Discussion of Consensus Decision Making

Members of the Anarchist U are invited to write their own expectations about consensus decision making.

Rather than commenting on contributions here, we are asking you to write about your expectations. We can discuss different ideas at the meetings.

_If you need instuctions on how to post your ideas here, please e-mail info@AnarchistU.org_

From Todd

The paper below further develops the thesis presented at last year's Renewing the Anarchist Tradition conference. In it, Mark Lance argues that we need to make a distinction between consensus values (listening, being open to other views, seeking mutually beneficial decisions, etc.) and the consenus process many groups use (with blocks, etc.) and that we should be focusing our attention more on the values (which can be compatible with many decision making processes) and less on the formal consensus process (which can be as subject to manipulation as other decision making methods.) He argues that our process is most important when consensus values break down, and has to be robust enough to deal with those situations. I found it an interesting read.

http://homepage.mac.com/abuemma Then click on file sharing, then activist stuff, then download "Fetishizing Process". It's copied here: FetishizingProcess

Also of interest, C. T. Butler (co-founder of Food Not Bombs and consenus process promoter) has a whole book on consenus process online at http://www.consensus.net/.

A useful guide to facilitation for consensus based groups is available at http://www.wolfandassociates.com/facilitation/manual.pdf.

From Alan

Most modern anarchist collectives use consensus decision-making. It is only one of several features which include sharing skills (rather than using them to gain power) and rotating positions of responsibility. All of these are designed to create organizations that not only "get things done" (the usual excuse for hierarchy is that it is efficient) but prefigure the type of anarchist society we are working towards. This always involves contradictions because we do not live in this anarchist society but in a world full of inequality and hierarchy which does not make our task easy.

There are several conditions necessary for consensus decision-making to work.

• There cannot be systematic inequalities in the group. You can't have consensus in a workplace between the boss and employees.
• There has to be general agreement on the purpose of the organization (though we know of organizations that successfully used consensus when this was not the case).
• There has to be a willingness to make it work.

Anarchists use consensus decision-making because we believe that the process by which we organize is just as important as what we want to achieve. We recognize that this is often less efficient than other forms of organizing but we believe it is worth the effort.

• Consensus is about the long-term process of building an anarchist culture and society. Organizing a demonstration or a discussion group is itself a process of learning for everyone: it is not just a matter of getting the job done. We spend time listening to each other as part of this process. In this way, even if the group does not agree with my ideas, I have had an opportunity to explain them and they become part of the culture of the organization.
• Consenus decision-making attempts to make it difficult for informal elites to impose their agenda on everyone. People who meet on their own and decide on issues in advance, or who use manipulative strategies to get votes for their position should find it difficult to behave in this way with a consensus procedure. People who want to play these power games are often very hostile to consenus decision-making.
• Consensus is about not treating minorities like shit. When people are continually voted down they are disempowered. Consensus decision-making is a way to include minority positions by listening and understanding, by compromising on a position held by the majority, or by allowing the minority position to be tried out occasionally.
• Consensus takes emotions into account. (In the 1980s it was often described as "feminist" decision-making.) At our meetings it is possible to say that people are angry or hurt. It is possible to consider that someone is speaking from the need to feel important. It is possible to consider emotions as well as rational arguments. A "vibe watcher" formalizes this by keeping an eye on general feelings such as tiredness or boredom.

Consensus is about creating goodwill, listening to each other and being willing to compromise. It is often difficult for people to be this flexible if their politics is informed by dogmatic theories such as Marxism or by authoritarian versions of identity politics. Anarchists believe that it is a positive thing that we do not have such authoritarian theories and are therefore open to learning and possibly changing our positions on issues. Anarchism is constantly changing.

There are different models of consensus and there are often subtle differences between how it works in different cities. Many of us have worked with consensus decision-making for ten or twenty years. Perhaps we have become so used to it that we don't make it explicit to new people. Many of us learned it in practice, but there are also written models for OPIRG, for Food Not Bombs, and in Sam Kaner's Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making (New Society, 1996). There are historical discussions in Starhawk, Truth or Dare (1987) and around the English feminist pamphlet The Tyranny of Structurelessness (available here http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html). My own take on this pamphlet is that it describes very unstructured meetings in England in the 1970s. Most of its arguments do not seem to me to be relevant to consensus decision-making as it has evolved in North America over the last 25 years.

Who participates I don't know of any collective that encourages people to block decisions at their first meeting. This contradicts the anarchist value of listening because it is unlikely that you would have heard enough at your first meeting to allow this kind of drastic intervention. Nonetheless, anarchists have a tradition of being generous in allowing people to quickly participate fully in meetings. It is unusual for us to impose extremely high standards such as six month's participation before allowing full participation in meetings. As well as formal rules about who can block decisions, the meeting as a whole or the facilitator can point out to a complete stranger that blocking a decision at their first meeting or wanting to change the purpose of the organization at their first meeting is simply not appropriate behaviour. People who have been part of the anarchist scene already understand this.

