The political drama being played out on the front pages of the nation's newspapers in a daily battle of press releases may surprise all but the players themselves. As the turmoil within the People's Progressive Party takes it toll, buffeting one Central Committee member then another, the nature, structure and posture of the ruling party seem to become more perplexing to the general public but not to party members.

Some commentators have sought to explain the continuing controversy in terms of dictatorial vs. democratic forms; disciplined vs. disruptive conduct; or deceptive vs. reliable news reporting, concepts with some validity in modern western democracies. Such interpretations, however, may well fail to define the way the PPP sees itself.

The PPP was established 54 years ago as a mass-based party which aimed at mobilising the greatest number of Guyanese from all social strata and ethnic groups to challenge the colonial order of the day. It was very successful for the first decade or so and, indeed, many Africans, Indians and a few prominent Portuguese and Chinese, as well as Christians, Hindus and Muslims flocked to the Party, electing it to office for seven years in 1957-1964.

In 1969, however, the PPP by then out of office, transformed itself from being (in its own words) "a loose mass party into a disciplined Leninist-type of party", which it felt was essential for it to regain and retain political power. With this transformation, the PPP adopted Leninist organisational principles and methods which it defined to be: "democratic centralism and collective leadership in decision-making", among other things.

In its peculiar way, the PPP has been faithful to the system it adopted 35 years ago. This explains, for example, how the Party can function without a 'party leader'.

Central Committee members are aware of these organisational practices and principles, especially democratic centralism, an invention not of the philosophical Karl Marx but of the conspiratorial Vladi-mir Lenin. Democratic centralism was defined by its intellectual author as, "freedom in discussion - unity in action", meaning that, once a decision had been arrived at, supposedly after free discussion, it was no longer open to dissent. As such, all members are required to accept the applicability of those decisions and, thereafter, to subordinate their own individuality to the majority.

This obsolete system prevailed in the USSR and other communist countries and is widely regarded as more centralistic than democratic. Ordinary party members elect delegates to Congress, who elect the Central Committee, who then elect the Executive Committee, who then elect the leaders who run the Party. Ordinary members do not directly elect the Party leaders.

Unsurprisingly, decade after decade, congress after congress, the same two or three dozen faces seem to reappear on the Central Committee, despite the fact that the PPP commands an electoral vote of over 200,000. Similarly, once installed in office or in the Cabinet, Central Committee members become virtually immune to removal.

This explains how in so many former Communist regimes, as in Cuba today, leaders remain in place for decades. Again, this is an example of essential Leni-nist authoritarian practice which distrusts the freely-expressed, but wildly unpredictable, will of the masses but places supreme confidence in a small, self-perpetuating elite group.

In an era of improved education and communication, however, intelligent people resent being dictated to by a small, self-perpetuating elite group. Some persons tried to change the highly centralised Leninist system at the 27th Congress of the PPP in July 2002, but their motion for the posts of leader, chairman and general-secretary to be openly contested were defeated, partly through the efforts of veterans who, as might be expected, seem serenely satisfied with the status quo.

The PPP (in its own words) is no longer a 'mass party' but a political machine primed to win and wield power. Outsiders who constitute the majority of the population, however, should understand better how a ruling party's adherence to the archaic doctrine of democratic centralism can affect their personal lives and the destiny of the nation.