Consensus decision-making


[|Consensus] decision-making is a group decision-making process in which participants work together to develop proposals for actions that achieve a broad acceptance. Consensus is reached when everyone in the group assents to a decision even if some do not fully agree to or support all aspects of it. It differs from simple unanimity, which requires all participants to support a decision. Consensus decision-making in a democracy is consensus democracy.

Origin and meaning of term

The word consensus is Latin meaning "agreement, accord", derived from consentire meaning "feel together". A noun, consensus can represent a generally accepted opinion - "general agreement or concord; harmony", "a majority of opinion" - or the outcome of a consensus decision-making process. This article refers to the process and the outcome.

History

Consensus decision-making, as a self-described practice, originates from several nonviolent, direct action groups that were active in the Civil rights, Peace and Women's movements in the USA during counterculture of the 1960s. The practice gained popularity in the 1970s through the anti-nuclear movement, and peaked in popularity in the early 1980s. Consensus spread abroad through the anti-globalization and climate movements, and has become normalized in anti-authoritarian spheres in conjunction with affinity groups and ideas of participatory democracy and prefigurative politics.
File:Clamshell oct77.png|right|thumb|300x300px|Poster for the Clamshell Alliance's first occupation of Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant, 1977
The Movement for a New Society has been credited for popularizing consensus decision-making. Unhappy with the inactivity of the Religious Society of Friends against the Vietnam War, Lawrence Scott started A Quaker Action Group in 1966 to try and encourage activism within the Quakers. By 1971 AQAG members felt they needed not only to end the war, but transform civil society as a whole, and renamed AQAG to MNS. MNS members used consensus decision-making from the beginning as an adaptation of the Quaker decision-making they were used to. MNS trained the anti-nuclear Clamshell Alliance and Abalone Alliance to use consensus, and in 1977 published Resource Manual for a Living Revolution, which included a section on consensus.
An earlier account of consensus decision-making comes from the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the main student organization of the civil rights movement, founded in 1960. Early SNCC member Mary King, later reflected: "we tried to make all decisions by consensus... it meant discussing a matter and reformulating it until no objections remained". This way of working was brought to the SNCC at its formation by the Nashville student group, who had received nonviolence training from James Lawson and Myles Horton at the Highlander Folk School. However, as the SNCC faced growing internal and external pressure toward the mid-1960s, it developed into a more hierarchical structure, eventually abandoning consensus.
Women Strike for Peace are also accounted as independently used consensus from their founding in 1961. Eleanor Garst introduced the practice as part of the loose and participatory structure of WSP.
As consensus grew in popularity, it became less clear who influenced who. Food Not Bombs, which started in 1980 in connection with an occupation of Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant organized by the Clamshell Alliance, adopted consensus for their organization. Consensus was used in the 1999 Seattle WTO protests, which inspired the S11 in 2000 to do so too. Consensus was used at the first Camp for Climate Action and subsequent camps. Occupy Wall Street made use of consensus in combination with techniques such as the people's microphone and hand signals.

Objectives

Characteristics of consensus decision-making include:
  • Collaboration: Participants contribute to a shared proposal and shape it into a decision that meets the concerns of all group members as much as possible.
  • Cooperation: Participants in an effective consensus process should strive to reach the best possible decision for the group and all of its members, rather than competing for personal preferences.
  • Egalitarianism: All members of a consensus decision-making body should be afforded, as much as possible, equal input into the process. All members have the opportunity to present and amend proposals.
  • Inclusion: As many stakeholders as possible should be involved in a consensus decision-making process.
  • Participation: The consensus process should actively solicit the input and participation of all decision-makers.

