Jagdeo needs help in understanding democratic centralism

May 11, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – Bharrat Jagdeo is confusing himself when he equates democratic centralism with majority rule. The two are not the same, and before the PPP reforms Accrabe College, it should run a special session for the benefit of Jagdeo so that he can have an understanding of what exactly is democratic centralism and how having such a system is at odds with the removal of Marxism-Leninism from the party’s constitution.

Jagdeo also needs to disabuse himself of the idea that democratic centralism is the same as what exists in organisations in which the members, for example, of a Board are bound by a decision of the majority.

This is known as collective co-responsibility. In a system of collective co-responsibility, decisions are made collectively through consensus-building and democratic processes, with every member having a voice in the decision-making process. Once a decision is reached, all members are expected to uphold and implement it, thereby sharing responsibility for its outcomes. If someone does not agree with that decision and does not intend to be bound by it, that person is expected to resign.

Democratic centralism shares some similarities with collective co-responsibility but it is not the same. At its core, democratic centralism embodies the fusion of democratic principles with centralised decision-making processes. It operates on the premise that decisions are centralised and made through democratic discussion and debate, but once a decision is reached by the majority, it must be adhered to by all members of the organisation.

However, democratic centralism should not be conflated with mere majority rule. Majority rule is what its name suggests.  It is just a way in which a decision is carried: by the majority of those present or eligible to vote

Democratic centralism is a concept often associated with Marxist ideology. Its roots however are in Leninism rather than Marxism.  While Marxism laid the groundwork for socialist theory and the idea of collective decision-making, it was Vladimir Lenin who articulated and implemented the concept of democratic centralism within the Bolshevik Party.

Leninist democratic centralism introduced several key elements that distinguish it from generic Marxist principles. Firstly, Lenin emphasized the necessity of a strong, centralized leadership to guide the revolutionary movement.

Cheddi Jagan in declaring the PPP/C’s as Marxist-Leninist party  entrenched centralised decision-making within the party. The PPP onto this day has a communist decision-making structure in which the Congress elects a Central Committee which in turn devolves decision-making to an all-powerful Executive Committee, in between meetings of the Central Committee.  Lenin would have been proud of this decision-making structure of the PPP/C.

Jagan entrenched democratic centralism within the PPP. This was requirement that had been laid down for communist parties a mere three years after the Russian Revolution.

Lenin had argued that in the face of capitalist oppression and external threats, a centralised leadership was indispensable for effective decision-making and coordinated action. This emphasis on centralisation allowed for swift and decisive responses to changing circumstances, enabling the Bolsheviks to seize power during the October Revolution of 1917.

Secondly, Leninist democratic centralism prioritised the principle of disciplined unity within the party. While democratic debate and discussion were encouraged, once a decision was made through democratic procedures, it was binding on all members. This ensured that the party could present a unified front to both internal and external challenges.

Democratic centralism can be contrasted with democratic decentralism and collective co-responsibility. Democratic decentralism, while sharing similarities with democratic centralism in its emphasis on democratic decision-making, differs in its approach to centralised authority. In a decentralised model, decision-making authority is dispersed among various levels of organisation, allowing for greater autonomy and flexibility at the local level.

The PPP/C has not moved to this sort of model despite expunging references to Marxism-Leninism from the party. Persons have pointed out that there is an inherent contradiction with the PPP expunging Marxism-Leninism from its constitution while retaining democratic centralism. Jagdeo has sought to explain this is not so but he ended up in a kerfuffle.

On the other hand, collective co-responsibility focuses on shared accountability and decision-making without necessarily requiring centralised authority.  Collective co-responsibility promotes collective decision-making and consensus-building but it lacks the centralised leadership characteristic of democratic centralism.

While democratic centralism theoretically aims to balance democratic decision-making with centralised leadership, its application in practice has often been at odds with democratic decision-making. One critique is that it can lead to the concentration of power in the hands of a selected few. This can potentially stifle dissent and limit diversity of perspectives.

This top-down approach to decision-making may also result in a disconnect between the leadership of the party and its broader membership. We have read narratives, for example, where within the PPP allegations were made of persons being disallowed to speak at certain forums of the party.

It therefore is disingenuous for the PPP leadership to now redefine democratic centralism as majority rule. The PPP in its mad rush to fully transform the party into a bourgeois outfit did not cover all the bases; in the end, it espouses a liberal ideology but operates with authoritarian organs.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• centralism, democratic, Marxism-Leninism, organisations, Peeping Tom

---