Democractic
centralism was, among other things, the west-friendly term used by the
communist soviet union to describe its system of
government. As the former soviet union did not always adhere very strictly to the principles of
democratic centralism, for the purposes of this discussion it shall be instead used to describe one of the three divisions of democratic government.
Democratic centralism may perhaps be described loosely as a sort of
comprimise between
pure, or
Aristotleian, democracy, and
representative, or
republican, democracy. The former is used to describe a system of government not unlike that of the
ancient greek city-states or
New England town meetings, in which all voting citizens would meet in a summit of some sort to
argue and
vote upon an issue or series of issues. The practical
disadvantages of this system are obvious. Other disadvantages may arguably include the incapability of the
masses to
understand many of the
concepts they are voting upon, leaving them open to the influence of
demagogues and others with
manipulative agendas. Representative democracy, such as is seen in
electoral college in the
United States, dictates that rulers are to be chosen by
popular vote. This too leaves people open to the work of demagogues, but is much more practically efficient, especially considering the magnitude of today's voting pool.
Democratic centralism combines these two concepts in that a single
ruler presides over a pseudo-Aristotleian massing, then makes a
decision based upon the
opinions and
arguments he or she has heard. There is, unfortunately, a fine line between democratic centralism and
dictatorship, making the term incredibly useful to
totalitarian dictators in defending their
legitimacy as leaders. This is because, typically, the leader in such a system of government is not elected by popular vote. This "
loophole" is also what makes the notion of a democratic centralist government so appealing to the rulers of
totalitarian regimes.