Chapter 5
The Basic Principles of Democratic Hierarchy
Organization IS hierarchy


Many readers may very well not understand the need to present an argument to support the need for a hierarchy of representation in a democratic organization. This chapter is addressed most directly to those who have come to believe that all 'hierarchy', including the hierarchy inherent to representative democracy, is somehow abhorrent to democracy itself.

Many of us, (and probably most of us), accept as a matter of course that a representational hierarchy is essential to the functioning of any sizable democratic organization. We do hope, however, that even those who accept the need for representational democratic hierarchy will benefit from giving thought to the principles we present here. Those who accept hierarchy without undue concern will benefit from understanding the valid concerns of those who do not. The concerns of those who decry representational hierarchy point appropriately to the pitfalls of hierarchy that can corrupt, and ultimately destroy, a democratic system. We hope that the principles we outline here will adequately address these appropriate concerns.

There are many people, we have found, who are presenting ideas about ‘democracy’ that challenge our traditional notions to the extent that they claim that the only valid or ‘true’ democracy is one in which all its citizens make all its decisions. While we can follow their thinking in theory, in any organization of any size this is impossibly impractical for reasons that should be obvious, but are not to those who think this way.

We believe that it is obvious, a priori, that organization IS hierarchy. Those who present theoretical objections to hierarchy promote 'autonomy' in its stead. We believe that it is obvious, a priori, that autonomy and organization are opposite poles. We believe that it is obvious that an individual must agree to sacrifice some measure of autonomy in order to become a part of an organization. (We discuss this in more detail in Chapter 5c, the Democratic Paradox of Autonomy).



Chapter 5a
The 'Necessary Evil' of Hierarchy
Formal hierarchy facilitates communications, and guards against cults of personality


The purpose that mandates a hierarchical structure in any democratic organization of considerable size is the facilitation of an orderly and accountable flow of ‘communications’, (communications in the broadest sense, including the flow of responsibility and authority), throughout the organization.

Anyone who has extensive experience in organizational behavior knows that management ‘by committee’, is not an efficient or effective way to accomplish an organization’s objectives. It is certainly not impossible, but 1) it imparts a great disadvantage to any organization that must compete with other organizations that benefit from the orderly delegation of authority to capable leadership, and 2) de facto leadership structures naturally form anyway within committees, (by the dictates of human nature), and it is better that leadership should conform to formal accountability, because de facto leadership is often based on either personal loyalties, or quid pro quo relationships, both of which are highly prone to supersede any dedication to the organization's formal democratic procedures and principles, or to its objectives.

De facto leadership is usually rooted in the power of charismatic personalities. Lacking adequate formal lines of delegated and properly accountable authority, this type of power will, more often than not, extend beyond the reach of democratic accountability, and once it does, it will, much more often than not, become negligent in its concerns for the well-being of the group as a whole.

All organizations, whether democratic or not, function best when there is a formal and orderly hierarchy of authority that is delegated through a well-defined process, with someone ‘in charge’. Leaderless groups, (democratic or not), tend to flounder. Groups led by the de facto magnetism and power of strong personalities are often well led, but this type of leadership is more easily appropriate to non-democratic organizations. That is not to say that charismatic leadership cannot benefit democratic organizations. It certainly can. But we must recognize that it presents as many dangers, as it does benefits, to Democracy. We must recognize the need for the power of personal magnetism to be restrained in a democratic organization by rules and procedures that provide a corral of accountability beyond which personal power cannot be allowed to stray. It is inherent in human nature that we enjoy the benefits of charismatic leadership, but it is also intrinsic to Democracy that charismatic power must be restrained.

In a properly designed democratic organization, the entire hierarchy of delegated authority, and all the decisions that emanate from office holders at every level, (no matter how charismatic they might be), must remain accountable, through formalized channels of communications, to The People. Though it is impractical in a sizable organization for all decisions to be made by all The People, if an organization is truly democratic, all decisions must always remain subject to the democratic review of all The People.


