Take power
Internal party democracy
Parties can be more leader-, central-bureau-, or member-centered. If they are united by an ideology (socialism, nationalism, etc.), then a leader- or bureau-centered form can work. If the unifying ideals include internal party democracy, then member-centeredness is inevitable. Although I am talking about a party, this applies to all organizations that desire internal democracy.
Internal democracy is easier said than done. More than a democratic constitution is needed. Powerful natural currents carry power where it already is. No cunning secret plan is needed -- the shift toward centralization comes naturally. If you don't want to drift away from democracy, both members and the core must consciously swim against the current (or rather sideways). How to resist the undercurrent?
The agenda is power.
Power tends to be concentrated where there is time to do it. A full-time salaried employee has more power in a party than a board member elected by the membership, or even a chairman if he does party work in addition to his other main activities. Full-time employment strengthens the central office, no matter how clearly the statutes state that the highest power in the party lies with the general assembly, the council, and the board, and that they "decide".
What do they decide on? Actually, only on what is on the agenda. Whoever sets the agenda determines what will be discussed. If the elected body leaves the task of setting its agenda to the central office or other core body, it gives up the right to decide what decisions will be made on.
The person who sets the agenda also guides the decision, because he has more thoroughly prepared his arguments. His advantage is greater the more general the agenda items announced in advance, the later the elected members of the assembly receive the relevant materials, and the less time they have to delve into them and discuss them among themselves before the meeting. It is much easier to discuss things among themselves in the central office than among elected representatives scattered across the country.
The bureau has particularly extensive power if it can change the agenda and materials at the last minute and unexpectedly introduce new materials and speakers ("specialists") during the meeting. If it can also choose afterwards which decisions to implement and which not to implement, then its power is complete. The elected body that allows this to happen no longer decides anything.
A public opinion poll is also this kind of guided participation. There are people and there is an interviewer. The one who formulates the question often determines the result. Formulation is power.
Information is power
Whoever has more information also has more power. He can better express and justify his views. The duties of the central office include collecting and processing information. To obtain information, a party member (including a member of the elected body and local board) turns primarily to the central office. When asking for information, the member provides information on his part, thereby adding to the central information.
The result is a network of information in the shape of a hub and spokes. Information flows through a filter of the central apparatus, which selectively transmits what it considers more important or desirable. If selected collections receive most of their information from the central apparatus, this often determines the direction of the decision.
If a political party is represented in the Riigikogu, full-time representatives of the people are added to the core. However, it should not be assumed that all members of the Riigikogu are part of the core. There, too, the information is more narrowly focused. Also, a minister does not necessarily have to be the center of information for his ministry, especially if he is new.
Next to the representative bodies and the central bureau, the third actor in the party is the chairman. If he is elected from outside the core, he can be a balancing force. However, if he comes from the core himself, his effect can be the opposite. If the same chairman remains in office for a long time, things are suspicious about internal democracy. This is also the case if he formally renounces the title of chairman, but information continues to flow through him.
Demanding the impossible is power
When a party member criticizes something, it sounds very constructive to ask him: "And what is your solution?" If he doesn't have a mature solution of his own, you can smile fatherly and consider the question closed. It sounds reasonable. However, offering a new solution often requires extensive information that only the core of the party has.
Let's say the issue is the recall of a minister. No one outside the narrow core (not even a member of the Riigikogu) can hold any binding negotiations with potential replacements. By asking "But who will you replace?" the member is silenced, demanding the impossible from him.
There are other ways in which power is concentrated. In particular, the issue of money in the ruling party has not been discussed here. Not everything can be done at once. Let's look at what can be done in the situations described here.
How to limit the concentration of power
Above all, it is advisable to avoid frivolous suspicions of conspiracy or cunning. Cunning exists, but power is concentrated nonetheless. It is enough for the power core to let itself be carried comfortably by the natural flow towards greater power. Reproaches that it was intended that way may seem insulting, spiteful, and ignorant to them. By resorting to self-defense, they reject even what they might otherwise agree with.
The nature of natural flows must be recognized by both the rank and file and the core. Often we are both at the same time. We are at the top of some smaller pyramid of power and at the same time at the bottom of a larger pyramid.
First, a suggestion to all members. Don't assume you are alone. Try to communicate with others as directly as possible, not just through the central apparatus. Make the hub-and-spoke information scheme more network-like. Reduce the information monopoly. And don't necessarily assume that the central apparatus represents the will of the elected representatives.
Resist the suggestion that if you don't have a mature new solution to offer, then the current solution is the only one possible. Discuss with other members. Maybe several heads will find a better solution than one. In any case, a concern presented by several people weighs more heavily in the eyes of the core than that of one person.
As a member of an elected body, keep the agenda in the hands of the body. Demand timely and meaningful information. If you feel that the digestion time before making a decision is too short, demand a "second reading" of the decision at the next meeting. There are few matters so urgent that there is no time for a second reading. Especially if you are used to taking into account the possibility of a second reading.
And finally, a reminder of the real core of the party. A sincere democratic desire is not enough. Realize that the current is constantly carrying you away from internal democracy towards "managed democracy". You yourself must guard every day and keep your power in check.
Rein Taagepera
Professor Emeritus of the University of Tartu and California