>I agree. Here's another review of consensus from Murray Bookchin:
>
>[...]
>
>"If anything, functioning on the basis of consensus assures that
>important decision-making will be either manipulated by a minority or
>collapse completely. And the decisions that are made will embody the
>lowest common denominator of views and constitute the least creative
>level of agreement. I speak, here, from painful, years-long experience
>with the use of consensus in the Clamshell Alliance of the 1970s. Just at
>the moment when this quasi-anarchic antinuclear-power movement was at the
>peak of its struggle, with thousands of activists, it was destroyed
>through the manipulation of the consensus process by a minority. The
>'tyranny of structurelessness' that consensus decision-making produced
>permitted a well-organized few to control the unwieldy,
>deinstitutionalized, and largely disorganized many within the movement.
Structurelesness in an organisation is not quite the same issue as consensus, the latter may very well be part of a cohesive and effective structure. Whether consensus is an appropriate decision making structure will depend on the nature and purpose of the organisation.
In a political organisation, consensus is usually quite inappropriate. However an economic organisation is quite another kettle of fish. In the housing co-operative that I am a member of, management decisions are subject to a veto by any tenant (with some exceptions that are specified in the constitution) and this works quite well.
The purpose of this veto is precisely to prevent political manipulation of decision making, to stop the whole 'getting the numbers' thing. In an economic organisation, political manipulation is poisonous, because it very often leads to economic exploitation, or even exclusion of some people by whoever can get the numbers. In the end, it creates a climate of insecurity, where people will be reluctant to speak up on issues, for fear of economic repercussions.
It undermines democracy in other words. I've seen this happen countless times, for example there is a housing co-operative in Hobart for El Salvador refugees that I'm familiar with, which has been at war with itself for years. Every time one faction or another in the internal political conflict gets control, it immediately seeks to expel members of the other faction and punish their supporters. Obviously there is great fear as a result, which is bad for everyone.
But a housing co-operative is an economic organisation, consensus decision-making wouldn't be appropriate for a political organisation. So long as the minority is not subject to any economic coercion by a putative or actual majority, then majority decision-making can work. Otherwise, it won't work.
Having read that article on structurelessness awhile back though, I do agree with virtually everything in it. But it is wise to remember that democracy also requires avoiding any tyranny of the majority.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas