đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș seeds-for-change-consensus-decision-making.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:59:19. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Consensus Decision Making Author: Seeds for Change Language: en Topics: consensus, organization Source: Retrieved on December 17, 2009 from http://seedsforchange.org.uk/free/consens
Consensus is a decision-making process that works creatively to include
all persons making the decision. Instead of simply voting for an item,
and having the majority of the group getting their way, the group is
committed to finding solutions that everyone can live with. This ensures
that everyoneâs opinions, ideas and reservations are taken into account.
But consensus is more than just a compromise. It is a process that can
result in surprising and creative solutions â often better than the
original suggestions.
Consensus can work in all types of settings: small groups of activists,
local communities, businesses, even whole nations and territories. The
Zapatista movement in lower Mexico (Oaxaca and Chiapas) answers to a
public control called âla consultaâ. This group â comprised of all men,
women and children age 12 and over â meets in local meetings where
discussion is held and all the members make the final decision.
Within a small group of up to 20 people consensus tends to be more
simple, as everyone can get to know each other and reach a mutual
understanding of backgrounds, values and viewpoints. For larger groups
different processes have been developed, such as splitting into smaller
units for discussion and decision-making with constant exchange and
feedback between the different units. Our briefing Consensus In Large
Groups has more examples and ideas for reaching consensus with hundreds
and even thousands of people.
Many of us have been brought up in a culture which believes that the
western-style system with one-person-one-vote and elected leaders is the
supreme form of democracy. Yet in the very nations which shout loudest
about the virtues of democracy, many people donât even bother voting
anymore, because they feel that it doesnât make any difference to their
lives.When people vote for an executive they also hand over their power
to make decisions and to effect change. This goes hand in hand with
creating a majority and a minority, with the minority often feeling
deeply unhappy with the outcome.
It is true that majority voting enables even controversial decisions to
be taken in a minimum amount of time, however there is nothing to say
that this decision will be a wise one or morally acceptable. After all
the majority of colonial Americans supported the ârightâ to hold slaves.
People in a majority rule system donât need to listen to the dissenting
minority, or take their opinion seriously because they can simply
outvote them. Majority rule systems say that the majority is infallible
and they have nothing to learn from the minority.
This creates a situation where there are winners and losers and promotes
an aggressive culture and conflict, and lends itself to steam rolling an
idea over a minority that dissents with the majority opinion. The will
of the majority is seen as the will of the whole group, with the
minority expected to accept and carry out the decision, even if against
their most deeply held convictions and principles. A vivid example is
the imprisonment of conscientious objectors against military service in
democratic countries such as Germany.
In contrast to majority voting consensus decision-making is about
finding common ground and solutions that are acceptable to all.
Decisions are reached in a dialogue between equals, who take each other
seriously and who recognise each otherâs equal rights.
People are often inactive because they feel that they have no power in
the system and that their voice wonât be listened to anyway. In
consensus every person has the power to make changes in the system, and
to prevent changes that they find unacceptable. The right to veto a
decision means that minorities cannot just be ignored, but creative
solutions will have to be found to deal with their concerns.
Another benefit of consensus is that all members agree to the final
decision and therefore are much more committed to actually turning this
decision into reality.
Consensus is about participation and equalising power. It can also be a
very powerful process for building communities and empowering
individuals.
Consensus is not a new idea, but has been tested and proven around the
world. Non-hierarchical societies have existed on the American continent
for hundreds of years. Before 1600, five nations â the Cayuga, Mohawk,
Oneida, Onondaga, and Seneca â formed the Haudenosaunee Confederation,
working on a consensual basis and which is still in existence today.
Each Nation within the Confederacy selects individuals to represent them
at confederacy meetings. Issues are discussed until all are in agreement
on a common course of action. Never would the majority force their will
upon the minority. Similarly no one could force a warrior to go to war
against their better judgement.
A second example of consensus based organisation is the Muscogee (Creek)
Nation. The Muscogee have the oldest political institutions in North
America, with a recorded history going back beyond 400 years. If
consensus on a major issue could not be achieved to everyoneâs
satisfaction, people were free to move and set up their own community
with the support â not the enmity â of the town they were leaving. This
is in stark contrast to political organisation today, where the stateâs
need to control its citizens makes it virtually impossible for
individuals disagreeing with general policy to just go and do their own
thing.
Consensus cannot only be found in the indigenous societies around the
world but also throughout European history. Many medieval institutions,
such as guilds, town councils, the influential Hanseatic trading league
as well as governing bodies of countries (German and Polish Imperial
Courts) required unity.
