GPCA Consensus ProcessConsensus Process Step By Step1. Present proposal2. Clarifying questions 3. List concerns & affirmations (may include general discussion) 4. Seek to resolve concerns (including amending proposal) 5. Test for consensus 6. If concerns remain, are all willing to stand aside? 7. If not, seek to resolve individual concerns one by one (time permitting): restate, clarify, discuss 8. Test for consensus 9. If unresolved concerns, are all willing to stand aside? 10. If not, go to closing options:
11. If voting:
WHY MAJORITY RULE DOESN'T WORKMost volunteer organizations and government bodies make decisions by majority rule, using some variant of 'Robert's Rules of Order' (or as Steve Saint aptly dubbed them: 'Robot's Rules'). The Robert who wrote them more than a century ago was career military officer with an obsession for order and detail. His rules lend themselves quite well to the procedural maneuvering, hair-splitting, obstruction, deception, and manipulation so common to parliamentary procedure, and which we are all so sick and tired of.Implicit in Robert's Rules and majority-rule systems are assumptions that members of a group cannot agree, cooperate, or share power equally, that some must win while others lose, and that winning is based on out-maneuvering and out-gunning your opponents. It is a largely military model, and it almost inevitably leads to militaristic thinking and behavior in participants. It is based on (and fosters) mistrust and competition. Majority-rule systems usually present the group with only two opposing alternatives; one must vote for or against a given proposal. This immediately polarizes the group into two rival camps, and each seeks to persuade or coerce members of the other camp (or undecideds) to agree with and join them. Under these circumstances, no creative thinking or developing of new and better proposals takes place, and compromise is difficult. The polarization creates a tendency to attack or criticize the opposing groups position, or even to attack the members of the other group. Members of privileged groups (white, male, educated, middle- or owning-class) tend to be more experienced in this adversarial process, and their domination-based ways of thinking and acting are usually validated and rewarded under this system far more than the views and styles of disenfranchised groups and cultures. As soon as one group achieves a majority, however slim, it loses any incentive to compromise further or accommodate the views and concerns of those in the minority. A disenfranchised minority - often a large minority, up to 49% of the group - is cut out of the process and has no say over the final decision. Those in the minority group often feel disempowered, resentful, frustrated, and alienated from those in the majority. This often leads to obstruction or sabotage of attempts to implement the decision, factionalism and polarization within the group, breakdown of trust and communication, and defection or formation of rival groups. Ironically, this is viewed by many Americans as the pinnacle of 'democracy'. In fact, it is undemocratic, inefficient, destructive of group cohesion, and contrary to many of our key values. It is inherently violent to the minority, and serves to perpetuate the institutions of inequality in our culture and the unspoken beliefs and assumptions which underlie them. Key to this cultural mythology is the way we view power. Most of us have been conditioned to see power as the ability to control, coerce, dominate, or destroy. In this patriarchal model power is limited; if you have some, I don't. someone must lose, be one-down in every relationship or situation. The Consensus model of power is one in which power is inherent in each person, not in our roles or institutions; if I am more powerful, then you benefit - our power is shared and increases as we cooperate.
WHY CONSENSUS WORKSConsensus is based on a very different set of values and assumptions. It assumes that everyone in the circle has something of value to contribute, and that the best decision is the one which is most inclusive of everyone's wisdom, experience and viewpoints. It assumes that every person is inherently equal (regardless of differing skills, backgrounds, etc), and that the best process is one which shares power, information, and participation equally.Consensus is based on cooperation, rather than competition. Participants use reason, passion, honesty, trust, and humor to present their views and persuade others, rather than seeking to coerce, deceive, or intimidate each other as in majority rule. It is a win-win philosophy which reflects the interdependence, balance and adaptability of ecosystems and traditional cultures, not the rigid hierarchy of industrial institutions. It encourages us to develop values, skills, and a worldview based on cooperation and trust, rather than competition and fear. Consensus trains participants to act non-violently, respectfully, and equally in all areas of their lives, not just in meetings. In patriarchy, conflict usually results in feelings of hurt, fear, or anger, and often leads to violence or loss; it is viewed as something to be avoided. In consensus, conflict is viewed as necessary, even desirable part of decision-making. It is the opportunity to explore differences, and come to an agreement which respects those differences. Consensus is the most democratic decision-making process. It encourages participation, gives more equal access, and strives for a decision which represents all the people, not just a majority. Leadership is more widely shared, and more accountable to the group. Consensus builds unity by making everyone a stakeholder in the decision; majority rule continually creates disenfranchised minorities opposed to the groups decisions. Consensus strengthens the group by focusing on the shared goals and basis of unity of the entire group, rather than on the goals of a particular faction. Consensus is the most efficient process: most time and energy is spent seeking new and better ways to reach the groups goals while including everyone; under majority rule, much time and energy is spent thwarting or opposing others, or dividing and disrupting the group as a whole. Consensus is also the most creative process, encouraging participants to brainstorm, think in new ways, and build on each other's ideas and suggestions in a wonderfully synergistic process which must be seen to be appreciated. It far surpasses the polarized, narrowed-down, dead-end thinking which results from the pro-and-con debates of majority rule. It is the most intelligent, making use of the collective wisdom and insight of every member of the group, not just the few most vocal or powerful individuals as in majority rule. And finally, consensus is extremely resistant to infiltration by people seeking to take over or undermine the group. The process is open and accessible to all; the agenda and process are in the hands of the entire group, not a few key leaders or officers; and the emphasis on trust and cooperation means that anyone acting against the groups goals or agreements is far more visible, and can more easily be overruled if her actions are not consistent with the groups basis of unity.
