Discussion paper 3 - The new SA and the case for democratic federalism
This discussion paper has been produced in preparation for the
The new SA will need a constitution appropriate for its size and purpose as an alliance. Before dealing with detailed constitutional proposals we should identify the principles on which the constitution should be based. We propose “democratic federalism” as the best structure given the conditions in which we find ourselves today.
Federalism is not presented here as an ideal structure. It has advantages and disadvantages. Neither is federalism a permanent solution. If it meets our present needs, it may not be appropriate for a different situation. Federalism is not the most democratic form of organisation, but it can facilitate greater unity.
1. Federalism
A federal structure recognises and incorporates more than one centre of authority or sovereignty. These “sovereignties” retain the right to act independently or autonomously. The rights of the whole organisation are limited by the rights of the autonomous parts.
The Labour Party has a federal structure is which power is divided between the constituency parties, the Parliamentary Labour Party and the trade union affiliates. Although Labour Party conference can in theory make policy, its decisions are not binding on the trade unions [or the PLP]. The trade unions, which are part of the Labour Party, are sovereign bodies accountable to their own members.
The Socialist Alliance from its foundation adopted a federal structure. Local Alliances and socialist organisations retained their autonomy. However the SA adopted different forms of federalism. Until 2001 the SA tended to operate on the basis of ‘consensus federalism’ around what was known as 80/20. The new constitution adopted in December 2001 adopted a more centralised structure with majority decision-making.
The experience of the SA helps identify three forms of federalism
i) Consensus federalism
ii) Bureaucratic federalism
ii) Democratic federalism
Consensus federalism
Consensus federalism is the most primitive form of federalism. It may be appropriate in the very first stages of unity. When autonomous organisations begin to co-operate it is often on the basis of consensus. Decisions are based on the lowest common denominator. This means that any minority has a veto over majority decisions. This gives power to the minority over the majority.
The earliest stage of the Common Market now the European Union decisions were made by consensus. Later the EU moved to majority decisions which removed the veto. It adopted ‘Qualified Majority Voting’ which gave different states a weighted bloc vote. Local Socialist Alliances, such as Merseyside SA, adopted the practice of consensus decision-making. It has the advantage of building up confidence and trust between independent organisations and individuals. The disadvantage is that the minority veto is not democratic and leads to slow and cumbersome decision-making. At the 2001 conference the SP supported consensus federalism.
Bureaucratic federalism
When the SA abandoned consensus federalism in 2001 it adopted a more centralised structure. The SA gave the impression of abandoning federalism without in fact doing so. The rights of affiliates to be represented on national bodies were removed. In its place the SWP chose which 'affiliates' [Formally there were none] would be represented on the executive. Without the right for affiliates to be represented on national bodies the power to decide who would be included fell to the SWP majority. This meant the inclusion of the so-called ‘principle six’ organisations [originally AWL, SWP, CPGB, Workers Power, ISG and SP]. This was an unofficial category not recognised in the constitution reduced to four with the departure of the SP and Workers Power.
When the AWL opposed
Democratic federalism
Under democratic federalism decisions and policies are decided by majority vote. It provides a more consistent and transparent system of identifiable rights of members and affiliates. At the 2001 SA conference Workers Power proposed a democratic federal constitution.
2. The principles of consistent democratic federalism
Autonomy and sovereignty
Democratic federalism aims to unite autonomous organisations, each of which is sovereign within its own sphere. No part can be bound by the decisions of other autonomous organisations. Each is free to move in the same direction or in different directions. The aim of the
Autonomous affiliates acting independently are not desirable. What is needed is unity in action. But federalism means that unity in action is voluntary and not imposed. No disciplinary action can be taken when unity in action is not achieved. But the weapon of criticism remains open to the majority and minority. Democratic federalism allows for disunity, without this in itself causing splits or expulsions.
Majority decision making
Majority decision-making is a basic feature of all democratic organisations. This is not to say that unanimous or consensus decisions are not be desirable. Majority decisions do not prevent or exclude serious efforts to secure consensus. Adopting a democratic federal constitution means majority decision-making.
