To help develop the important point made by Beltov's here is an extract from our text: The structure and function of revolutionary organisation, adopted at our extraordinary congress in 1982. This point deals with the question of decision making, sorry for its length but I think comrades will agree that it does contribute the this discussion, whether you agree with it or not:
This concern for the greatest possible unity within the organisation also applies to the definition of the mechanisms which allow for the taking up of positions and the nomination of central organs. There is no ideal mechanism that will guarantee that the best choice will be made when it comes to taking positions, adopting orientations, and nominating militants for the central organs. However, voting and elections are the best way of ensuring both the unity of the organisation and the widest participation of the whole organisation in its own life.In general decisions at all levels (Congresses, central organs, local sections) are taken on the basis of a simple majority (when there is no of unanimity). However, certain decisions, which could have a direct repercussion on the unity of the organisation (modification of platform or statutes, integration or exclusion of militants) are taken by a stronger majority than a simple one (three-fifths, three-quarters, etc).
On the other hand, still with the same concern for unity, a minority of the organisation can call for an extraordinary Congress when it becomes a significant minority (for example two-fifths). As a general rule it's up to the Congress to settle essential questions, and the existence of a strong minority demanding that a Congress be held is an indication that there are important problems in the organisation.
Finally, it's clear that the votes only have a meaning if the members who are in a minority carry out the decisions made, decisions which become those of the organisation.
In the nomination of central organs the following three elements have to be taken into account:
*
the nature of the tasks which these organs have to carry out;
*the candidates' aptitude with regard to these tasks;
*their capacity to work in a collective living manner.
It's in this sense that you can say that the assembly (Congress or whatever) which elects a central organ is nominating a team; this is why in general, the outgoing central organ puts forward a proposed list of candidates. However it's up to this assembly (and this is also the right of each militant) to put forward other candidates if it thinks this is necessary, and in any case it elects members to central organs on an individual basis. This is the only kind of election which allows the organisation to equip itself with organs which have its maximum confidence.
It is the responsibility of the central organs to apply and defend the decisions and orientations adopted by the Congress which elected it. In this sense it is more opportune if, within the organ, there is a strong proportion of militants who, at the Congress, pronounce themselves in favour of its decisions and orientations. This, however, doesn't mean that only those who defended majority positions at the Congress, positions which then became those of the organisation, can be part of the central organ.
The three criteria defined above remain valid whatever positions defended during the debates by this or that candidate. Neither does this mean that there must be a principle of representation - for example proportional representation - of minority positions within the central organ. This is a typical practice of bourgeois parties, notably social democratic parties whose leadership is made up of representatives of different currents or tendencies in proportion to the votes received at the Congress. Such a way of designating the central organ corresponds to the fact that in a bourgeois organisation the existence of divergences is based on the defence of this or that orientation for managing capitalism, or simply on the defence of the interests of this or that sector of the ruling class or this or that clique, orientations and interests which are maintained on a long term basis and which have to be conciliated by a 'fair' distribution of posts among their representatives. This does not apply to a communist organisation where divergences in no way express the defence of material interests, of personal interests, or those of particular groups, but express a living and dynamic process of clarification of problems posed to the class and Which, as such, can be resolved through the deepening of discussion and in the light of experience. To have a stable, permanent, and proportional representation of the different positions, which appeared on the various points on the agenda of a Congress would thus be to ignore the fact that the members of central organs:
*
have as their first responsibility the task of applying the decisions and orientations of the Congress;
*can perfectly easily change their personal positions (in one direction or another) with the evolution of the debate.
http://en.internationalism.org/specialtexts/IR033_functioning.htm
Decision making cannot be separated from discussion and theoretical discussion, To take a decision means theoretical discussion. This is not a question of 'political education' as some separate activity, which is a conception used by the leftist to cover up the lack of any real political discussion and deepening in these organisations. As this thread has shown the very process, structure and purpose of making a decision is a political process which demands the deepest possible theoretical understanding of what is centralisation etc. Otherwise this reduces decision making to pragmatism and empiricism. Thus there is no need for another thread but for continuing the deepening of this present one in order to gain the greatest possible clarification on this essential question.