Consensus Democracy

Consensus democracy is a model of democracy designed to find and create common ground in pluralistic societies and to base decision making on consensus. Consensus democracies also seek to allow different political interests to share power. Some features of consensus democracy include: executive power sharing, proportional representation, a balance between executive and legislative power, bicameralism (having two legislative bodies), and multiple political parties. Instead of a “winner take all” system, executive power sharing ensures that one party or group does not dominate the leadership position. Proportional representation, reserving positions for minority membership in proportion to their constituencies, ensures that no parties or groups are completely excluded from decision-making bodies. Though consensus is the aim, such measures seek to [Page 141]ensure that all voices are heard. Consensus democratic practices can be integrated to greater or lesser degrees into national and local governments, as well as in private decision-making bodies, such as workplaces. The aim of consensus decision making is the greater inclusion of a larger majority, resulting in a broader satisfaction with outcomes.

Consensus democracy is designed to correct for some of the problems in majoritarian democracies, which rely primarily on simple majorities to establish policies and to choose representatives. Majoritarian democracies are “winner take all” systems, leaving minority voters with no input into the outcome of the decision and no political representation. Majoritarian systems sometimes make decisions based on narrow majorities; this means that the will of large minorities is left out. Consensus democracy seeks to include the will of more people, arguably making consensus democracies more properly democratic.

Consensus democratic practices have several advantages. Increased consensus can enhance unity and decrease divisiveness. Participants in consensual processes tend to be more hopeful that their interests will be taken into account, therefore increasing participation. As a result of this participation, decisionmakers will likely feel a greater sense of commitment to the outcome. When processes aim at consensus, more information is generally gathered and more perspectives weighed and taken seriously, because a plurality of views is a part of the discussion. In addition, consensus democracies tend to reduce antagonism between opposing groups, in part because through the consensus-building process participants become less-wedded-to and less sure of their viewpoints.

Consensus democracies have some disadvantages. The primary objection to consensual processes is that they are inefficient. Developing a consensus takes considerably more time than taking a vote and declaring a winner. The compromise entailed in consensus decision making can dilute important principles that might otherwise be expressed in a decision. The results of consensus decision making are often ambiguous, making for potentially poorer policies. Attempts to secure consensus sometimes result in deadlock when groups are deeply conflicted. When efforts to build consensus begin to fail, there is a risk that members may attempt to coerce each other in order to secure a decision. If the minority capitulates to the majority during the consensus-building process, there remains the problem of minority views being silenced in favor of the group decision.