Non-binding decisions
Majority decisions carry strong moral authority in the socialist movement, whose members are often active in trade unions. However in a federal system, majority decisions are not binding. Individual members, affiliated Local Alliances and Socialist Affiliates have the right not to carry out majority decisions. On many occasions this ‘right’ will not be exercised. Indeed the very existence of this right makes its use less likely. Non-binding majority decisions provide a safeguard against the oppressive use of the majority and constitute a confidence building measure.
The combination of majority decision-making and autonomy places limits of the power of the majority to impose itself on the minority. Federalism is therefore most suited to a period when the prime consideration is uniting socialists from different organisations and beginning to build up trust and confidence. Federalism means that unity in action has to be voluntary. It cannot be imposed under threat of sanction.
Inclusiveness
A federal structure enables a full range of political views and wide variety of organisations to be represented within the national organisations. Federalism enables representation to be guaranteed on a simple basis, without complex voting systems.
Transparency
Openness and democratic methods make politics more transparent. This facilitates the political and ideological development of the SA as a working class organisation. This means using formal democratic methods (minutes, motions, recording votes). A federal structure means that the official positions of all the affiliates can be made open and transparent by their official delegates and reported as such.
Freedom of expression
Federalism is compatible with unrestricted freedom of expression and the rights of members, both individually and in platforms and tendencies, to publish their views.
Minority rights
Democratic federalism is quite compatible with clearly established rights for individual members and minority groups of members, including platforms and tendencies. The SA's 'Charter of members rights' should be included in any new federal constitution. Members should have the right not to be subjected to any arbitrary, unjust and oppressive action by any SA organisation or affiliate. The issue of disciplinary action, up to and including the expulsion of members, requires improved procedures to ensure the protection of individual members.
3. Why does democratic federalism provide the best structure for rebuilding the SA?
Democratic federalism is the most appropriate form of organisation given the current state of the socialist movement. We must start from an appraisal of where we are.
The SA is not a successful and growing organisation now about to make the transition to a fully centralised and democratic mass party. The SA has collapsed. We are not on the brink of launching a party. With less than a hundred members many would consider it a joke. Indeed we are so divided that even the small number of SA members remaining appears divided between those who want to rebuild an alliance and those who want to form yet another socialist party/group.
The failure of the SA creates a tendency for groups to retreat from an alliance back to the safety of their own organisation and SA independents to go back to acting as individual socialists. If comrades are not even prepared to co-operate in an alliance then forming a centralised party is utopian idea in current conditions. The tendency for the SA to dissolve must be opposed. Fighting to overcome the fragmentation of the socialist movement is a real step towards a party. It is the fight against sectarianism in practice. A genuine socialist alliance is an essential weapon in opposition to demoralisation, disunity and sectarianism.
If we are serious about rebuilding an alliance of socialists in circumstances of fragmentation and liquidation then federalism is absolutely necessary and indispensable for the task. The current state of disunity following the collapse of the SA cannot be overcome by force. There has to be a voluntary agreement to co-operate. This does not mean going back to the beginning and operating on the basis of consensus. Our years of experience working in the SA mean that we don’t need to retreat from majority decisions.
Democratic federalism fits with the task of rebuilding unity from scratch. We have to grasp the nettle of federalism and apply it. Without it, an alliance is not possible. Therefore opposition to federalism in these specific conditions is opposition to a socialist alliance as such.
Appendix - Marxism on centralism, federalism and democracy
Not all members of the SA either now [or in the future] consider themselves to be Marxist or communists. However communist ideas are a component of the SA and since communists generally support 'democratic centralism', this appendix is included for those comrades who might wish to consider that point.
A. i) Centralism and command
A centralised organisation is one in which decisions are made by higher bodies and transmitted down the chain of command. Such systems of ‘command and control’ are found in business corporations, bureaucracies, military organisations, intelligence services and the police. Each ‘soldier’ must carry out orders from above.