    Alternative to common decision-making practices

Consensus decision-making is an alternative to commonly practiced group decision-making processes. Robert's Rules of Order, for instance, is a guide book used by many organizations. This book on Parliamentary Procedure allows the structuring of debate and passage of proposals that can be approved through a form of majority vote. It does not emphasize the goal of full agreement. Critics of such a process believe that it can involve adversarial debate and the formation of competing factions. These dynamics may harm group member relationships and undermine the ability of a group to cooperatively implement a contentious decision. Consensus decision-making attempts to address the beliefs of such problems. Proponents claim that outcomes of the consensus process include:
  • Better decisions: Through including the input of all stakeholders the resulting proposals may better address all potential concerns.
  • Better implementation: A process that includes and respects all parties, and generates as much agreement as possible sets the stage for greater cooperation in implementing the resulting decisions.
  • Better group relationships: A cooperative, collaborative group atmosphere can foster greater group cohesion and interpersonal connection.

    Decision rules

Consensus is not synonymous with unanimity – though that may be a rule agreed to in a specific decision-making process. The level of agreement necessary to finalize a decision is known as a decision rule.
Diversity of opinion is normal in most all situations, and will be represented proportionately in an appropriately functioning group.

Blocking and other forms of dissent

To ensure the agreement or consent of all participants is valued, many groups choose unanimity or near-unanimity as their decision rule. Groups that require unanimity allow individual participants the option of blocking a group decision. This provision motivates a group to make sure that all group members consent to any new proposal before it is adopted. When there is potential for a block to a group decision, both the group and dissenters in the group are encouraged to collaborate until agreement can be reached. Simply vetoing a decision is not considered a responsible use of consensus blocking. Some common guidelines for the use of consensus blocking include:
  • Providing an option for those who do not support a proposal to "stand aside" rather than block.
  • Requiring a block from two or more people to put a proposal aside.
  • Requiring the blocking party to supply an alternative proposal or a process for generating one.
  • Limiting each person's option to block consensus to a handful of times in one's life.
  • Limiting the option of blocking to decisions that are substantial to the mission or operation of the group and not allowing blocking on routine decisions.
  • Limiting the allowable rationale for blocking to issues that are fundamental to the group's mission or potentially disastrous to the group.

    Dissent options

A participant who does not support a proposal may have alternatives to simply blocking it. Some common options may include the ability to:
  • Declare reservations: Group members who are willing to let a motion pass but desire to register their concerns with the group may choose "declare reservations." If there are significant reservations about a motion, the decision-making body may choose to modify or re-word the proposal.
  • Stand aside: A "stand aside" may be registered by a group member who has a "serious personal disagreement" with a proposal, but is willing to let the motion pass. Although stand asides do not halt a motion, it is often regarded as a strong "nay vote" and the concerns of group members standing aside are usually addressed by modifications to the proposal. Stand asides may also be registered by users who feel they are incapable of adequately understanding or participating in the proposal.
  • Object: Any group member may "object" to a proposal. In groups with a unanimity decision rule, a single block is sufficient to stop a proposal. Other decision rules may require more than one objection for a proposal to be blocked or not pass.

    Process models

The basic model for achieving consensus as defined by any decision rule involves:
  • Collaboratively generating a proposal
  • Identifying unsatisfied concerns
  • Modifying the proposal to generate as much agreement as possible
All attempts at achieving consensus begin with a good faith attempt at generating full-agreement, regardless of decision rule threshold.

Spokescouncil

In the spokescouncil model, affinity groups make joint decisions by each designating a speaker and sitting behind that circle of spokespeople, akin to the spokes of a wheel. While speaking rights might be limited to each group's designee, the meeting may allot breakout time for the constituent groups to discuss an issue and return to the circle via their spokesperson. In the case of an activist spokescouncil preparing for the A16 Washington D.C. protests in 2000, affinity groups disputed their spokescouncil's imposition of nonviolence in their action guidelines. They received the reprieve of letting groups self-organize their protests, and as the city's protest was subsequently divided into pie slices, each blockaded by an affinity group's choice of protest. Many of the participants learned about the spokescouncil model on the fly by participating in it directly, and came to better understand their planned action by hearing others' concerns and voicing their own.