Consensus decisions

Earlier this month, when the Executive Committee of the PPP chose that party’s presidential candidate for the upcoming general elections, in the words of Dr Roger Luncheon, Head of the Presidential Secretariat, they did so in a “consensual” manner. This had been the tradition of the party over the years, he explained; but, this year, with five candidates vying for the position, they would have resorted to a “secret vote” if consensus on a single candidate had not been arrived at during the fateful meeting.

As we all know by now, one candidate stayed away; three dropped out, and Mr Donald Ramotar was chosen by acclaim. However, some critics have lambasted the PPP’s preferred consensual method of choosing their candidate, labelling it “anti- democratic”. In this specific instance, there may have been other issues swirling around in the ferment of the moment. However, in our judgement, there is a possibility of throwing out the baby with the bathwater if consensus, as a technique for arriving at group decisions, is derogated over voting – whether “secret” or otherwise.

First of all, both voting and consensus are acceptable methods through which groups can arrive at decisions on issues on which members, being humans, will almost invariably have different opinions; but the two methods are based on very different philosophical premises. In voting, the emphasis is on the numbers that are necessary to “win” and to make another faction “lose”. Because there are always “winners” and “losers” in voting, the feelings, opinions and needs of the members of the group are given short shrift. In the end, this can be a source of dissensus, especially for smaller groups that will have to continue to work together on common goals. In stressing the quantitative over the qualitative, the needs of the individuals are privileged over those of the group – invariably to the detriment of the latter.

Consensus, on the other hand, looks to the needs and goals of the group, as it hones in on processes and mechanisms that seek to synthesise the diverse elements, ideas, concerns and positions that are inherent in any human agglomeration. Consensus seeks to downplay the play of egos, and holds that differences between group members are reconcilable. The ideas and positions of each member are held to be important, and help to broaden the views of others. The consensual process seeks to integrate these into a higher-level coherent whole that is acceptable to all. The goal is to have every member feel that he/she had an input into the final decision, and that there were no “winners” and losers”. This fosters greater commitment to implementing the group’s decision.

It is obvious that decisions through consensus will take more time and facilitating skills than in voting; but less time does not equate to greater wisdom or moral certitude. In fact, common sense suggests the reverse. There are whole societies – such as in Africa and the East – that believe the benefits of consensual decision-making far outweigh the disadvantages. There is the creativity in crafting positions that satisfy everyone in the group. What, they ask, could be more democratic than that? These societies see differences as inherent in the human condition, and hold that the rules of interaction should seek to minimise, not exacerbate, those differences. In the modern world of mass societies, however, while consensus is obviously a positive overarching value; as a concrete mechanism of choice, it is most applicable when members of a smaller, manageable group have common values and are committed to its common goals.

While many accept the idea that voting is the ‘normal’ way of having democratic control over decision-making, and is often presented as the sole possibility out there, consensus is certainly just as valid. As with the PPP Executive Committee’s decision, it has the added benefits of even permitting other forms of decision making – such as majority voting – when appropriate.