Mao wanted to create a new culture through Cultural Revolution,
a new economy free from the land owners and in order to protect these
new institutions a New Democracy of the four revolutionary classes,
namely peasants, proletariat, intelligentsia and petite bourgeoisie. He said that in the Third World only these four classes can lead a thorough enough united front against the imperialists
as the national bourgeoise of China must take counter-revolutionary
measures to protect its own feudal practices of slavery through land
rent, violently shutting down any anti-imperialist revolutionary
movement that threatened the interests of the land owners.
Regarding the political structure of New Democracy, Mao said in Section V
of his piece called "On New Democracy", written in January of 1940, as
follows:
China may now adopt a system of people's
congresses, from the national people's congress down to the provincial,
county, district and township people's congresses, with all levels
electing their respective governmental bodies. But if there is to be a
proper representation for each revolutionary class according to its
status in the state, a proper expression of the people's will, a proper
direction for revolutionary struggles and a proper manifestation of the
spirit of New Democracy, then a system of really universal and equal
suffrage, irrespective of sex, creed, property or education, must be
introduced. Such is the system of democratic centralism.
Only a government based on democratic centralism can fully express the
will of all the revolutionary people and fight the enemies of the
revolution most effectively. There must be a spirit of refusal to be
"privately owned by the few" in the government and the army; without a
genuinely democratic system this cannot be attained and the system of
government and the state system will be out of harmony.
As time passed, the New Democracy concept was adapted to other countries and regions with similar justifications.
Concept
The concept of New Democracy aims to overthrow feudalism and achieve independence from colonialism. However, it dispenses with the rule predicted by Karl Marx that a capitalist class would usually follow such a struggle, claiming instead to seek to enter directly into socialism through a coalition
of classes fighting the old ruling order. The coalition is subsumed
under the leadership and guidance of the working class and its communist party,
working with the communists irrespective of their competing ideologies
in order to achieve the more immediate goal of a "new democratic order".
This was a view actually shared by Vladimir Lenin who had broken with the Mensheviks
over the idea that the working class could organize and lead the
democratic revolution in an underdeveloped country like Russia where the
objective conditions for socialism did not yet exist. The Chinese communists hoped that the working class in a similar fashion could then build full-blown socialism and communism in spite of the competing class interests of the social classes of the bloc.
The bloc of classes reflecting the principles of New Democracy is symbolized most readily by the stars on the flag of China. The largest star symbolizes the Communist Party of China's leadership and the surrounding four smaller stars symbolizing the Bloc of Four Classes, i.e. proletarian workers, peasants, the petty bourgeoisie (small business owners) and the nationally-based capitalists.
This is the coalition of classes for Mao's New Democratic Revolution as
he described it in his works. Mao's New Democracy explains the Bloc of
Four Classes as an unfortunate but necessary consequence of imperialism as described by Lenin.
Comparisons with core Marxism
The classical Marxist understanding of the stages of economic and historical development of the modes of production under which a socialist revolution can take place is that the socialist revolution occurs only after the capitalist bourgeois-democratic
revolution happens first. According to this, the bourgeois-democratic
revolution paves the way for the industrial proletarian class to emerge
as the majority class in society, after which it then overthrows
capitalism and begins constructing socialism. Mao disagreed and said
that the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the socialist revolution
could be combined into a single stage, rather than two separate
back-to-back stages. He called this stage New Democracy.
Marx himself is often misunderstood on this topic as he did not
postulate that strictly only after a bourgeois society has formed, a
socialist revolution would become possible. Instead, most notably in a
letter to Vera Zasulich, Marx suggested a form of revolutionary change in Russia at the time that is very much akin to Mao's thesis of New Democracy:
In
dealing with the genesis of capitalist production I stated that it is
founded on "the complete separation of the producer from the means of
production" (p. 315, column 1, French edition of Capital) and that "the
basis of this whole development is the expropriation of the agricultural
producer. To date this has not been accomplished in a radical fashion
anywhere except in England... But all the other countries of Western
Europe are undergoing the same process" (1.c., column II).