PREREQUISITES TO CONSENSUSThere are several requirements for consensus to be a viable tool in any group:Shared purpose or basis of unity - The group must hold some beliefs, values, or goals in common. It may be as big as a religion, or as simple as wanting to form a bowling team, but all must agree to the purpose and be committed to it. The basis of unity must be clear, and preferably in writing. Commitment to the group - Each member must be willing to put their own ego, views and preferences aside for the sake of the group. The group may provide individuals with a chance to meet personal needs (attention, social contact, feeling valued), but each person must also contribute to the group. Commitment to consensus values - Members must be committed to acting cooperatively and non-violently, rather than competitively and coercively; to trusting and respecting others and the group as a whole; to listening fully, honoring differences, abiding by group agreements. Equal power and participation - Each member must commit to empowering herself and all others to speak their truth and participate fully. This often requires interrupting and unlearning old patterns of domination (sexism, classism racism, etc), and the habits which go with them (interrupting, lecturing, put-downs, intimidation, etc). Members should also commit to using conflict resolution. Time - If used well, consensus is actually more time-effective than parliamentary procedure. Even with consensus, big decisions cannot be squeezed into tiny time slots without undermining the essential part of the process - fully hearing and understanding each other, and finding our common ground. When unable to agree, the Hopi are said to go into the kiva and sit in silence for as much as three days, until all sense that they have reached an understanding. You cannot make good decisions in a rush. Training and facilitation - most of us are unfamiliar with consensus process, having been raised around the win-lose majority-rule model all our lives. It takes time and real effort to learn to do things differently; training helps. Groups which are large or new to each other or to the process rely heavily on good facilitation skills; this also comes from training and experience. WHEN CONSENSUS DOESN'T WORKOne of the most commonly voiced criticisms of the greens is that we cannot make decisions because our consensus process is cumbersome or unworkable. It is not that consensus doesn't work, but rather that we fail to use consensus effectively. Most of us have spent a lifetime living under various forms of zero-sum, win-lose systems in which we are either on the top or the bottom of power relations. Acting from a basis of trust, respect, and equality is new and unfamiliar. If we are not trained in or familiar with consensus, and with the facilitation and communication skills it requires, we may fumble around and become confused or overwhelmed, and often fall back into old patterns. This is not a failure of consensus, any more than hitting your thumb proves hammers are no use.Some believe that consensus "takes too long". How long a decision takes depends more on the complexity of the issue than the method used. Majority-rule or executive-style decision-making may seem more time-efficient, but when you include the time spent communicating and explaining the decision to those left out of the process, and the time spent coercing, coping with, or working around those resisting the decision, and time spent revisiting the decision when a few swing votes switch sides, the picture looks very different. When properly used, consensus is the most time-efficient decision-making method, especially for large groups. Some critics also claim that consensus enthrones the 'tyranny of the minority' - that a small, disgruntled faction can prevent the majority of the group from deciding and taking action. Blocking as a power play is not real consensus; it is the same old-paradigm behavior in new clothes. True consensus empowers all, and requires of all a commitment to truly hear and understand each other, and work cooperatively - a radical notion for many folks, including many progressives. There are times and circumstances when consensus may not work well. Consensus may fail when the participants are unfamiliar with the process, or lack competent facilitation. Consensus may fail when the group lacks enough accurate information to make a good decision, or enough time to resolve differences. Consensus may fail when members of the group are unable to overcome their old, conditioned patterns of thinking and behavior, and act in ways which are coercive or disrespectful. Consensus may fail when power in the group is held unequally. Consensus often fails when the group is disrupted or controlled by outside forces. (For example, a group of activists in jail may decide to stay together until all are released, but police may forcibly separate them anyway.) However, even in these circumstances, using consensus is likely to yield more democratic and inclusive results than a majority-rule process. THE PROCESS - HOW CONSENSUS WORKSSetting the AgendaThe agenda is usually put together by a committee, but must be