Demarchy as both organic and democratic?

[I'd like to spark this forum once again, in spite of my politics. The forum has been dead for too long. ]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/unity-acti...836/index.html

In my Chapter 4 section above:

Note also the possibilities for “organic” decision-making and direct decision-making by the party membership as a whole. In the case of the former, "correct revolutionary politics" is needed by the modern revolutionary Marxist party based on material conditions, and that, under extremely extraordinary circumstances, appointed (not elected) "organs" (hence "organic") like the short-lived 1917 Political Bureau may be necessary. In between the two (or possibly an extension of the former), representative decision-making could be demarchic (instead of electoral), which would, due to the random nature of selections, severely limit intra-party machinations, manipulations, and “celebrity politics” (personality cults by any other name), as well as ensure programmatic diversity (beyond agreement with principles, this diversity means acceptance of, but not necessarily agreement with, the organization’s program). In the case of the latter, which is the ideal decision-making, the central party bodies would merely act as referees or “moderators” in the party-wide discussions.

Could demarchy be employed as a validation of the basic principles of "organic centralism" but without the Bordigist fetish of opposing representative decision-making (usually billed as "democratic")? Could this demarchy be employed by the ICC and IBRP, for instance?

I’m quite a fan of the idea of demarchy as an organizational tool in the context of socialist or communist society; demarchic bodies can very well be used to replace traditional bureaucratic apparatuses. That being said, though, I’m not sure how applicable they would be in the context of party organization. Consider, for one, that demarchy does reply on those who are selected being willing to devote themselves to whatever task they are selected to perform, and I’m uncertain as to how many individuals from the small sample of a party’s membership would be willing to devote themselves to such tasks.

Moreover, in the context of a party, given that we are dealing with membership totals far less than that of a population of any given society, I don’t see it being necessary. Demarchy is a means by which one can get democracy without elections (especially if direct democracy is not logistically viable), but in a party setting I think direct democracy is logistically viable, so why not opt for that instead?

Also, it just occurred to me, perhaps, comrade, if you were to give a more detailed account of what you envision to be the role and structure of demarchic bodies in such a party that would allow us to better assess the proposal.

^^^ Comrade, in regards to demarchy in a party organization, keep in mind that I also said that such organization needs to be mass in nature. It wouldn't work in "circles."

Demarchy could be applicable to a global party as large as, say, the CPSU at its peak (19 million members).