I thus expressly limited the "historical inevitability" of this
process to the countries of Western Europe. And why? Be so kind as to
compare Chapter XXXII, where it says:
The "process of elimination transforming individualised and
scattered means of production into socially concentrated means of
production, of the pigmy property of the many into the huge property of
the few, this painful and fearful expropriation of the working people,
forms the origin, the genesis of capital... Private property, based on
personal labour [...] will be supplanted by capitalist private property,
based on the exploitation of the labour of others, on wage labour" (p.
341, column II).
Thus, in the final analysis, it is a question of the transformation of one form of private property into another form of private property.
Since the land in the hands of the Russian peasants has never been
their private property, how could this development be applicable?
— Karl Marx, First Draft of Letter To Vera Zasulich, 1881
Effects of establishment
Once
New Democracy has been established in the way Mao's theory outlines,
the country is subsequently claimed to be ideologically socialist and
working towards communism under the leadership of its leading communist party and its people are actively involved in the construction of socialism. Examples are the Great Leap Forward and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution for what Mao viewed as the participatory democracy inherent in the New Democracy concept.
Because of New Democracy's nature as an "intermediate stage", it
is considered a stepping-stone to socialism—an essentially two-stage
theory of first New Democracy, then socialism, given that the
self-proclaimed ultimate goal of socialist construction; the creation of
a stateless, classless and moneyless communist society; has not yet
been reached in the period of New Democracy.
Some have argued that the Fast Track Land Reform Program in Zimbabwe represents the culmination of New Democracy there and these same people usually also say that ZANU-PF remains a genuinely socialist party.
Criticism
Some criticise New Democracy as class collaborationism or as a stage to
replace the dictatorship of the proletariat, but Mao completely rejected
this by saying:
"Firmly
establish the new-democratic social order." That's a harmful
formulation. In the transition period changes are taking place all the
time and socialist factors are emerging every day. How can this
"new-democratic order" be "firmly established"? [...] The period of
transition is full of contradictions and struggles. Our present
revolutionary struggle is even more profound than the revolutionary
armed struggle of the past. It is a revolution that will bury the
capitalist system and all other systems of exploitation once and for
all. The idea, "Firmly establish the new-democratic social order", goes
against the realities of our struggle and hinders the progress of the
socialist cause.
— Mao Zedong, "Refute Right Deviationist Views That Depart From the General Line", p. 93–94
Consensus democracy is the application of consensus decision-making to the process of legislation in a democracy.
It is characterized by a decision-making structure which involves and
takes into account as broad a range of opinions as possible, as opposed
to systems where minority opinions can potentially be ignored by
vote-winning majorities. The latter systems are classified as Majoritarian Democracy.
Consensus democracy also features increased citizen participation
both in determining the political agenda and in the decision-making
process itself. Some have pointed to developments in information and communication technology as potential facilitators of such systems, for example the usage of DemocracyOS being used in Buenos Aires.
Examples
Consensus democracy is most closely embodied in certain countries such as Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Lebanon, Sweden, Iraq, and Belgium,
where consensus is an important feature of political culture,
particularly with a view to preventing the domination of one linguistic
or cultural group in the political process. The term consociational state
is used in political science to describe countries with such consensus
based political systems. An example of such a system could be the DutchPoldermodel.
Many parties in Lebanon call for applying consensus democracy (الديمقراطية التوافقية), especially at times of crisis.
Consensus (non-party) government operates in Guernsey in the Channel Islands.
Guernsey also operates a non-ministerial system of government in which
government departments are headed not by ministers with executive
authority, but by committees of five members. Members of the committees
are elected by the 40-member States of Deliberation,
which is both the parliament and the executive. The States of Guernsey
(the island's parliament) last endorsed the system of consensus
government by committees in 2002, when it rejected, by a very
significant majority, a proposition to replace the system with
executive/cabinet-style government. In 2004 Guernsey last made changes
to its system of government.
All major items of policy are proposed to the Assembly, by which
they are approved, amended or rejected. Most items are determined by
simple majority voting.
At the most recent general election of people's deputies
(members), all candidates campaigned as independents without affiliation
with any party. Political parties have existed from time to time, but
with little success.
In 2009, a majority of members of Guernsey's parliament signed a
letter describing their continuing commitment to consensus government by
committees and opposition to executive/cabinet-style government.
