> Whereas I can think of lots of
>circumstances where giving a small minoriy, let along a minority of
>one, veto power over how a group uses collective resources is not only
>impractical but immoral. Group decision making is not one size fits
>all - and that applies to fundamental principles, not just processes.
>
>As I say there are cases where consensus makes a great deal of sense.
>For example, when engaging in direct action in defiance of laws,
>usually in the USA at any rate, those putting themselves at such risk
>come to a consensus as to what they will or won't do prior taking such
>actions. And a few worker owned co-ops I'm familiar with select new
>hires by consensus. Even in such cases these are not necessarily the
>only choices, but they are examples where consensus works. But there
>are many cases where it fails. I will say that a local Quaker church
>after a long discussion about switching from incandescent lightbulbs
>to CFLs now has a new lightbulb joke. "How many Quakers does it take
>to change a lightbulb? All of them, but only after 18 months of
>discussion."
I'm not sure why you cite that example in the context of claiming that consensus fails in many instances. The Quakers seem to have come to a consensus about what to do on the burning issue of lightbulbs. Sounds like success to me.
As for your assertion that granting one member of a group a veto over use of the group's collective resources is "not only impractical but immoral", I assert to the contrary that you are absolutely wrong. That seems precisely to fit the bill of where consensus is appropriate and perhaps even essential.
Majority decision making is necessary in some instances, particularly where there are irreconcilable conflicts of interest. It is unrealistic to expect for example that a committee made up of employers and employees can make decisions about their workplace by consensus. That is readily apparent and it follows for the same reason that consensus decision making is impractical in a class society. All the parties won't agree, because in a class society there are irreconcilable class conflicts.
However, in any economic organisation where there are no irreconcilable conflicts of interest, it follows that consensus decision making is possible.
And it is very desirable for a simple reason, consensus decision-making provides a measure of protection against political intrigue, schism and even dictatorship. Factionalism is discouraged simply because factions can exercise no greater formal power than a lone individual. There is no point in playing a numbers game if one single individual can veto your best laid scheme.
And here's the thing - this dynamic also means that individual members of a group can play a democratic role in the group with a great deal less fear that they might in a group where majority rule prevails. Under majority rule, the individual can be punished by the group for saying something that is not appreciated. Or can be persecuted if they are considered a threat to the ruling clique.
But under consensus, the individual has real power. So the individual's opinion must be respected. There can't be many of us who have never been in situations where that was called for and lacking, where the individual and hence the group was oppressed by a clique that may or may not represent a formal majority.
Now all this is not to say that majority decision making is not the best option in purely political decisions. Indeed, majority decision making is by definition political decision making and perhaps vice-versa?
But any economic organisation such as a union or co-operative would be ill-advised to go down the majority rule route unless this course was dictated by the nature of the membership. If the membership is composed of people with irreconcilable conflicts of interest, majority rule. If not, then consensus is best.
Bill Bartlett. Bracknell Tas