The Iron Law of Autocracy and how to beat it

In the early years of the last century, sociologist Robert Michels noted that the European socialist parties, despite their democratic ideology and provisions for mass participation, seemed to be dominated by their leaders, just as much as their conservative opponents. Modern democracy allowed the formation of parties committed to equality and social justice, but as they grew in complexity they paradoxically became less and less democratic

The reason why this matters is that the history of all previous egalitarian parties shows that as they gradually developed a professional bureaucracy and a centralized, ‘professional’ leadership they gradually moved to the right and towards accommodation with the ruling political establishment – and with the ideas of that establishment.

German Greens try to break out

During the 1970s and early 1980s, the German Greens made a conscious effort to try and break the Iron Law. When the party was small, these anti-oligarchic measures enjoyed some success. But as the organisation grew larger and the party became more successful, the need to effectively compete in elections, raise funds, organise mass demonstrations and work with other political parties once elected, led the Greens to adapt more conventional structures and practices and to the emergence of a ‘professional’ leadership grouping. And that ended up with their leaders being incorporated into the neo-liberal establishment and supporting cuts in welfare and German troops taking part in the invasion of Afghanistan.

We don’t need a leadership elite

The tendency towards the development of hierarchies and a self sustaining leadership elite is as endemic in our party as it is in any other organisation – and the more successful we are the more powerful those tendencies will become. To counter these tendencies we need to do two things.

First, we must continually resist the inevitable tendency towards the growth of a semi-permanent leadership group based round our leading full time representatives by ensuring that our constitutional and administrative procedures minimize their tendency to develop. Thus, the current proposal should be opposed because it would inevitably encourage, rather than discourage, the development of a centralized professional leadership group.

Second, we must continually strive to develop the conditions in which active democracy can thrive. That means above all encouraging discussion and debate at all levels within the party in order to build the capacity of party members to both take an active and informed part in developing party policy and to effectively hold the leadership of the organisation to account. We need more leadership in the Green Party rather than less, but leadership spreading up from the base rather than down from the top or out from the centre.

A professional bureaucracy but not a dominating one

As we grow, we will inevitably develop an increasingly professional bureaucracy. We will also, one hopes, have a growing number of professional full time elected politicians. There is no doubt that we must pay a price to ensure that these hierarchies do not slowly begin to dominate the party, as they inevitably will without the conscious commitment of the membership to counter that trend. Centralised bureaucracy and leadership is like the clotting agent in that blood – essential if we are to operate, but fatal if not kept continuously in check.

Sean Thompson
Camden Green Party