SonofRage
12th January 2004, 08:34
I've been revisiting the draft program of the older, openly anti-capitalist Greens/Green Party USA (http://www.greenparty.org) and I came across something I had never seen before. This concept of "Democratic Decentralism" that makes the Greens anarchist roots apparent. Check it out:
Democratic Decentralism
While accountability runs from the bottom up, requiring leadership to carry out membership decision or step down from leadership, the top cannot tell the bottom what to do in the Green Party. The Green Party respects the autonomy of its local and state organizations and the rights of both the majority and minority on any question. The majority has the right to set policy and expect the leadership to carry it out. The minority has the right to abstain from implementing policies with which they disagree and to criticize them publicly.
The Greens call this "democratic decentralism." It means:
1. protection of the right of minorities to abstain from implementing majority decisions with which they disagree and to dissent from them publicly;
2. protection of the right of majorities to see that their decisions are the official organizational position; and
3. protection of the right of majorities to see that their decision are actually implemented by requiring that Greens in responsible positions-candidates, public and party office holders, spokespeople, delegates to councils and conventions, and staff-are obligated to carry through organizational policies even though they may personally disagree with them (or obligated to resign from the position of responsibility if carrying through a policy would violate their conscience).
This structure of democratic decentralism enables the party to act on majority views without requiring conformity. It encourages democratic debate by affording minority views the opportunity to continue discussion and perhaps become a majority view in time.
Democratic decentralism differs fundamentally from both the democratic centralism of the Leninist Communist parties and the total lack of democratic accountability in the Social Democratic and corporate parties.
Under Leninist democratic centralism, every member must carry out the majority line on every question, whether they agree with it or not. This structure sacrifices public transparency of internal debates (and hence public trust) to compulsory unity in action. It also tends to create constant splitting over political differences and to stifle free and open debate within the party.
Democratic decentralism also contrasts with the irresponsible structures of the American corporate parties as well as the Social Democratic parties of other countries. These parties' structures are lacking in democratic accountability. No one-not candidates, public and party officials, sometimes not even staff-is obligated to follow party platforms or other organizational policies established by the majority of the membership. A classic example is the UK Labor Party members of parliament who constantly defied the party manifesto adopted by the majority of delegates from trade unions and locals. For example, the manifesto called for unilateral nuclear disarmament, but the Labor Party members of parliament consistently voted for nuclear arms expenditures, saying they were accountable to the whole electorate, not their party's members.
In the American corporate parties, there is not even a pretence of accountability. Here, party politicians have no accountability to party organizations. Basing themselves on independently financed candidate committees, they are easily able to disregard party platforms simply by winning primary elections, This system sacrifices rank-and-file democracy to the careerism of self-seeking politicians and their campaign cadre seeking the spoils of victory. These entrepreneurial politicians sell out party positions in order to trade political favors for private campaign donations and to appeal to a broader voter base as indicated by polls.
Under the Greens' structure of democratic decentralism, internal debate is publicly transparent, dissent is encouraged, state and local party organizations have autonomy, and unity in action is voluntary. Significant minority dissent is a signal to the majority that further development of positions is needed to broaden unity in action. By the same token, majority decisions actually affect organizational policy and behavior.
This can be viewed in the section of the Green Party USA's draft program entitled Green Party Democracy (http://www.greenparty.org/program/grndemo.html)
Thoughts? (crossposted on Another World is Possible (http://awip.proboards23.com)
Democratic Decentralism
While accountability runs from the bottom up, requiring leadership to carry out membership decision or step down from leadership, the top cannot tell the bottom what to do in the Green Party. The Green Party respects the autonomy of its local and state organizations and the rights of both the majority and minority on any question. The majority has the right to set policy and expect the leadership to carry it out. The minority has the right to abstain from implementing policies with which they disagree and to criticize them publicly.
The Greens call this "democratic decentralism." It means:
1. protection of the right of minorities to abstain from implementing majority decisions with which they disagree and to dissent from them publicly;
2. protection of the right of majorities to see that their decisions are the official organizational position; and
3. protection of the right of majorities to see that their decision are actually implemented by requiring that Greens in responsible positions-candidates, public and party office holders, spokespeople, delegates to councils and conventions, and staff-are obligated to carry through organizational policies even though they may personally disagree with them (or obligated to resign from the position of responsibility if carrying through a policy would violate their conscience).
This structure of democratic decentralism enables the party to act on majority views without requiring conformity. It encourages democratic debate by affording minority views the opportunity to continue discussion and perhaps become a majority view in time.
Democratic decentralism differs fundamentally from both the democratic centralism of the Leninist Communist parties and the total lack of democratic accountability in the Social Democratic and corporate parties.
Under Leninist democratic centralism, every member must carry out the majority line on every question, whether they agree with it or not. This structure sacrifices public transparency of internal debates (and hence public trust) to compulsory unity in action. It also tends to create constant splitting over political differences and to stifle free and open debate within the party.
Democratic decentralism also contrasts with the irresponsible structures of the American corporate parties as well as the Social Democratic parties of other countries. These parties' structures are lacking in democratic accountability. No one-not candidates, public and party officials, sometimes not even staff-is obligated to follow party platforms or other organizational policies established by the majority of the membership. A classic example is the UK Labor Party members of parliament who constantly defied the party manifesto adopted by the majority of delegates from trade unions and locals. For example, the manifesto called for unilateral nuclear disarmament, but the Labor Party members of parliament consistently voted for nuclear arms expenditures, saying they were accountable to the whole electorate, not their party's members.
In the American corporate parties, there is not even a pretence of accountability. Here, party politicians have no accountability to party organizations. Basing themselves on independently financed candidate committees, they are easily able to disregard party platforms simply by winning primary elections, This system sacrifices rank-and-file democracy to the careerism of self-seeking politicians and their campaign cadre seeking the spoils of victory. These entrepreneurial politicians sell out party positions in order to trade political favors for private campaign donations and to appeal to a broader voter base as indicated by polls.
Under the Greens' structure of democratic decentralism, internal debate is publicly transparent, dissent is encouraged, state and local party organizations have autonomy, and unity in action is voluntary. Significant minority dissent is a signal to the majority that further development of positions is needed to broaden unity in action. By the same token, majority decisions actually affect organizational policy and behavior.
This can be viewed in the section of the Green Party USA's draft program entitled Green Party Democracy (http://www.greenparty.org/program/grndemo.html)
Thoughts? (crossposted on Another World is Possible (http://awip.proboards23.com)