There are also many examples of successful and stable utopian communes
using consensus decision-making, such as the Christian Herrnhueter
settlements 1741-1760/61 and the production commune Boimondeau in France
1941â1972. The Herrnhueter complemented the consensus system with the
drawing of lots to choose the members of the community council, making
intrigue and power politics superfluous. This tool for decision-making
is unfortunately rarely used or discussed today, even though it can
offer a fair way out of a decision-making dilemma.
Christiania, an autonomous district in the city of Copenhagen has been
self-governed by its inhabitants using consensus since 1970. This
includes regulating economic, cultural and educational issues, water and
electricity supply, health and security.
Within the co-operative movement many housing co-ops and businesses are
using consensus successfully, including making difficult financial and
management decisions. A prominent example is Radical Routes, a network
of housing and workersâ co-ops all using consensus decision-making.
Through Rootstock Radical Routes raises and loans out substantial sums
of money to member co-ops.
Many activists working for peace, the environment and social justice
regard consensus as essential to their work. They believe that the
methods for achieving change need to match their goals and visions of a
free, non-violent, egalitarian society. Consensus is also a way of
building community, trust, a sense of security and mutual support â
important in times of stress and emergency.
In the antimilitarist protests at Greenham Common in the 1980s thousands
of women participated in actions and experimented with consensus. Mass
actions involving several thousand people have repeatedly been planned
and carried out using consensus.
There are many different formats and ways of building consensus. Some
groups have developed detailed procedures, whereas in other groups it
may be an organic process. This also depends on the size of the group
and how well people know each other. Below we have outlined a process
that covers all the aspects of consensus, but can easily be adapted to
fit your group. There are however a few conditions that have to be met
for consensus building to be possible:
common goal, whether it is an action, living communally or greening the
neighbourhood. It helps to clearly establish what this overall goal of
the group is and to write it down as well. In situations where consensus
seems difficult to achieve, it helps to come back to this common goal
and to remember what the group is all about.
committed to reaching consensus on all decisions taken. It can be very
damaging if individuals secretly want to return to majority voting, just
waiting for the chance to say âI told you it wouldnât workâ. Consensus
requires commitment, patience and willingness to put the group first.
this way.
they will use for tackling any given issue. Agree beforehand on
processes and guidelines. In most cases this will include having one or
more facilitators to help the group move through the process. See also
our briefing on Facilitation.
There are lots of consensus models (see flowchart in the Resources
section).The following basic procedure is taken from Peace News (June
1988), a magazine for peace activists:
helps to do this in a way that separates the problems/questions from
personalities.
ones. Keep the energy up for quick, top-of-the head suggestions.
develop a short list. Which are the favourites?
chance to contribute.
time-consuming bit). Sometimes you may need to return to step 4.
agreement.
In all but a very few cases the above model will achieve consensus
within the group providing there is commitment to coming to a decision.
However there are times when one or more people disagree more or less
strongly with the rest of the group and no solution is in sight. Listed
below are some ways of dealing with this. The first two, non-support and
standing aside, allow the group to proceed with the decision, whilst
allowing reservations to be expressed. See also the section When not to
use consensus
Non-support: âI donât see the need for this, but Iâll go along with it.â
Standing aside: âI personally canât do this, but I wonât stop others
from doing it.â The person standing aside is not responsible for the
consequences. This should be recorded in the minutes.
Veto/major objection: A single veto/major objection blocks the proposal
from passing. If you have a major objection it means that you cannot
live with the proposal if it passes. It is so objectionable to you/those
you are representing that you will stop the proposal. A major objection
isnât an âI donât really like it â or âI liked the other idea better.â
It is an âI cannot live with this proposal if it passes, and here is
why?.!â. The group can either accept the veto or discuss the issue
further and draw up new proposals. The veto is a powerful tool and
should be used with caution.
Agree to disagree: the group decides that no agreement can be reached on
this issue. What can be done when we genuinely need to reach agreement
and we are poles apart? Here are some suggestions:
activity or a cup of tea.
least.
agree on and see what points of disagreement are left.
heart of the matter.
you donât agree. How important is the decision now?
advance on this solution.
conflicts or if similar issues keep coming up, think about bringing in a
professional facilitator or mediator who is trained in
conflict-resolution techniques.
overwhelming vote such as 80 or 90% to make a decision valid.
