there are 9 towns per district. Each district chooses 1 of its own cohort to sit on the County/City council. This continues up to regional level. Council bodies would exercise executive power in that they would be the initial point of all policy - policy could only originate from these bodies; e.g. if many town representatives are being told by their populace that more widgets need to be produced, a policy process can then be initiated upwards to allow the production of more widgets.

The National representatives would be a sort of legislative body - they would be responsible, via some sort of popular assembly, elected independently of area Councils, for the drawing up of policy, as demanded by the people through the Council system.

There would of course have to be some sort of (and I do hate this word for all its cliched connotations) Politburo. However, in a bottom-up, grassroots democratic structure, this would be an oversight committee, rather than one with policy making powers. It would in effect exist to make sure that laws written by the Assembly did not contravene a written Socialist constitution. It could also have a hand in the judicial process, perhaps having the ability to enact judicial process and collaberate with a national judicial court. Because of the problems of centralisation in many previous 'Socialist' nations of power towards the centre-most political committee(the CC or Politburo, in virtually all cases), this body in particular would have to have stringent democratic controls; the power of recall, one year terms, no prospect of re-election, no party attachment and no electioneering.

That is a basic framework I have in mind for a Socialist political system. It is important, however, to remember that this is not the prime indicator of a healthy Socialist society. Many Socialist systems are very similar to the one above - theoretically bottom up and extremely democratic due to their de jure grassroots nature. However, the key problem is that in many nations, the vangaurdist nature of the political system meant that the state, which owned the means of production, was in fact separate from the workers who did not actively participate in the ruling of the country through the vanguard party; in the USSR, for instance, only a minority of workers were members of the Bolshevik Party/Communist Party. Therefore, although the above is a fairly well thought out political framework, it is of paramount importance that the means of production stay in the hands of the people, and are not vested in the control of 'politicians'. It is often the lure of money, power and influence which leads to a political class forming. Therefore, if the opportunity to help organise the nation (through holding a political post) is divorced from having active and impervious control of the means of production, a Nomenklature will be less likely to form. That is by far the key indicator of a healthy Socialist society - workers' planning the economy for themselves, and participating and controlling the organisation of the country, through democratic political bodies, for themselves.