The Great Debate: Should Real Democracy Movements Stick to Consensus in Decision-making Process?

Political movements around the world seem to agree that our current democratic model is broken. In using alternative modes of decision-making, consensus has become an integral element of process. However, critics have said seeking full consensus prevents progress, particularly in the second stage of a movement. Do these downsides outweigh the positive aspects and visual appeal of the model? Should we stick to consensus, use a modified version, or adopt alternative or even more traditional decision-making processes?

PRO / Linda M.

Whether a movement should use consensus-based decision-making depends on its goals and common values. Whilst non-hierarchical consensus models work well in coordinating political actions like local assemblies and single direct actions, they might be less useful for decisions on a more international level or for more heterogeneous groups. Having said that, consensus definitely works in a setting where people share motivations and values, as an alternative to top-down, non-collaborative processes, which usually enhance group relationship dynamics and reduce problems in decision implementation. A cooperative group atmosphere that respects all parties, generating as much agreement as possible, can also foster connections between individuals and strengthen solidarity within a movement. If these connections are strong, the model can even work for globally spread out groups.

Interestingly, the word has its origin in the Latin word “consentire”, meaning “feel together”. When people joined Occupy in October last year, many were under the impression that the consensus practice, in particular how it was visually expressed at General Assemblies, was intrinsic to what this movement stood for. For many people, it was their first contact with an alternative democratic model, their first experience of being actually heard, and fascinating to watch and participate in.

Nowadays, most people use modified consensus. Most of the time this is not much of a departure from the initial concept. As a specific ritual of activist culture, the consensus model has always been a way of spreading practices and diffusing a directly democratic model of organizing. Like within the global justice movement, advocating such activities can be a way of mobilizing without actually trying to convert people to a specific belief system. This is not a new concept. Thousands of groups, networks and organizations, from the Quakers to the US anti-nuclear movement to the Climate Camp movement, have been successfully employing consensus since around the 1970s.

As much as it is important to understand why certain groups should stick to consensus, it is important to understand how, and under which conditions, it can fail. Consensus does not do away with power relations. It seeks to provide an alternative to the pressure of majority-decisions, and very often, these relations emerge when process is slow and exhausting. Sometimes we put so much energy into reinventing internal processes, just to get a rudimentary idea of what direct democracy could look like. However, by adopting the model, we seek to ensure group cohesion, to create horizontal networks, and to enhance the quality of our work together on the basis of agreement about our activities. These new forms of organization can reinvent our daily lives, as many full-term activists have experienced.

There are many different forms of modified consensus systems. We need to discuss what they actually mean in which context, why a particular version was chosen, and how we can challenge individualistic behaviour or all too slow process in favour of genuine principles. Although we might disagree more than in the early stages of the movement (it is sometimes easier to define a common enemy than a common goal), using modified consensus and elements of direct democracy is not impossible, and alternative elements can be integrated. Discussion of these modifications and variations is important, but will – as the consensus model itself – require respect for each other, time, and a common goal to outweigh the disadvantages.

CON / Daniel Schweighöfer

When encountering the consensus model for the first time, most participants leave with a very positive impression. Many members of social movements are seeking the maximum degree of freedom and are used to anarchistic ideas and groups, so at first glance, the consensus approach seems to offer an ideal alternative to traditional forms of decision-making. By seeking consensus that works for everybody, everybody should feel good about the group’s decisions.

I would argue that this point of view is dangerous, as it ignores important aspects of decision-making, namely: social power, tactics and time. I will briefly explain these points and their role in the consensus process. Naturally, they are all intertwined.

Even in groups without defined structures, there will always be people with a better standing than others. Some reasons for this can be found in our socialization, but I’m not an expert in social hierarchies and power relationships. Nevertheless, it might be the case that proposals which generate consent are often proposed or suggested by very few people. Another problem is that these proposals often lack real discussion and ideas about possible alternatives, as this would be too time-consuming. A minority could still use their better standing in contentious debates to strengthen weak arguments, which leads us to consensus discussion tactics.

From my point of view, the main argument against consensus-based decision-making is that the ending of a discussion is not clearly defined. Arguments can be repeated over and over in various combinations, and stubborn or ambitious people can bring up strange arguments to support positions that do not necessarily relate to the topic of the debate – the so-called “chewbacca defense“. The aim of this strategy is to insist for so long that a “consensus” is finally reached, though actually only one person wanted it.

Processes like this are likely to consume an immense amount of time and energy for all participants. It is not only necessary to explain a proposal and its arguments, proposers are also forced to dissolve every single objection that might evolve during the debate. This not only discriminates against those who do not want or are not able to invest into these resources. It also excludes their input from the sphere of accessible ideas of the movement. Moreover, it empowers those with good rhetorical skills and/or strategy, and disempowers others. At the end of the day, decisions are produced which are propagated by a few key players, a process which is essentially undemocratic.

Another key argument against consensus-based decision-making is its conservative outcome. Groups should judge their results in the same way as people have to, but important and progressive choices tend to be divisive ones. If real democracy movements stick to the consensus model, they sacrifice their agility and speed of movement for these formal processes. I believe it is better to try alternative concepts of direct democracy, like liquid democracy for example, to enable social movements come to decisions.