The role of Consensus in Democracy

[Lugh Ildánach 2,352]

Direct Democracy and Consenus are often discussed together as if one is inextricably linked to the other. But they are very different principles, either one of them can operate separately from the other.

 

Briefly put, direct democracy is the principle of giving people a direct say in decisions. That can be immediately direct, in that every person is given a vote on the issue, or it can be on a delegated basis, where you have a mandated delegate who must put the view of those he is elected by to the decision making body.

 

But within direct democracy you could still have a position where decisions were made on a majority basis. Everyone could have a say, but you could still end up with a position where 49% of those voting on the issue are in a minority and ultimately have no influence over the final decision.

 

Consensus is not just about getting broad agreement. It is a completely different approach to decision making. It involves taking on board any concerns raised, and trying to come to a synthesis of the ideas of the group, so that as many of the group is brought along as possible.

 

Of course in the real world, not everyone can be accommodated (eg, where there are diametrically opposed views) and many systems of consensus ultimately operate on a qualified majority basis, eg requiring 80%. But even where this is the case, the system that you adopt to get to your decision is markedly different from the process engaged in non-consensus systems.

 

Here is a link to a good article explaining the different processes.

 

http://www.seedsforc.../free/consensus

[Lugh Ildánach 2,352]

From the above document. A nice summary flow-chart of the processes of consensus

 

 

Consensus

Flowchart

www.seedsforchange.org.uk 2010

Step 1: Introduce and clarify the issue(s) to be decided

Share relevant info. What are the key questions?

 

Step 2: Explore the issue and look for ideas.

1. Gather initial thoughts and reactions. What are the issues and

people's concerns?

2. Collect ideas for solving the problem – write them down.

3. Have a broad ranging discussion and debate the ideas. What are

the pros and cons?

Start thinking about solutions to people's concerns. Eliminate some

ideas, short list others.

 

Step 3: Look for emerging proposals

Look for a proposal that weaves together the best elements of the ideas

discussed. Look for a solution that addresses people's key concerns.

 

Step 4: Discuss, clarify and amend your proposal

Ensure that any remaining concerns are heard and that everyone has a

chance to contribute.

Look for amendments that make the proposal even more acceptable to

the group.

 

Step 5: Test for agreement

Do you have agreement? Check for the following:

Blocks: I have a fundamental disagreement with the core of the

proposal that has not been resolved. We need to look for a new

proposal.

Stand asides: I can't support this proposal because ... But I don't want

to stop the group, so I'll let the decision happen without me.

Reservations: I have some reservations but am willing to let the

proposal pass.

Agreement: I support the proposal and am willing to implement it.

Consensus: No blocks, not too many stand

asides or reservations? Active agreement?

Then we have a decision!

 

Step 6: Implement the decision

Who, when, how? Action point the tasks and set deadlines.

[Guest Connolly]

Here is a good article from a number of years back on cedarlounge about 'two third majorities' and 'simple majorities' - http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/the-trouble-with-the-two-thirds-majority-in-irish-politics-and-elsewhere-usually-close-but-not-close-enough/

[Fodla32 3,692]

I was just talking to someone tonight who said that the consensus approach had caused a lot of problems in Occupy Dame Street, that there were some people abusing their right to block. It's difficult to know how to get over that problem, though Im sure it can be done.

[Guest Connolly]

Id imagine the consenus system would only work in smaller groups. The larger the number the more probable it would be for someone to object for some reason or another. It would become unworkable.

 

Political structures and decision making systems are not straightforward. There is no "one size fits all".

 

I would imagine that different systems are more effective and efficient than others for different types of decisions and different 'levels' of decision making. But that is what experimentation is for!

[Lugh Ildánach 2,352]

I was just talking to someone tonight who said that the consensus approach had caused a lot of problems in Occupy Dame Street, that there were some people abusing their right to block. It's difficult to know how to get over that problem, though Im sure it can be done.

 

Blocks and how to deal with them can be a difficult issue.

 

By far the most important ingredient for success is when you have a group where all members are committed to reaching consensus. If you are having constant blocks, it is a sign that your group is not ready to progress on the issue, or perhaps that you don't have the commitment to consensus within the group, or don't have a strong common purpose. Its not just a problem of the ones who are blocking. A block takes two to create a problem. The person or group who is blocking and the person/group who is eager to push ahead while others in the group are not ready. If all are committed at an early stage to reach consensus, then blocks should not be an issue.

 

I'm not convinced that consensus is only for small groups. It is of course more challenging for larger groups, but the process of synthesising opposing ideas and coming up with compromises at an early stage can ensure that people stay invested in the process. The trick is, I feel, to ensure that you have common purpose on the fundamental core issues before establishing consensus as a principle for your group. If you don't have common purpose, then the task should be to build it, rather than try to impose it through consensus.

 

The current system isn't designed for consensus as the State is an oppositiional structure that is designed for the dominance of one class over another. Fully functional consensus can only work once these class divisions have been eradicated and true common purpose has been established.

[Guest Felix Rourke]

 

Blocks and how to deal with them can be a difficult issue.

 

By far the most important ingredient for success is when you have a group where all members are committed to reaching consensus. If you are having constant blocks, it is a sign that your group is not ready to progress on the issue, or perhaps that you don't have the commitment to consensus within the group, or don't have a strong common purpose. Its not just a problem of the ones who are blocking. A block takes two to create a problem. The person or group who is blocking and the person/group who is eager to push ahead while others in the group are not ready. If all are committed at an early stage to reach consensus, then blocks should not be an issue.