Leaving the group: If one person continually finds him/herself at odds
with the rest of the group, it may be time to think about the reasons
for this. Is this really the right group to be in? A group may also ask
a member to leave.
consensus make sure everyone is following, listening to and
understanding each other.
to the subject.
and consider them carefully before pressing your point.
must be afraid to express their ideas and opinions. Remember that we all
have different values and opinions, different behaviours, different
areas and thresholds of distress.
discussion reaches stalemate. Instead look for the most acceptable
solution for all parties.
discomfiture/amendments. A veto/major objection is a fundamental
disagreement with the core of the proposal.
When agreement seems to come quickly and easily, be suspicious, explore
the reasons and be sure that everyone accepts the solution for basically
similar or complementary reasons. Many of us are scared of open
disagreement and avoid it where we can. Easily reached consensus may
cover up low esteem or lack of safety for some people to express their
disagreements openly.
and try to involve everyone in the decision process. Disagreements can
help the groupâs decision, because with a wide range of information and
opinions, there is a greater chance the group will hit on more adequate
solutions. However you must also be flexible and willing to give
something up to reach an agreement in the end.
overpowering, agreement versus majorities/minorities. The process of
consensus is what you put into it as an individual and a part of the
group. Be open and honest about the reasons for your view points.
is not a sign of quality. Thinking issues through properly needs time.
For taking major decisions or in a controversial situation, it is always
a good idea to postpone the decisions, âto sleep on itâ.
From Starhawkâs book Truth or Dare:
A group thinking process cannot work effectively unless the group is
cohesive enough to generate shared attitudes and perceptions. When deep
divisions exist within a group?s bonding over their individual desires,
consensus becomes an exercise in frustration.
Consensus process can help a group find the best possible solution to a
problem, but it is not an effective way to make either-or-choices
between evils, for members will never be able to agree which is worse.
If the group has to choose between being shot and hung, flip a coin.
When a group gets bogged down trying to make a decision, stop for a
moment and consider: Are we blocked because we are given an intolerable
situation? Are we being given the illusion, but not the reality, of
choice? Might our most empowering act be to refuse to participate in
this farce?
In emergencies, in situations where urgent and immediate action is
necessary, appointing a temporary leader may be the wisest course of
action.
I have known groups to devote half an hour to trying to decide by
consensus whether to spend forty minutes or a full hour at lunch.
Remember consensus is a thinking process ? where there is nothing to
think about, flip a coin.
When youâre lost in the hills, and no one knows the way home, you cannot
figure out how to get there by consensus. Send out scouts. Ask: Do we
have the information we need to have to solve this problem? Can we get
it?
Since it is a lengthier process to look at ideas until all objections
are resolved, your group meetings may be longer and some decisions might
regularly take more than a week to decide. However consensus need not
involve everyone at every stage of the process:
discussions and brainstorms of the whole group into a few possible
solutions to be discussed later by the whole group.
back with a platter of proposals. This can speed up the meeting
threefold or more.
groups on different areas, such as publicity, fund-raising, research.
These sub-group can then decide the nitty-gritty business that they are
responsible for, within certain limits that the group has defined
beforehand.
Time pressure to find a solution to an urgent problem leads to stress
and group pressure âto just get on with itâ.
issues adequately. Prioritise which decisions need to be taken there and
then and which ones can wait a while.
Actively participating in groups can be hard enough, and using a veto
more so, particularly for people who feel unconfident in groups. It can
involve standing up to â perceived or actual â group pressure and
impatience. Many people are tempted to keep quiet (at least in a vote
they can raise their hand) and important conflicts are sometimes
avoided. In the hands of those used to more than their fair share of
power and attention, the veto can be a lethal tool. It can magnify their
voices, and be used to guard against changes that might affect their
power base and influence.
In a well functioning group vetos should be rarely if ever seen â not
only because they are a last resort, but also because ideally a memberâs
unhappiness should be picked up on before before it gets to a veto
stage.
groups generally reflect some hidden needs or past experiences.
discriminatory and aggressive behaviour. Make use of facilitation as a
tool for involving all members of the group equally
Some groups allow the possibility to fall back on an overwhelming
majority vote or on drawing lots, if an issue cannot be resolved by
consensus.
For groups of more than 15â20 people it is advisable to split into sub
groups for meaningful discussion. For a detailed discussion of possible
processes have a look at our briefing Consensus in Large Groups.
Consensus is about participation and equalising power. It can also be a
very powerful process for building communities and empowering
individuals. Donât be discouraged if the going gets rough. For most of
us consensus is a completely new way of making decisions. It takes time
to unlearn the patterns of behaviour we have been brought up to accept
as the norm. Consensus does get easier with practice and itâs definitely
worth giving it a good try.