At their meeting on 16 July 2009, the States of Deliberation
resolved to establish a Tribunal by the Tribunals of Inquiry
(Evidence)(Guernsey) Law, 1949, as amended to inquire into the facts and
circumstances of the industrial action by the Airport Fire Fighters at
Guernsey Airport during May 2009, including the circumstances in which
the dispute was resolved. The Resolution followed presentation of a
Requête dated 29 June 2009 petitioning for a Tribunal of Inquiry to be
established, signed by Deputy M M Lowe and seventeen other members of
the States soon after the events being investigated.
The Tribunal of Inquiry's Report was published on 23 April 2010 and included the following text:The failure to deal with the underlying problem, which led to the industrial
action 'by the firefighters, stems from the system of government
which does not encourage either a corporate approach or collective
responsibility. In our view there was a systemic failure to act in a
corporate and strategic manner.
During debate on the findings of the Tribunal, it was confirmed
that the Tribunal's statements in respect of corporate and strategic
planning related only to the topic of industrial relations and were not a
more general commentary about the island's system of government.
In 2010 the island's parliament indicated its continuing
endorsement of government by committees and consensus when it approved
by a large majority a motion which proposed that governance arrangements
should be improved strictly within the existing system of government.
Immediately after the 2012 general election, the States of
Deliberation elected a States Review Committee to review the extent to
which the legislature and the executive are capable of fulfilling
expectations of good governance with particular reference to policy
development, accountability, and policy co-ordination and to make
recommendations for any reforms considered necessary. The States Review
Committee is due to report to the States of Deliberation in two stages
before the end of 2014.
Members of the Shimer College Assembly reaching a consensus through deliberation.
Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making
process in which group members develop, and agree to support a decision
in the best interest of the whole group or common goal. Consensus may
be defined professionally as an acceptable resolution, one that can be
supported, even if not the "favourite" of each individual. It has its
origin in the Latin word cōnsēnsus (agreement), which is from cōnsentiō meaning literally feel together.
It is used to describe both the decision and the process of reaching a
decision. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned with the process
of deliberating and finalizing a decision, and the social, economic,
legal, environmental and political effects of applying this process.
Objectives
Characteristics of consensus decision-making include:
Collaborative:
Participants contribute to a shared proposal and shape it into a
decision that meets the concerns of all group members as much as
possible.
Cooperative:
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.
Egalitarian:
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.
Inclusive: As many stakeholders as possible should be involved in the consensus decision-making process.
Participatory: 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
allows the structuring of debate and passage of proposals that can be
approved through 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 decision making process. The level of agreement necessary to
finalize a decision is known as a "decision rule".
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. Proper guidelines for the use of this option, however, are
important. The ethics of consensus decision-making encourage
participants to place the good of the whole group above their own
individual preferences. 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.
Specific models
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.
Consensus voting
The
group first elects, say, three referees or consensors.
The debate on the chosen problem is initiated by the facilitator calling
for proposals.
Every proposed option is accepted if the referees decide it is relevant
and conforms with the UN Charter on Human Rights.
The referees produce and display a list of these options.
The debate proceeds, with queries, comments, criticisms and/or even new
options.
If the debate fails to come to a verbal consensus, the referees draw up a
final list of options - usually between 4 and 6 - to represent the
debate.
When all agree, the chair calls for a preferential vote, as per the
rules for a Modified Borda Count,
MBC.
The referees decide which option, or which composite of the two leading
options, is the outcome. If its level of support surpasses a minimum
consensus coefficient, it may be adopted.
Blocking
Flowchart of basic consensus decision-making process.
Groups that require unanimity commonly use a core set of procedures depicted in this flow chart.
Once an agenda for discussion has been set and, optionally, the
ground rules for the meeting have been agreed upon, each item of the
agenda is addressed in turn. Typically, each decision arising from an
agenda item follows through a simple structure:
Discussion of the item: The item is discussed with the
goal of identifying opinions and information on the topic at hand. The
general direction of the group and potential proposals for action are
often identified during the discussion.
Formation of a proposal: Based on the discussion a formal decision proposal on the issue is presented to the group.
Call for consensus: The facilitator of the decision-making
body calls for consensus on the proposal. Each member of the group
usually must actively state whether they agree or consent, stand aside,
or object, often by using a hand gesture or raising a colored card, to
avoid the group interpreting silence or inaction as agreement.