The facilitator plays an important role A good facilitator is not just someone skilled in procedure but someone with good political skills and judgement. This is a bit of a paradox because our facilitator plays a much more active role than the Chair does under Robert's Rules of Order (ha!) or the Speaker in parliament. For this reason is is very important that we rotate the role of facilitator. Everyone in the organization should learn to be a facilitator. A typical decision would go like this:

• an item is placed on the agenda
• in some models it is necessary to give notice for items that involve changes in procedure or the purpose of the collective -- these items may be placed on the agenda of the next meeting
• the facilitator seeks to get all opinions out in the open -- this may be done by a go-around
• the purpose of a go-around is for each person to give their personal opinion without commenting on what other people have said -- there is no discussion until the go-around is complete. Since this takes time the facilitator needs to use judgement in using this tool. It is usually used at the beginning of a discussion of an important issue.
• there is discussion. In general anarchists avoid artificial time limits. Difficult and new ideas need more time to explain. However the facilitator can use her judgement if a speaker is taking up too much time or repeating what has already been said several times.
• the important thing is not how many times the same opinion is expressed (we are not counting votes) but that we listen carefully to competing positions and try to understand them as best as we can
• the facilitator uses her judgement about when the issues have been thoroughly covered. She may say something like "It seems to me that we're repeating ourselves at this point."
• the facilitator tells back to the group what she has heard. She may say "It seems to me that almost everyone agrees on X, but a few people have reservations A, B and C." Or she may say "It seems to me that we have two quite different opinions: some people agree to do XYZ but others are very opposed. Can anyone suggest a compromise position? Can we spend the next part of the meeting seeking a compromise that we can all live with?"
• When there is agreement the facilitator states what it is and checks that everyone has actually agreed on this. The notetaker writes down the decision.
• There are four possible positions members can take
  • to agree
  • to agree with minor reservations (expressed already)
  • to express strong disagreement but to "stand aside"
  • to express strong disagrrement and block the decision
• Blocking a decision is a very serious matter. In some organizations it can only be done for specific reasons (such as ethical or moral principles), in others it can be more broadly used. In every case the block is not intended to give absolute power to a single person. The person who blocks must explain to the meeting the grounds on which they are doing this. There is a general expectation that a person who blocks is willing to re-enter the process of seeking another compromise position.
• Weak consensus is a situation where many people express some reservations about a decision or "stand aside". In general, weak consensus should be avoided. It is a sign that there needs to be more discussion.

The size of the organization is not the main issue Many people think that consensus cannot be used with large meetings of a hundred or more people. This is not true. We have all seen it succesfully used in very large groups. However this usually requires a very experienced facilitator, and assistants such as a person to keep a speakers' list and a "vibe watcher".

• However consensus decision-making does make it difficult to create "mass organizations" (such as the Communist Party). It also eliminates Executive Committees (where power is inevitably centralized and hoarded). This is intentional. Consensus decision-making is designed for anarchist organizing in affinity groups and collectives, and for meetings made up of delegates (spokes) from such groups.
• Consensus is also designed for collective forms of organizing. It is assumed that in an anarchist society there will be many competing collectives for just about everything. Consensus encourages groups of people that agree to work together. People who have different ideas form their own separate collectives. It is not a "one size fits all" mass organization (as in Marxism). Anarchist groups generally do not require thick policy statements on vast issues because we do not promote mass political parties that attempt to represent everyone. We do not have to battle for the direction of "the movement" (often repeating childhood dynamics where we tried to win the approval of our parents) in huge and emotional meetings. There are many directions in anarchism. Shared understandings and personal relationships are just as important for anarchists as a "rule book" that tries to lay down policies and procedures for every possible eventuality.

Conflict resolution is an advanced form of these overall processes. It is used in situations where there are serious personal or political differences (these are often related) or where consenus has broken down about fundamental matters (such as the purpose of the collective). Some organizations require as a condition of participation that members be willing to participate in conflict resolution in the event of a serious conflict. In this case a neutral person is usually brought in who has special training or skill in conflict resolution. Arbitrary processes such as deciding a conflict without hearing both sides are authoritarian and would seem to conflict with basic anarchist principles.

From Yehuda

I have a similar understanding of consensus as the one alan wrote above, with one difference. In certain consensus organizations, they operate on a consensus minus one, or minus two model. In this case, consensus could still be reached without the consent of one, or two people, as the case may be. It effectively requires more than one person to block a decision. The benefit to this approach is that the organization is more difficult for outside groups to "hijack", which could be usefull for such an open organization as the Anarchist University. Just thought i'd put in my two cents.