Revolutionary organisations adopt command and control, especially under conditions of secrecy, where a high degree discipline is required. The IRA is one obvious example of an organisation engaged in secret military operations. The underground organisations of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party operated on a centralised basis. But this was not considered the ideal model, but a result of necessity in the face of Tsarist repression.
The working class requires democratic organisation to advance its interests. Workers need trade unions, strike committees, co-operative associations, parties and their own democratic state, if they are to govern themselves and the wider society. The social position of the working class under capitalism makes it the only genuinely democratic class. The struggle for democracy transforms the potential of the class into actual democratic power.
The science of socialism has clear views on democratic organisation. One of the most important lessons is that federal democracy is a lower form of democracy than a centralised democracy. The latter is seen as a higher, more advanced or more democratic form. Marx, Engels and Lenin established this view. We can show this in relation to their views on the democratic organisation of the state.
A iii) Federal and centralised democracy
Marx, Engels and Lenin considered the democratically centralised republic more democratic than a federal republic. In ‘State and Revolution’ Lenin shows this by comparing the French republic (1793) with the
At the same time Lenin believed that federalism could be a ‘step forward’ in some circumstances. Independent states can form loose federations, when a more centralised system would not be acceptable. Federalism played a progressive role in forming the
Lenin and Engels argued that a federal republic would be a ‘step forward’ in
In a centralised democracy there is one sovereign authority. It may be the people represented through one central parliament or the membership at the annual conference. In a federal democracy there is more than one source of sovereignty. It may mean more than one parliament to whom people give allegiance, or more than one leadership or annual conference. In the
A v) Freedom of expression
Any democratic party, whether federal or centralised, can or should permit the widest freedom of expression. Members must be free to publish their views, not only inside the organisation, but openly or publicly. Factions or platforms must have the same freedom to publish. There is no reason why federal democracy should have any limit on freedom of expression.
However a centralised democratic party places one limit on freedom of expression. Once an action begins, all members must unite. If an action fails, it cannot be because it was undermined by internal criticism during the action itself. But open criticism, both before and after action, is a necessary part of the political development of the party.
A vi) Unity in action and autonomy
In a centralised democratic party, action is decided by majority decision making. The minority must conform to the majority. This is the principle of the picket line. If workers vote for strike action, the minority must join the strike. If they cross the picket they have broken the essence of workers democracy. But in a federal democracy majority decisions are not binding on autonomous organisations.
A vii) Persuasion or command
In a centralised democratic party, the higher bodies representing bigger majorities can command lower organisations to act in particular ways. A regional organisation, for example, over-rules a branch. In a federal democracy, autonomous organisations cannot simply be ordered to act. They must be persuaded. A federal structure places more emphasis on persuasion, criticism and voluntary action.
Revolutionary communists recognise that a centralised democracy (or democratic centralism) is the most democratic form of organisation. In the past Stalinism and Trotskyism have acted in the name of ‘democratic centralism’. Such party regimes have rarely permitted freedom of expression. They have often practised what can only be called ‘bureaucratic centralism’. The rights of members have been abused. Fear of democratic centralism, or ignorance about how democratic it can be, is widespread in the socialist movement.
The Labour Party practises federal democracy. Labour has three centres of sovereign authority - the membership represented at annual conference, the Parliamentary Labour Party and the Trade Union bloc vote. Labour conferences may have appeared democratic, but the federal structure allows decisions to be countermanded or ignored by the PLP and the trade union bureaucrats. Federalism did not stop the Labour Party from unjustly expelling many members.
A. ix) Science not dogma
Marxism does not have a dogmatic view about centralised and federal democracy. It recognises in general that centralised democracy is more democratic and serves the interests of the democratic class more than federalism. We are not ‘federalists’. We recognise the shortcomings and weaknesses of federalism.
However Marxism does not take a dogmatic attitude to democratic centralism. It is not considered an article of the faith, correct for each and every situation. Revolutionary Marxism, on the contrary, advocates federalism where it is appropriate. In certain concrete circumstances and conditions, federalism is a step forward. It is a case of horses for courses.
September 2005