The number of objections is counted to determine if this step's
consent threshold is satisfied. If it is, dissenters are asked to share
their concerns with proceeding with the agreement, so that any
potential harms can be addressed/minimized. This can happen even if the consent threshold is unanimity, especially if many voters stand aside.
Identification and addressing of concerns: If consensus is
not achieved, each dissenter presents his or her concerns on the
proposal, potentially starting another round of discussion to address or
clarify the concern.
Modification of the proposal: The proposal is amended, re-phrased or ridered
in an attempt to address the concerns of the decision-makers. The
process then returns to the call for consensus and the cycle is repeated
until a satisfactory decision passes the consent threshold for the
group.
Quaker-based model
Quaker-based consensus
is said to be effective because it puts in place a simple, time-tested
structure that moves a group towards unity. The Quaker model is
intended to allow hearing individual voices while providing a mechanism
for dealing with disagreements.
The Quaker model has been adapted by Earlham College for application to secular settings, and can be effectively applied in any consensus decision-making process.
Its process includes:
Multiple concerns and information are shared until the sense of the group is clear.
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.
Ideally, differences are resolved by discussion. The facilitator ("clerk" or "convenor" in the Quaker model) identifies areas of agreement and names disagreements to push discussion deeper.
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.
Ideally, all dissenters' perspectives are synthesized into the final
outcome for a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Should some dissenter's perspective not harmonize with the others,
that dissenter may "stand aside" to allow the group to proceed, or may
opt to "block". "Standing aside" implies a certain form of silent
consent. Some groups allow "blocking" by even a single individual to
halt or postpone the entire process.
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."
Ensuring that group members speak only once until others are heard
encourages a diversity of thought. The facilitator is understood as
serving the group rather than acting as person-in-charge.
In the Quaker model, as with other consensus decision-making processes,
articulating the emerging consensus allows members to be clear on the
decision in front of them. As members' views are taken into account
they are likely to support it.
Roles
The
consensus decision-making process often has several roles designed to
make the process run more effectively. Although the name and nature of
these roles varies from group to group, the most common are the facilitator, consensor,
a timekeeper, an empath and a secretary or notes taker. Not all
decision-making bodies use all of these roles, although the facilitator
position is almost always filled, and some groups use supplementary
roles, such as a Devil's advocate
or greeter. Some decision-making bodies rotate these roles through the
group members in order to build the experience and skills of the
participants, and prevent any perceived concentration of power.
The common roles in a consensus meeting are:
Facilitator: As the name implies, the role of the
facilitator is to help make the process of reaching a consensus decision
easier. Facilitators accept responsibility for moving through the
agenda on time; ensuring the group adheres to the mutually agreed-upon
mechanics of the consensus process; and, if necessary, suggesting
alternate or additional discussion or decision-making techniques, such
as go-arounds, break-out groups or role-playing. Some consensus groups use two co-facilitators. Shared facilitation
is often adopted to diffuse the perceived power of the facilitator and
create a system whereby a co-facilitator can pass off facilitation
duties if he or she becomes more personally engaged in a debate.
Consensor: The team of consensors is responsible for
accepting those relevant proposals which conform with the UN Charter on
Human Rights; for displaying an initial list of these options; for
drawing up a balanced list of options to represent the entire debate; to
analyse the preferences cast in any subsequent MBC ballot; and, if need
be, to determine the composite decision from the two most popular
options.
Timekeeper: The purpose of the timekeeper is to ensure the
decision-making body keeps to the schedule set in the agenda. Effective
timekeepers use a variety of techniques to ensure the meeting runs on
time including: giving frequent time updates, ample warning of short
time, and keeping individual speakers from taking an excessive amount of
time.
Empath or 'Vibe Watch': The empath, or 'vibe watch' as the
position is sometimes called, is charged with monitoring the 'emotional
climate' of the meeting, taking note of the body language and other non-verbal cues
of the participants. Defusing potential emotional conflicts,
maintaining a climate free of intimidation and being aware of
potentially destructive power dynamics, such as sexism or racism within
the decision-making body, are the primary responsibilities of the
empath.
Note taker: The role of the notes taker or secretary is to
document the decisions, discussion and action points of the
decision-making body.
