Consensus and Direct Democracy

The concept of consensus was introduced in the ideal of solidarity, not to competition, while they are many types of consensus, from agreement, collaboration, cooperative meaning find the best solution, egalitarian,   inclusive, participatory, and science a consensus is to obtain an epistemology or body of knowledge.

Perhaps the oldest example of consensus decision-making is the Iroquois Confederacy Grand Council, or Haudenosaunee, which has used consensus in decision-making using a 75% super majority to finalize decisions, potentially as early as 1142. Although the modern popularity of consensus decision-making in Western society dates from the women's liberation movement of the 1970s, and anti-nuclear movement the origins of formal consensus can be traced significantly further back.

Historically the Quakers introduced consensus is a form to practice their belief in Christianity, in the 17^th century (Quakers demanded the church to be an entirely voluntary, non-coercive community able to evangelize in a pluralistic society governed by a purely civil state. Such a demand was in sharp contrast to the ambitions of magisterial Protestantism held by the Calvinist majority. Quakers believed that the Roman Church corrupted itself and, through its common heritage, the Church of England as well.), from the Legatine-Arians, who in the 16^th Century were influenced by Walter, Thomas, and Bartholomew Legate (1575 – 18 March 1612, was anti-Trinitarian martyr--lower-class heretical culture in England with the cornerstones of this culture were anti-clericalism and a strong emphasis on Biblical study, but specific doctrines that had rejection of Predestination, Millenarianism, mortalism, anti-Trinitarianism and Hermeticism ).

George Fox (July 1624 – January 1691) was a founder of the Religious Society of Friends, commonly known as the Quakers or Friends, born in the strongly Puritan village of Drayton-in-the-Clay, Leicestershire, England (Fenny Drayton),  24 km west-south-west of Leicester. Imprisoned for blasphemy; a judge mocked Fox's exhortation to tremble at the word of the Lord, calling him and his followers Quakers. Following his refusal to fight against the return of the monarchy (or to take up arms for any reason), his sentence was doubled. The refusal to swear oaths or take up arms came to be a much more important part of his public statements. Refusal to take oaths meant that Quakers could be prosecuted under laws compelling subjects to pledge allegiance, as well as making testifying in court problematic.

The level of agreement necessary to finalize a decision is known as a decision rule: can account, unanimous agreement, unanimous consent, unanimous agreement minus one vote or two votes, unanimous consent minus one vote or two votes, super majority thresholds (90%, 80%, 75%, two-thirds, and 60% are common), simple majority, executive committee decides, person-in-charge decides.

In groups that require unanimous agreement or consent (unanimity) to approve group decisions, if any participant objects, they can block consensus. These groups use the term consensus to denote both the discussion process and the decision rule. Other groups use a consensus process to generate as much agreement as possible, but allow participants to finalize decisions with a decision rule that does not require unanimity.

Consensus is a mechanism has room for dissent: Declare reservations, Stand aside and Object: 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.

Quaker-based model puts in place a simple, time-tested structure that moves a group towards unity: Multiple concerns and information are shared until the sense of the group is clear, discussion involves active listening and sharing information, norms limit number of times one asks to speak to ensure that each speaker is fully heard, ideas and solutions belong to the group; no names are recorded. The facilitator articulates the sense of the discussion, asks if there are other concerns, and proposes a minute of the decision. The group as a whole is responsible for the decision and the decision belongs to the group The facilitator can discern if one who is not uniting with the decision is acting without concern for the group or in selfish interest. Key components of Quaker-based consensus include a belief in a common humanity and the ability to decide together. The goal is unity, not unanimity.

The consensus-oriented decision-making model: offers a detailed step-wise description of consensus process: Framing the topic, open discussion, identifying underlying concerns, collaborative proposal building, choosing a direction, synthesizing a final proposal and closure.

Critics of consensus, preservation of the status quo, susceptibility to widespread disagreement, stagnation and group dysfunction, susceptibility to splitting and excluding members:  Groupthink. Consensus seeks to improve solidarity in the long run. Accordingly, it should not be confused with unanimity in the immediate situation, which is often a symptom of groupthink.

Direct Democracy used by the Athenians used majority voting processes.  Proponents of consensus decision-making view procedures that use majority rule as undesirable for several reasons. Majority voting is regarded as competitive, rather than cooperative, framing decision-making in a win/lose dichotomy that ignores the possibility of compromise or other mutually beneficial solutions. Additionally, opponents of majority rule claim that it can lead to a tyranny of the majority, a scenario in which a majority places its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression. Advocates of consensus would assert that a majority decision reduces the commitment of each individual decision-maker to the decision. Members of a minority position may feel less commitment to a majority decision, and even majority voters who may have taken their positions along party or bloc lines may have a sense of reduced responsibility for the ultimate decision. The result of this reduced commitment, according to many consensus proponents, is potentially less willingness to defend or act upon the decision.