Consensus
According to the proponents of consensus decision making there are 4 main elements that need to be present to ensure the possibility of effective consensus decision making. They are:
- a common goal;
- sufficient time,
- a clear process and
- full commitment.
On September 2017, The Seeds of Change who in some ways lead the intellectual argument for consensus in the UK, added a few more elements to their list. It now includes
- trust and openness,
- active participation,
- good facilitation, and
- knowing who should be included (meaning only the people affected by the out come should be included in the decision making)
Consenseless
It is senseless to ignore the above identified and listed basic requirements of consensus decision making when choosing to implement 100% consensus, in an activist movement. Although that moment or those moments of choice are nebulous, they do occur. Organizers have free will to move away from the idealistic dream that the global activist community has been sleep walking in since the 1970’s.
Even if God herself were to facilitate, there rarely is sufficient time (for each decision) in a protest situation to reach consensus or to make effective evaluations on who should be included in particular decisions.
Furthermore it is painfully naive to believe that when a group of relative strangers unite to push forth a campaign, that trust and openness will survive past the first 3 or so disagreements. In a nutshell, consensus (within activism as opposed to spiritual settings) demands we change elements of the human condition. For some who pledge full commitment to the endeavor of consensus the control of one’s natural impulses might be possible. However when an activist movement balloons, it is populated mostly by people whose full commitment is towards the campaign’s goal not to consensus. This is what occurred in Occupy London way back in 2011, from which many learnt a valuable lesson, but not enough to make 100% consensus decision making in activist movements, history.
180 Degrees
For 25 years since the late eighties I was devout believer in consensus decision making. The Occupy London experience contributed, in a final-straw kind of way, to what New Yorkers would call, a one-eighty. I now stand opposed to 100% consensus in campaigning and activism. One of the driving impulses to complete You Can’t Evict An Idea was to convince others to do the same.
Activism’s Home Grown Political Correctness
The public dialogue is no longer about whether change should occur, it is about when and how it will. Activism is an important part of non violent progressive and democratic change but it currently is in need of an overhaul. The pretense that everyone’s voice is being heard, when, despite all efforts, it never is, is activism’s home grown version of suffocating political correctness. Interestingly the biggest successes of grassroots activist movements that shifted society from one paradigm into another, either all pre-date 1976 when consensus was introduced to activism (in the global north) via two Quakers in the Anti Nuclear protest movement in Seabrook in the USA, or were not run via consensus decision making but via decentralized movements where a representation of majority ruled. Consensus is a tool that we should use, not a master that should rule us. If it blocks us making a decision within a given meeting, it should be set aside and majority ruling take place.
As promised an outtake from the editing process:
Inka Stafrace will hold a workshop discussing consensus in large scale activism at the E Campaigning conference 9-11th April 2018 in Oxford, UK.
You Can’t Evict An Idea is being submitted into film festivals for the foreseeable future. Any acceptance will be announced on the website. Thank you to all who donated and to the 125 Fund for being so supportive to this project.