Tools and methods
Front face, back face and embossing mask for colored consensus cards
Some consensus decision-making bodies use a system of colored
cards to indicate speaker priority. For instance, red cards to indicate
feedback on a breach in rules or decorum, yellow cards for clarifying
questions, and green cards for desire to speak.
Hand signals
are another method for reading a room's positions nonverbally. They
work well with groups of fewer than 250 people and especially with
multi-lingual groups.
The nature and meaning of individual gestures varies between groups,
but a widely adopted core set of hand signals include: wiggling of the
fingers on both hands, a gesture sometimes referred to as "twinkling",
to indicate agreement; raising a fist or crossing both forearms with
hands in fists to indicate a block or strong disagreement; and making a
"T" shape with both hands, the "time out" gesture, to call attention to a
point of process or order.
One common set of hand signals is called the "Fist-to-Five" or
"Fist-of-Five". In this method each member of the group can hold up a
fist to indicate blocking consensus, one finger to suggest changes, two
fingers to discuss minor issues, three fingers to indicate willingness
to let issue pass without further discussion, four fingers to affirm the
decision as a good idea, and five fingers to volunteer to take a lead
in implementing the decision. A similar set of hand signals are used by the Occupy Wall Street protesters in their group negotiations.
First-past-the-post is used as a fall-back method when consensus cannot be reached within a given time frame.
If the potential outcome of the fall-back method can be anticipated,
then those who support that outcome have incentives to block consensus
so that the fall-back method gets applied. Special fall-back methods
have been developed that reduce this incentive.
Criticism
Criticism of blocking
Critics
of consensus blocking often observe that the option, while potentially
effective for small groups of motivated or trained individuals with a
sufficiently high degree of affinity, has a number of possible shortcomings, notably
Preservation of the status quo: In decision-making bodies
that use formal consensus, the ability of individuals or small
minorities to block agreement gives an enormous advantage to anyone who
supports the existing state of affairs. This can mean that a specific
state of affairs can continue to exist in an organization long after a
majority of members would like it to change. The incentive to block can however be removed by using a special kind of voting process.
Susceptibility to widespread disagreement: Giving the right
to block proposals to all group members may result in the group becoming
hostage to an inflexible minority or individual. When a popular
proposal is blocked the group actually experiences widespread
disagreement, the opposite of the consensus process's goal. Furthermore,
"opposing such obstructive behavior [can be] construed as an attack on
freedom of speech and in turn [harden] resolve on the part of the
individual to defend his or her position."
As a result, consensus decision-making has the potential to reward the
least accommodating group members while punishing the most
accommodating.
Stagnation and group dysfunction: When groups cannot make the
decisions necessary to function (because they cannot resolve blocks),
they may lose effectiveness in accomplishing their mission.
Susceptibility to splitting and excluding members: When high
levels of group member frustration result from blocked decisions or
inordinately long meetings, members may leave the group, try to get to
others to leave, or limit who has entry to the group.
Channeling decisions away from an inclusive group process:
When group members view the status quo as unjustly difficult to change
through a whole group process, they may begin to delegate
decision-making to smaller committees or to an executive committee. In
some cases members begin to act unilaterally because they are frustrated
with a stagnated group process.
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. Studies of effective consensus process usually indicate a shunning of unanimity or "illusion of unanimity" that does not hold up as a group comes under real-world pressure (when dissent reappears). Cory Doctorow, Ralph Nader and other proponents of deliberative democracy or judicial-like methods view the explicit dissent as a symbol of strength.
In his book about Wikipedia, Joseph Reagle considers the merits and challenges of consensus in open and online communities. Randy Schutt, Starhawk, and other practitioners of direct action focus on the hazards of apparent agreement followed by action in which group splits become dangerously obvious.
Unanimous, or apparently unanimous, decisions can have drawbacks. They may be symptoms of a systemic bias, a rigged process (where an agenda
is not published in advance or changed when it becomes clear who is
present to consent), fear of speaking one's mind, a lack of creativity
(to suggest alternatives) or even a lack of courage (to go further along
the same road to a more extreme solution that would not achieve
unanimous consent).