approved by the entire group. Agenda includes specific times assigned to each item. Any changes to the agenda, including changing the amount of time for an item, must also be approved by the group. The agenda is essentially a group agreement about how to spend their meeting time.Presenting the ProposalOne or more presenters briefly explain the proposal to the group. Attention should be given to any aspects not covered in the written proposal, and to how the proposal furthers the interests and goals of the group. Presenters should include the vote and/or recommendation of the Working Group regarding proposal.Ideally, an issue or goal is presented to the group as a question, and any proposals to achieve the goal are developed by the group as a whole, allowing all members to have a hand in shaping the proposal from the outset. This is usually impractical in large groups, and proposals are generally drafted by an individual or committee. The proposal should be made available in writing to all members well in advance of the meeting; if possible, concerns and feedback should be communicated to the presenters prior to the meeting, so that the presenters can look for possible solutions in advance. Clarifying QuestionsIt is essential to consensus that everyone in the group understand the proposal in order to make an informed decision. For this reason, the facilitators will call for any 'clarifying questions' before any discussion or concerns. Generally, presenters answer questions, though anyone may offer a 'point of information'. Questions and answers should be brief and should not slide into arguementation. Some folks try to disguise concerns or opinions as clarifying questions; facilitators should ask these folks to hold their comments until later. It is important that all questions be dealt with before moving on.DiscussionSome groups (especially small, informal ones) engage in general discussion, perhaps brainstorming improvements or alternatives to the proposal. Depending on facilitation (and time permitting), the GPCA plenary may open the floor to general comments, or proceed directly to concerns. Discussion should always be time-limited, and allow enough time to hear and deal with concerns and move to a decision. If discussion seems to indicate a general agreement, facilitators may test for consensus at this point.ConcernsFacilitators next call for 'concerns'. A concern is any objection or reservation about the proposal as currently stated, and may be based on personal views or values. Concerns should be briefly stated (and possibly scribed where all can see); concerns should not be repeated, except to state that "I share Carol's concern". Concerns may include suggested amendments or solutions to address the concern. Problems with the meeting process are NOT concerns, and should be expressed as 'points of process'.There are several ways to handle this portion of the process: in C.T. Butler's 'Formal Consensus', all concerns are listed, then discussed together (and possibly incorporated into proposal), then consensus is called for again. If group does not consense, the concerns are then restated and dealt with one at a time. The GPCA plenary usually moves directly to individual concerns. Some facilitators permit presenters to respond to each concern, while others have them wait until all have been stated. Consensus requires that all concerns be heard; time must be managed accordingly. In order to balance statements against the proposal with statements in favor, GPCA often calls for "concerns and affirmations". While this tends to present a more balanced airing of views, it really belongs under discussion. Calling for both concerns and affirmations muddles the focus, and takes far more time than only concerns. In the real spirit of consensus, concerns would not be stated as opposition to or attacks on the proposal (as under more adversarial systems), but as requests to look at some way in which the proposal is flawed or in conflict with the groups goals, values, or best interests. Such statements do not require a 'balancing' statement from those in favor of the proposal. Amending the proposalSometimes a concern can be addressed by modifying the proposal. Anyone may suggest such an amendment, usually during the 'concerns' period. Under GPCA bylaws, the presenters may accept or reject any proposed friendly amendment. Presenters are usually the authors of the proposal. Strictly speaking, presenters represent the Working Group which brought the proposal to the plenary floor, and the entire Working Group could decide on amendments. However, this is impractical on the plenary floor, and disagreement between presenter and working group has only occurred once in the Party's history. (The presenter was pushing a personal agenda, and was overruled by the platform working group, even though she was the groups coordinator.) Some feel that, once a proposal is on the floor, it belongs to the group, and the whole group should decide to accept or reject amendments; however, this could become complex and time-consuming, we lack an established means of doing so. If accepted, exact wording of any amendments should be given to