Welcome to Gaia! ::

I would have preferred if this was posted in my "Ask Gracchvs" thread, but anyway...

Democratic Centralism means that the membership of an organisation speak for the organisation, and do not publically contradict it. Half-arsed definition done, we can get to an example:

Imagine I am in an organisation which has has the public line that "Red is the best colour" There is a member of the organisation who likes Grey. Under democratic centralism they would not be able to advocate that Grey is good, but would instead have to propagandise the party line.

They don't like that, so at the next party meeting they bring the issue up. There is massive discussion, and the issue is put off until the meeting after next, and people are asked to think about it and everyone will speak on the matter in the next meeting.

meeting 2 comes along, and there is formal discussion of the issue and then on meeting 3 the group votes. It is decided that favourite colour is a purely private affair in relation to the party. as such, until the party line is changed once again, I have to publically express that view, as opposed to my real view that Red is best. Among party members, however, I can continue to discuss the issue and agitate for a changing of party line.

I can easily imagine this being necessary for the Pirate Party on a number of issues. It would basically mean that no member of the party is allowed to publically advocate views contrary to the parrty programme, and in fact would not be able to stray from the party programme. In their capacity as Party Member (distributing literature at demonstrations, as Mod on their forums, giving speeches in parliament or at demonstrations, whatever) they would NOT be allowed to contradict the party line on pain of massive punishment.

With regard to members elected to parliament, if you ever achieve such, an old tradition in the communist movement is to have the member sign an undated resignation form that the party can date and file if the member gives a speech in parliament or makes a vote contrary to party line.

It would also mean that all representatives in parliament would vote BASED ON THE PARTY. Not as a parliamentary fraction of the party, but based on the vote of the party.

Any questions or further clarification needed?

Lies, all ******** lies.
There is in/formal discussion WITHIN the party about any subject at any time, but OUTSIDE the party there is no contradiction with the party line.

From real life experience Democratic Centralism has a very simple mechanism and it works with higher results than other organizational principles. Discussion in party; vote for what you think the best decision of the outcome to be, all votes are recorded and after the majority has made a decision you follow through on it. Yes, there is no discussion outside of the Party in question of this dynamic as it happens, it's not just factionalism to be prevented but, the secret ballot protected. biggrin