Unanimity is achieved when the full group apparently consents to a
decision. It has disadvantages insofar as further disagreement,
improvements or better ideas then remain hidden, but effectively ends
the debate moving it to an implementation phase. Some consider all
unanimity a form of groupthink, and some experts propose "coding
systems...for detecting the illusion of unanimity symptom." In Consensus is not Unanimity, consensus practitioner and activist leader Starhawk wrote:
Many people think of consensus as simply an extended voting
method in which every one must cast their votes the same way. Since
unanimity of this kind only rarely occurs in groups with more than one
member, groups that try to use this kind of process usually end up being
either extremely frustrated or coercive. Either decisions are never
made (leading to the demise of the group, its conversion into a social
group that does not accomplish any tasks), they are made covertly, or
some group or individual dominates the rest. Sometimes a majority
dominates, sometimes a minority, sometimes an individual who employs
"the block". But no matter how it is done, it is NOT consensus.
Confusion between unanimity and consensus, in other words, usually
causes consensus decision-making to fail, and the group then either
reverts to majority or supermajority rule or disbands.
Most robust models of consensus exclude uniformly unanimous
decisions and require at least documentation of minority concerns. Some
state clearly that unanimity is not consensus but rather evidence of
intimidation, lack of imagination, lack of courage, failure to include
all voices, or deliberate exclusion of the contrary views.
Criticism of majority voting processes
Some 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.
Carlos Santiago Nino, on the other hand, has argued that majority rule
leads to better deliberation practice than the alternatives, because it
requires each member of the group to make arguments that appeal to at
least half the participants. A. Lijphart reaches the same conclusion about majority rule, noting that majority rule encourages coalition-building. 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.
Some voting theorists, however, argue that majority rule may actually
prevent tyranny of the majority, in part because it maximizes the
potential for a minority to form a coalition that can overturn an
unsatisfactory decision.
Some 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.
Majority voting cannot measure consensus. Indeed,—so many 'for'
and so many 'against'—it measures the very opposite, the degree of
dissent. Consensus voting, in contrast, the Modified Borda Count, MBC,
can identify the consensus of any electorate, whenever such a consensus
exists. Furthermore, the rules laid down for this procedure can be the
very catalyst of consensus.
Examples
Outside of Western culture, multiple other cultures have used consensus decision-making. Perhaps the oldest example is the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy Grand Council, which has used consensus in decision-making using a 75% super majority to finalize decisions, potentially as early as 1142. In the Xulu and Xhosa (South African) process of indaba, community leaders gather to listen to the public and negotiate figurative thresholds towards an acceptable compromise. The technique was also used during the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference. In Aceh and Nias cultures (Indonesian), family and regional disputes, from playground fights to estate inheritance, are handled through a musyawarah
consensus-building process in which parties mediate to find peace and
avoid future hostility and revenge. The resulting agreements are
expected to be followed, and range from advice and warnings to
compensation and exile.
Consensus-building and direct democracy experimentation was a feature of voter registration projects by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in the American South; the Economic Research and Action Project (ERAP) of Students for a Democratic Society (mid-1960s), some women's liberation groups (late 1960s to early 1970s) and anti-nuclear and peace movement groups (late 1970s and early 1980s). For example, the anti-nuclear Clamshell Alliance and Movement for a New Society engaged in consensus decision-making processes. The origins of formal consensus-making can be traced significantly further back, to the Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers, who adopted the technique as early as the 17th century. Anabaptists, including some Mennonites, have a history of using consensus decision-making and some believe Anabaptists practiced consensus as early as the Martyrs' Synod of 1527.
Some Christians trace consensus decision-making back to the Bible. The
Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia references, in particular, Acts
15
as an example of consensus in the New Testament. The lack of
legitimate consensus process in the unanimous conviction of Jesus by
corrupt priests in an illegally held Sanhedrin
court (which had rules preventing unanimous conviction in a hurried
process) strongly influenced the views of pacifist Protestants,
including the Anabaptists (Mennonites/Amish), Quakers and Shakers. In
particular it influenced their distrust of expert-led courtrooms and to
"be clear about process" and convene in a way that assures that
"everyone must be heard".
Consensus voting was first advocated by (a) Ramón Llull in 1199.