the notetaker, and read back before making a decision.Testing for consensusOnce all concerns are heard and addressed, the facilitators 'test for consensus' by asking if their are any unresolved concerns. If none exist, or if they are all willing to stand aside, then consensus is achieved and the proposal is accepted. Note that the facilitators do NOT ask the group if we have consensus, but rather if we have remaining unresolved concerns. This is very important: if asked whether we all agree, those who don't may feel too intimidated to speak up, and there is no reasonable way to signal dissent in a room full of people twinkling or clapping.Unresolved concerns ('blocking') & 'standing aside'If concerns remain after group discussion and any attempts to amend proposal or otherwise address them, then these are considered 'unresolved concerns'. Those holding the concerns are asked if they are willing to 'stand aside'; that is, allow the group to move forward with the proposal, having heard and noted their concerns. Standing aside does not indicate agreement, or even a relinquishing of one's concern. It indicates that the person doing so recognizes that their concern is not so essential that passing the proposal would jeopardize the values, goals, or interests of the group. This involves a measure of trust and surrender of one's personal agenda and ego, an essential part of successful consensus process.In a pure consensus system, these would be termed 'blocking' concerns, because the group could not proceed until it resolved the concerns. However, such concerns must be based on the shared basis of unity of the group; for the Green Party, this is our 10 key values, platform, bylaws, stated goals, etc. Concerns based strictly on a personal opinion or preference, however strongly held, are not sufficient to stand at this point, and such individuals should stand aside. It is ultimately up to the group as a whole - not the individual - to decide the validity of the concern; one of the greatest challenges in consensus is finding the balance between respect for each individual's views of conscience, and the needs and goals of the group as a whole. Allowing anyone to block for any reason immobilizes the group; ignoring the legitimate, heartfelt concerns of even one member reduces the moral integrity and trust of the group as a whole. In the GPCA we do not use the term 'blocking'. Remaining concerns at this point are 'unresolved', and are noted in the minutes. Like blocks, unresolved concerns must also be based on the groups' basis of unity, not just personal preference. Closing optionsIf there remain unresolved concerns, presenters have three options:1. Ask for more plenary time to try to resolve outstanding concerns. 2. Table proposal / send to committee - either to the Working Group which brought it to the floor, or to an ad-hoc committee made up of presenters and persons holding unresolved concerns. If time permits, amended proposal may then be brought back to plenary for reconsideration. 3. Move to a vote. (Note: Withdrawing the proposal is not an option under GPCA bylaws.) Fallback to high-majority voteThe Green Party of California uses a modified form of consensus-seeking with a fallback to high-majority vote. Substantive 'policy' proposals require at least 80% yes vote to pass. Procedural 'business' decisions (excluding adding time to agenda) require 2/3 vote to pass. Abstentions (stand asides) are not counted in determining this percentage; however, if the abstentions are 20% or more of all votes cast, the proposal fails. Only delegates present in the room when vote is taken may vote.This has proven a very workable compromise between our desire for consensus and the practical needs and limitations of the Party. The state plenary is a very large and diverse group of delegates with high turnover rate which only meets twice a year, and deals with complex issues under often frustrating time constraints. As such, pure consensus is impractical. The 80% fallback requirement allows the Party to make effective decisions while still focusing on consensus-seeking, and avoid many of the pitfalls of simple majority rule. In the seven years the GPCA has existed, most proposals have passed by consensus. Few of those that fail receive anything close to 80%; those that do are usually key issues which require further discussion.
© Daniel Solnit 1997 Consensus Resources:On Conflict and Consensus, by C. T. Lawrence ButlerPublisher: Food Not Bombs Publishing, 1987, spiral-bound, 83 pages Room 306-35, 1430 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 864-8786 On Conflict and Consensus is the original, definitive work for activist groups using consensus process. C.T., an anti-nuclear and green activist, has clarified and formalized the loose consensus process used in many grassroots groups. The book is self-published, and is generally not available in most bookstores. It is available from local Food Not Bombs groups, and from the publisher above. Six years ago C.T. was selling it for $10 plus $2 shipping, but you should call for current pricing and ordering info. Rules for Reaching Consensus, By Steven Saint and James R. Lawson
|