 

What happens though when, in reality people who are blocking are doing it not because they are not ready, but just because they are stubborn c*nts? In that case even if the side that wants to move ahead is committed to reaching a consensus, then someone will block it. I'm not convinced of the 'block' at all.

 

I think that most the people at that ODS are a good example of why blocking shouldn't be adopted. They appeared to me to be the sorts of people who are anti-establishment, but not in the sense of the capitalist establishment alone. I think that if tomorrow a socialist state (or some form of it that held some promise) was realised, you'd still have a group who wanted to be "out there" and not a part of "the system." What I've found with most (certainly not all) anarchists for example, is that their 'political' position is a cultural one really. They'd rather eat vegan food in seomra spraoi than ever try any outreach to working-class areas.

 

Politics is just a convenient flag for these people to satiate their own selfish need to feel different, by wearing clothes that aren't the norm or their hair in a manner that most wouldn't. In a weird roundabout way they are more obvious products of capitalism, seeing as how they counterpose themselves to it, than an average joe who doesn't realise he's trapped by it. Anyway, I think people like these have little or nothing to offer, and actually put off the vast majority of the working-class, the point being that speaking of democracy in relation to wider society these goons are a metaphorical 'block' to socialists achieving communism, and therefore I see no reason why they should be given the luxury of blocking attempts at progress.

 

That of course is just one place and time where I see the 'block' as inhibitive, but in a theoretical setting of a developed system of councils it probably would have its function. The problem with applying theory on democracy that incorporates the 'block' to a concrete situation now is that you're faced with these people who are just stubborn and 'anti-everything'.

[Fodla32 3,692]

I fully agree with this post. The sad fact is that capitalism creates an utterly worthless type of underclass - and seomra spraoi is a good example of it. They are a kind of trendy hippy underclass, who would resist all kinds of Revolutionary discipline. And, of course, the word "Revolution" has been prostituted by the bourgeoisie in their fake "revolutions" in Libya and Syria. But, Revolution still has a real meaning. Lenin defined it: The passing of state power from one class to another. Well, in that sense, Libya was a revolution. Power passed from the Working Class to the bourgeoisie. But, as Lenin would have defined it, that was counter-revolution, it was not Revolution. Because Revolution has a definite historical direction. It is the passing of state power into the hands of the Proletariat. Any process that is in contradiction with that direction is Counter-Revolution.

 

The Revolutionary Proletariat is disciplined and resolute. They are not like the trendy types in Seomra Spraoi.

[Guest Connolly]

What happens though when, in reality people who are blocking are doing it not because they are not ready, but just because they are stubborn c*nts? In that case even if the side that wants to move ahead is committed to reaching a consensus, then someone will block it. I'm not convinced of the 'block' at all.

 

I think that most the people at that ODS are a good example of why blocking shouldn't be adopted. They appeared to me to be the sorts of people who are anti-establishment, but not in the sense of the capitalist establishment alone. I think that if tomorrow a socialist state (or some form of it that held some promise) was realised, you'd still have a group who wanted to be "out there" and not a part of "the system." What I've found with most (certainly not all) anarchists for example, is that their 'political' position is a cultural one really. They'd rather eat vegan food in seomra spraoi than ever try any outreach to working-class areas.

 

Politics is just a convenient flag for these people to satiate their own selfish need to feel different, by wearing clothes that aren't the norm or their hair in a manner that most wouldn't. In a weird roundabout way they are more obvious products of capitalism, seeing as how they counterpose themselves to it, than an average joe who doesn't realise he's trapped by it. Anyway, I think people like these have little or nothing to offer, and actually put off the vast majority of the working-class, the point being that speaking of democracy in relation to wider society these goons are a metaphorical 'block' to socialists achieving communism, and therefore I see no reason why they should be given the luxury of blocking attempts at progress.

 

That of course is just one place and time where I see the 'block' as inhibitive, but in a theoretical setting of a developed system of councils it probably would have its function. The problem with applying theory on democracy that incorporates the 'block' to a concrete situation now is that you're faced with these people who are just stubborn and 'anti-everything'.

 

Excellent points there Felix.

 

But I know some people who are involved with Seomra Spraoi and they do not describe themselves as anarchists. They dont describe themselves as anything really. More confusion and incoherency. They are certainly 'lifestyle activists' though.

[Lugh Ildánach 2,352]

Blocks are not absolute in all consensus models. In some of the systems, you can by-pass a block with a certain percentage majority. At the end of the day you have to set your limits according to your political reality. In Venezuala for example they had a quorum in their community councils that wasn't being reached, so they had to lower it. I can't remember the figures, but it was something like reducing it from 30% to 15%. And that's just people turning up, I'm not sure how they operate as far as making decisions is concerned.

 

We have to remember its a process, and a long one at that. But we should be introducing these principles at the earliest stage. When people begin to realise that consensus isn't just about getting their own way, fewer and fewer will abuse the privilege and the majority required to by-pass a block can be gradually reduced. But unless we commit to a consensus model from the outset, we have nothing to pull us away from the status quo. Majoritarianism, just like the States it helps sustain, will not simply wither away.