Next by (b) Nicholas Cusanus in 1435. Then by (c) Jean-Charles de Borda
in 1784. Later by (d) Hother Hage in 1860 and (e) Charles Dodgson (Lewis
Carroll) in 1884. And finally by (f) Peter Emerson in 1986. With the
possible exception of (e), none of these 'inventors' knew anything about
the inventions of any of their predecessors.
Japanese
companies normally use consensus decision-making, meaning that
unanimous support on the board of directors is sought for any decision.
A ringi-sho is a circulation document used to obtain agreement. It must
first be signed by the lowest level manager, and then upwards, and may
need to be revised and the process started over.
IETF rough consensus model
In the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), decisions are assumed to be taken by rough consensus.
The IETF has studiously refrained from defining a mechanical method for
verifying such consensus, apparently in the belief that any such
codification leads to attempts to "game the system." Instead, a working group (WG) chair or BoF chair is supposed to articulate the "sense of the group."
One tradition in support of rough consensus is the tradition of
humming rather than (countable) hand-raising; this allows a group to
quickly tell the difference between "one or two objectors" or a "sharply
divided community", without making it easy to slip into "majority rule".
Much of the business of the IETF is carried out on mailing lists, where all parties can speak their view at all times.
Social constructivism model
In 2001, Robert Rocco Cottone published a consensus-based model of professional decision-making for counselors and psychologists. Based on social constructivist
philosophy, the model operates as a consensus-building model, as the
clinician addresses ethical conflicts through a process of negotiating
to consensus. Conflicts are resolved by consensually agreed on
arbitrators who are defined early in the negotiation process.
US Bureau of Land Management collaborative stakeholder engagement
The United States Bureau of Land Management's
policy is to seek to use collaborative stakeholder engagement as
standard operating practice for natural resources projects, plans, and
decision-making except under unusual conditions such as when constrained
by law, regulation, or other mandates or when conventional processes
are important for establishing new, or reaffirming existing, precedent.
Additional criticism from biblical and philosophical perspectives
As a notable example of the failure of unanimity in the Western canon, New Testament historian Elaine Pagels cites the Sanhedrin's unanimous vote to convict Jesus of Nazareth.
To a Jewish audience familiar with that court's requirement to set free
any person unanimously convicted as not having a proper defense, Pagels
proposes that the story is intended to signal the injustice of
unanimous rush to agreement and Jesus' lack of a defender.
She cites the shift away from this view and towards preference for
visible unanimity as a factor in later "demonization" of Jews, pagans,
heretics,
and others who disagreed with orthodox views in later Christianity.
Unanimity, in other words, became a priority where it had been an anathema.
Some formal models based on graph theory attempt to explore the implications of suppressed dissent and subsequent sabotage of the group as it takes action.
High-stakes decision-making, such as judicial decisions of
appeals courts, always require some such explicit documentation. Consent
however is still observed that defies factional explanations. Nearly
40% of Supreme Court of US decisions, for example, are unanimous, though
often for widely varying reasons. "Consensus in Supreme Court voting,
particularly the extreme consensus of unanimity, has often puzzled Court
observers who adhere to ideological accounts of judicial decision
making." Historical evidence is mixed on whether particular Justices' views were suppressed in favour of public unity.
Another method to achieve more agreement to satisfy a strict
threshold a voting process under which all members of the group have a
strategic incentive to agree rather than block.
However, this makes it very difficult to tell the difference between
those who support the decision and those who merely tactically tolerate
it for the incentive. Once they receive that incentive, they may
undermine or refuse to implement the agreement in various and
non-obvious ways. In general voting systems avoid allowing offering incentives (or "bribes") to change a heartfelt vote.
Abilene paradox: Consensus decision-making is susceptible to all forms of groupthink, the most dramatic being the Abilene paradox.
In the Abilene paradox, a group can unanimously agree on a course of
action that no individual member of the group desires because no one
individual is willing to go against the perceived will of the
decision-making body.
Time Consuming: Since consensus decision-making focuses on
discussion and seeks the input of all participants, it can be a
time-consuming process. This is a potential liability in situations
where decisions must be made speedily, or where it is not possible to
canvass opinions of all delegates in a reasonable time. Additionally,
the time commitment required to engage in the consensus decision-making
process can sometimes act as a barrier to participation for individuals
unable or unwilling to make the commitment.