Hierarchy Facilitates Communications

As we discussed in a previous chapter, (chapter 3g), bottom-up communications within a sizable organization, (communications from ‘the many’ to ‘the few’), are inherently difficult to maintain, simply due to physical limitations. Yet bottom-up communications are the very lifeblood of True Democracy. It is only through bottom-up communications that The People can subject decisions to their constant review.

Lacking an orderly and well-defined hierarchy, consistent and constant bottom up communications are physically impossible. Those holding offices and positions of responsibility, (the few), simply do not have time to receive and absorb more than a limited number of communications. They cannot respond directly to the full spectrum of communications that their sphere of responsibility demands that they must. A layered representational hierarchy is necessary to facilitate the communication of the Will of The People, the will of those in whom a truly democratic organization’s power is rooted, (the will to which all office holders must respond), to those entrusted with the responsibility and authority of office.

The dangers and pitfalls of hierarchy are well known. Lacking design measures that ensure direct accountability of higher levels to lower, a hierarchy will inevitably become an entrenched bureaucracy. When those ‘hired’, (as ‘employees’), to be entrusted with the responsibility and authority of office, entrench themselves in power, they begin to act like The People’s ‘bosses’, rather than their ‘employees’. When this happens, when those in office forget just who works for whom, Democracy is severely eroded, if not destroyed completely, (even though periodic nominal ‘elections’ might still be held).

But the alternative to a hierarchical representative democracy is ‘direct democracy’, in which all decisions are made by all The People. This is simply so functionally problematic that it is, for all practical purposes, functionally impossible in an organization of any size. All the members (citizens) of a sizable organizational group simply have neither the time, the desire, the requisite information, nor often even the ability, to make all decisions at every level of responsibility. The delegation of decision making authority to people who are willing, (and/or are paid), and have the ability, to spend the time to properly inform themselves, (which responsible decision-making requires), is a practical necessity.

This argument, which amounts to an ‘apology’ for a properly designed and fully accountable representative democracy, is only presented here at all because our experience has taught us that there are considerable numbers of people at the grass roots level who passionately believe that representative democracy, in any form, should be rejected in favor of ‘direct democracy’.

We believe that these people's concerns have been formed by their experience living within a democratic system that is so deeply flawed that even calling it a 'democracy' at all is a long stretch. For the truly democratic organization that we imagine building, we have in mind ample measures to ensure accountability of any and all office holders to their constituents, which we hope will allay these people’s concerns.

If people who are dead set against representative democracy become involved in this project, we will be eager to hear their arguments and ideas, but it is simply beyond our own ability to conceive of a workable system by which a large organization, which by the very necessity of its purpose must grow to millions of members, could function with all decisions required to be made by popular referendum. We believe that such an organization would be so paralyzed by the inefficiencies and inadequacies of such a requirement that it could never grow beyond the size to which these inefficiencies would limit it.

But we all must recognize that concerns over the pitfalls inherent in representative democracy are not only valid, but are also crucial to our considerations and intentions to build a True Democracy. It is likely that anyone reading this is aware of the failures of the crude form of 'democracy' through which our nation functions. If we hope to build a better democratic system, we must remain keenly vigilant in our concerns that power will not entrench itself in a hierarchical bureaucracy.

The entire rationale for the dire necessity of this True Democracy Project is built on a recognition of the failures in our nation’s system of representative democracy, in which the special interests of amalgamated capital, (Big Money), have manipulated a democratically inadequate and deeply flawed system to entrench themselves in power.

Our so-called ‘representative’ system no longer represents the interests of The People. Our so-called ‘representatives’ represent the interests not of those who vote for them, but rather of those who donate money that office seekers then use to 'sell' themselves to a misinformed public in order to stay in office. Our crude and deeply flawed system favors the entrenchment of power in every way. It lacks the measures and safeguards that might cause those entrusted with office to remain directly accountable to those who have elected them.

We believe that we can do MUCH better than this.


Previous Page..........................................Table of Contents..........................................Next Page