I think we actually have very little real experience with democracy. Most organizations that are nominally democratic do whatever they can to build leaderships where dissent is totally squashed. The only time to debate is during an election, and even that is frowned upon.

So most of us have learned to approach leaders in organizations as though they are 100% intentional in everything they do, and if they do something we don't like they have to be attacked to be heard at all. We have little experience in constructive dissent.

I think about that when I think how toxic organizational life can be. Its a rare thing to have an organization that wants to be democratic AND solicits input and criticism. Most leaders do what they can to avoid criticism, so we've trained to view this with suspicion.

I hope going forward in DSA we can better balance this: leaders who take criticism and want participation; members who don't view every debate as a battle. Its obviously not that simple, and bureaucracy can ossify structures - when somethings established, its hard to change.

I'm holding out that there's a better way to do things.