However, once a decision has been reached it can be acted on more
quickly than a decision handed down. American businessmen complained
that in negotiations with a Japanese company, they had to discuss the
idea with everyone even the janitor, yet once a decision was made the
Americans found the Japanese were able to act much quicker because
everyone was on board, while the Americans had to struggle with internal
opposition.
The formation of the spinal nerve from the dorsal and ventral roots (with grey matter labelled at centre right).
Micrograph showing grey matter, with the characteristic neuronal cell bodies (dark shade of pink), and white matter with its characteristic fine meshwork-like appearance (left of image; lighter shade of pink). HPS stain.
Grey matter (or gray matter) is a major component of the central nervous system, consisting of neuronalcell bodies, neuropil (dendrites and unmyelinated axons), glial cells (astrocytes and oligodendrocytes), synapses, and capillaries. Grey matter is distinguished from white matter
in that it contains numerous cell bodies and relatively few myelinated
axons, while white matter contains relatively few cell bodies and is
composed chiefly of long-range myelinated axons. The colour difference arises mainly from the whiteness of myelin.
In living tissue, grey matter actually has a very light grey colour
with yellowish or pinkish hues, which come from capillary blood vessels
and neuronal cell bodies.
Grey matter in the spinal cord is known as the grey column
which travels down the spinal cord distributed in three grey columns
that are presented in an "H" shape. The forward-facing column is the anterior grey column, the rear-facing one is the posterior grey column and the interlinking one is the lateral grey column. The grey matter on the left and right side is connected by the grey commissure. The grey matter in the spinal cord consists of interneurons, as well as the cell bodies of projection neurons.
Cross-section of a spinal vertebra with the spinal cord in the centre (and grey matter labelled).
Cross-section of spinal cord with the grey matter labelled.
Grey matter undergoes development and growth throughout childhood and adolescence.
Recent studies using cross-sectional neuroimaging have shown that by
around the age of 8 the volume of grey matter begins to decrease. However, the density of grey matter appears to increase as a child develops into early adulthood. Males tend to exhibit grey matter of increased volume but lower density than that of females.
Function
Grey matter contains most of the brain's neuronal cell bodies.
The grey matter includes regions of the brain involved in muscle
control, and sensory perception such as seeing and hearing, memory,
emotions, speech, decision making, and self-control.
The grey matter of the spinal cord can be divided into different layers, called Rexed laminae. These describe, in general, the purpose of the cells within the grey matter of the spinal cord at a particular location.
Interneurons present in the grey matter of the spinal cord
Rexed laminae groups the grey matter in the spinal cord according to its function.
Clinical significance
High alcohol consumption has been correlated with significant reductions in grey matter volume. Short-term cannabis use (30 days) is not correlated with changes in white or grey matter.
However, several cross-sectional studies have shown that repeated
long-term cannabis use is associated with smaller grey matter volumes in
the hippocampus, amygdala, medial temporal cortex, and prefrontal cortex, with increased grey matter volume in the cerebellum. Long-term cannabis use is also associated with alterations in white matter integrity in an age-dependent manner, with heavy cannabis use during adolescence and early adulthood associated with the greatest amount of change.
Meditation has been shown to change grey matter structure.
Habitual playing of action video games has been reported to
promote a reduction of grey matter in the hippocampus while 3D
platformer games have been reported to increase grey matter in the
hippocampus.
Women and men with equivalent IQ scores have differing
proportions of grey to white matter in cortical brain regions associated
with intelligence.
Pregnancy renders substantial changes in brain structure,
primarily reductions in gray matter volume in regions subserving social
cognition. The gray matter reductions endured for at least 2 years
post-pregnancy.
The profile of brain changes is comparable to that taking place during
adolescence, another hormonally similar transitional period of life.
History
Etymology
In the current edition of the official Latin nomenclature, Terminologia Anatomica, substantia grisea is used for English grey matter. The adjective grisea for grey is however not attested in classical Latin. The adjective grisea is derived from the French word for grey, gris. Alternative designations like substantia cana and substantia cinerea are being used alternatively. The adjective cana, attested in classical Latin, can mean grey, or greyish white. The classical Latin cinerea means ash-coloured.
