Bylaws and Authority

Standing at some distance from the bylaws revision process, I’ve been trying to work out the nature of the division that is affecting our Local. Unfortunately, the way the debate has happened has not always helped in this regard. I believe there are substantive and reasonable political differences in this case that are worth thinking about. But if sides in the debate rely on caricature and vitriol, we will get nowhere. One side can claim the other is a bunch of spineless dirty hippies on a Humboldt County commune; the other can reply that the first is a bunch of careerist NGO bureaucrats with trust funds. Is this where we want discourse in DSA to go?

As far as I can tell, the actual substance of the debate is about the relationship between leadership and the rank-and-file in the day-to-day operation of an organization. Although it is likely no one person perfectly represents the views of one “side” or the other, I think there are broadly two positions. The first, largely represented by the current leadership, believes that the mundane details of running an organization can and should largely be delegated, both to elected leaders and to robust processes, freeing rank-and-file members to focus on non-bureaucratic tasks of organizing, educating, and mobilizing. There is much to recommend this position. I know I have no interest in bureaucratic tasks. I also know that without someone to step up and take on those tasks, an organization will fail, and we owe gratitude to those willing to put in the work. This side maintains that horizontal organization is a recipe for inaction and chaos, and that as organizations grow larger, the need for delegated tasks and strong structures becomes greater. I call this view “delegated authority.”

The other side responds, in the spirit of the bedrock principle of democratic socialism that people should have democratic control over the decisions that affect their lives, that an organization must mirror the nature of the change it wishes to create. In the case of DSA, that means advocates of this position argue we must construct an organization that is maximally open to member input, does not elevate leadership above the rank-and-file, and spreads authority as widely as possible. I think the virtues of this approach are also clear. Representation, although efficient, cannot seamlessly substitute for grassroots power. Elections are important, but cannot be the beginning and end of member control. And, the burdens of bureaucracy should be shared to fight burnout. Because flexibility and openness can be stifled by heavy-handed leadership or excessive bureaucracy, advocates of this view believe we should err on the side of decentralization. I call this view “distributed authority.”

There are risks with both approaches. The former may thwart member power and substitute the judgement of leadership for that of the rank-and-file. The latter may result in endless bureaucratic wrangling and elevate only the loudest voices. I am not so naïve to believe that there is an easy medium (no pun intended!) of the two positions. But I do think people of good will can work together to balance concerns and build a strong organization. At least, I want to believe this is true. That medium is what we should strive for.

However, in case it seems I am trying to both-sides this debate, let me be clear that I believe the actions of the current EBDSA leadership demonstrate that it cannot be trusted with the responsibility of their favored “delegated authority” model. This is not only or even primarily because of the current bylaws debate; rather, it is because of a pattern over time of opaque decision-making, heavy-handed management, cliquish behavior, and ideological arrogance. Perhaps unfortunately for committed democrats, structures cannot perfectly control for personalities. As a result, the best designed organization is still at the mercy of the will of the people implementing the structure, especially when those given responsibility do not follow their own rules. In the case of the bylaws debate, I did not have strong feelings about any particular reforms, but I signed on in support of the Leadership for All (L4A) request to consider their draft bylaws as a whole because I believe the arbitrary decisions made by the leadership around this process have been deeply harmful to our Local and DSA as a whole.

Although there have been attempts to paint this kind of criticism of the current leadership as that of a small fringe, I can assure you that it is not. I am not affiliated with the Communist Caucus or with the L4A group. I have spoken with members outside these current battle lines and organizations, and there is a concern that leadership has isolated and ossified itself. Several members I know with these concerns, including those with leadership roles, are unwilling to criticize leadership openly. This is not a sign of a healthy organization.

To me, this means at the present moment we should spread authority widely, and take a more “distributed authority” approach than our Local has to date. I leave it to readers to decide what that means with respect to specific bylaws proposals under consideration. But, if there is a larger lesson here, I believe it should be a call to all of us, especially those in leadership, to act with greater humility going forward.