Building a Pipeline, Not a Fence.

The Moment That Changed Everything

When I ran for my second term as co-chair of the Black and Brown Alliance (BBA), I expected there to be several contested seats on our chapter’s Steering Committee. I expected a multi-tendency debate about strategy or maybe some deliberation about political vision, and how we build working-class power in Detroit's communities of color. Instead, I watched the old steering committee agree with themselves along caucus lines. The same officers switched seats around the room, claiming new positions. It wasn't about who had the best vision but about who was next in an unspoken line.

That experience showed me something many of us have felt for too long. Our chapter has a leadership stagnation problem. It's not an accident. It's the obvious outcome of power concentrating in the hands of a semi-permanent cohort that treats leadership positions as entitlements rather than responsibilities. They are managers rather than activists. Functionaries rather than revolutionaries.

This was the reason why I wrote the term limits resolution for the upcoming convention. It's a simple, commonsense proposal. Every leader in the chapter gets two consecutive terms in any elected or appointed leadership position. Afterwards they are expected to have a one-year return to general membership before returning to leadership. There should be no exceptions. There should be no loopholes. It's a simple rule that works to preserve leadership pipelines, prevent burnout, and ensure that strategies remain grounded in the needs of the entire membership.

But despite broad support from plenty of independents and major caucuses like MUG and Bread & Roses, Groundwork’s leadership has responded with an amendment that guts the resolution. They've done what entrenched power always does when challenged. They are reaching for procedural weapons to protect their position.

The Ghost of R22: A Pattern Emerges

This isn't news. We've seen them do a very similar tactic on a national level, you just need to look back at Resolution 22.

R22 was a resolution at the 2025 DSA national convention that aimed at cementing DSA’s anti-Zionist stance. The Detroit Chapter historically has had an interesting history with Zionism and my experience with convention showed me that the specter hadn't fully left the building. R22 was introduced to align our organization with principled anti-imperialism and the liberation of the Palestinian people. I was one of the only Metro-Detroit delegates who voted for it unamended. Who, with the Detroit delegates at our table, argued that our organization's political and moral compass demanded we take a clear stance against occupation and genocide, regardless of the impact it may have on our electoral work

The Groundwork delegates from Detroit didn't just disagree with me. They actively worked to kill the anti-Zionist resolution by using the same procedural maneuvering they are using now against term limits. They spread misinformation, they gutted the resolution with an amendment, they did everything in their power to preserve the status quo. The amended text removes the expulsion clause for members who are currently affiliated with Zionist lobby groups, oppose the Palestinian movement, or have knowingly provided material support to Israel.

Why does this matter? What does this have to do with a local bylaws fight about term limits? Well, it reveals a pattern. Groundwork’s leadership treats internal democracy as an obstacle whenever the outcome doesn't suit them. Whether it's a national stance on Palestine or a local effort to build new leadership, their instinct is to entrench power, control the narrative, and dilute accountability.

The Case for Fresh Air

Term limits aren't a new or radical idea. They're a civic principle. Everyone understands that no one should hold elected office forever because when power concentrates, perspective narrows, and the leadership class becomes pretty far removed from the rank and file.

In Metro Detroit DSA, the concentration of leadership not only creates burnout but also creates high ceilings. New members join with energy and ideas just to find a top-down culture where decisions are made before general meetings behind closed doors. The lack of shared responsibility means that newer members have fewer opportunities to organize, which is detrimental to the project of building working class power within our chapter and the movement as a whole. This culture creates the conditions for the "freshmen retention challenge". There exists a steep drop-off where almost half of these new members leave after a single year. When new members feel as though they don't have a say within the organization, or when they sense that real power is held by an unshakeable few, they disengage. They stop coming to meetings. Their dues lapse. And our movement loses that new energy. This is why it is especially important to cycle out leadership within the chapter. We need to remove entrenched leadership to make room for members with different perspectives from independents and smaller caucuses.

Groundwork's amendment tries to strip the spirit out of my resolution. It seems to me like they want to keep the door open for unelected appointments and consecutive terms. If we limit elected terms, leaders will actually have to train and trust new leaders rather than cycling the same faces through the same seats. Leadership development takes work and some would rather preserve their positions than do that work.

How Democracy Is Circumvented

Appointed positions should not be the norm. The general body or the appropriate working group should vote for positions that directly impact the work that is going on. Leadership should reflect the democratic will of the people. While appointed positions may be needed for highly specialized positions, an election should be tried first.

My resolution is an attempt at fixing that problem. It explicitly states that no member can hold multiple officer or appointed positions simultaneously, and that after two terms, members must return to general membership for a full year. Groundwork’s amendment removes the restriction for appointed positions, albeit in a confusing, contradictory way, saying that term limits will be applied to appointed positions but also that those positions are exempt.

This is about ensuring that leadership is "a responsibility shared by the many, not a privilege held by the few," as the resolution states.

A Vision for What Comes Next

Imagine a chapter where every leader is actively building more socialist organizers, where Steering Committee meetings include new faces with new ideas. Imagine a chapter where we don't have to guess who's really running things and how, because the structure is clear and the rules apply equally to everyone. Imagine a socialist organization in Metro-Detroit that has a leadership body with representation across numerous socialist tendencies, caucuses, with a focus on leadership development and working together as comrades in a project to overthrow liberalism and to dismantle capitalism.

The culture that would emerge from these practices would not only build a stronger, more robust movement, but we would see new leaders that would expand the capacity of the chapter. making way for more projects, more political education, and more impact in our communities. The power we build will bring more people to DSA. I desperately want to build socialism in my lifetime, but if that doesn't happen, I want to create as many leaders and movement builders so the project can be realized after I'm gone. That can only happen if institutional knowledge within our chapter is openly shared, If strategy and tactics are heavily deliberated and debated, and if responsibilities are shared across caucus lines.

I want to be clear with my framing, these types of pro-democracy reforms are not only good for our chapter, but for the entire socialist movement overall. Revolutionary ends will always match their revolutionary means. If the organization that is building this revolutionary movement doesn't take its values of democracy seriously, the new society that emerges from the project will not either

To the members who are close to Groundwork but believe in democratic norms, I am not asking you to reject your friends. I am just asking you to look at the resolution text. Look at how they amended R22 at the national convention. Compare that to how they are amending this resolution. If our bylaws don't protect against leadership hoarding, we are leaving the door open for the same antidemocratic practices that we are actively fighting against outside. We are telling new members that "Your energy is welcome, but your leadership is not." We are telling the experienced "Burnout is your only exit strategy."

Return to Membership, Return to Democracy

I didn't write this resolution because I have a personal grievance against any individual. I wrote it because I believe in what this chapter could become. I've seen the energy at BBA events. I've seen the passion at our general meetings. I've talked to newer members who are hungry to contribute but don't know how to break through.

The term limits resolution is our chance to tell those members: There is a path. Your turn is coming. We are building something that will outlast any of us.

We need a leadership pipeline, not a fence. We need a chapter where your second term is about training someone else and building new leaders, not about securing your seat. We need a return to membership, not as a punishment, but as a promise that leadership is a cycle, not a permanent state.

Vote for the original, unamended resolution. Vote to build a chapter where democracy isn't just something we preach but something we practice.

Jonathan Mukes is Co-Chair of the Black and Brown Alliance and a member of the Democracy Coalition—a cross-caucus group of MUG, Bread & Roses, and independents working for transparency and democratic revival in Metro Detroit DSA.