More thoughts on consensus for EBT

There are some specific factors much worth considering in a particular case of the bike tour, as it’s by far not a typical group to work in such a way — as well as a few things commonly overlooked or underemphasized in most texts about consensus-based decision making. A lot of people who have attended many meetings organized this way (and some who have practice in a facilitator role) and feel familiar about it are not aware enough about them. It’s recommended to reflect on the framework in debates and read extra.

  • What usually receives too little attention is Prerequisites for Consensus-Based Decision Making (requirements).

    These would be: trust, respect, commitment, patience, understanding of the system and skilled facilitation, sufficient time and commitment, a will to rather cooperate than compete, clear and common purpose or goal(s), group mind (more than a sum of individuals).

    It’s definitely at least good, if not necessary, to pay attention to emotions and create space for it. Some articulate open-mindedness and critical thinking/avoiding relying on powerful authorities or groupthink (following the crowd).

    We here argue, along with some authors, and adding special stress on it, that not only common goal(s)/purpose is needed, but that the whole process ought to be grounded in a shared system of beliefs/values/ideals/principles/ethos. Without it, an ugly crack is probably going to appear sooner or later, though it may previously have seemed to be a coherent group driven by common purpose/goals in the beforehand decisions… until something would unmask the fundamental differences. It is therefore necessary to know and accept what kind of group one joins.

    As a matter of fact, a veto/block, in this system, can only be based on crucially important principles, which further highlights their significance. What follows, especially the facilitator(s), and people in charge of welcoming newcomers shall never loose sight of this and other prerequisites. Of which speaking, we all better understand how the particular Ecotopia environment is in the context of the Consensus-Based Decision Making — more on that at the end of the text

  • Most sources focus on technicalites of the system and its difference from voting systems.

  • Historically and presently similar systems have been used across many cultures and religious or other backgrounds; some texts suggest its use for hierarchical groups, NGOs, or even business organisations, communal living groups as well as grassroots activism. (In fact, as it’s observed, many couples, flatmates, groups of friends or even neighbours seek consensus in planning, often without feeling to ‘practice a structured system’.) The non-/anti-hierarchy collectives are said to have drawn their practices from the feminist movement and have created their own customs — which vary among themselves, too — described in suprisingly scarce and not always so clear texts — as for how widespread the system is.

  • Most debate often centers around the ‘weight’ and practice/process around the veto (block). Some may point out that improper or excess use of such may create a tyranny of the minority and give it an absurd extent of power over the majority and/or lead to conservatism in effective taking of any decision, favouring the status quo, or at least consume unbearable time and energy. Some groups even use consensus-inspired systems, allowing near-consensus in case of difficulty or other solutions if things seem unsolvable in desperate cases — it’s something different than actual consensus, but illustrates stuff — or advise far going moderation in regards to vetoing, keeping it for extreme situations. Some say it is a group matter, not a given individual’s matter, whether that individual’s veto is valid and legitimate.

  • It’s often noted that not taking any decision/action IS a decision in itself, in favor of the current state. This notion has been already understood by existentialism genre writers, and lawmakers too, in regard to some moral or philosophical questions such as providing help or disobedience.

  • Facilitator(s)/moderator function. Under lucky circumstances, it may be nearly technical. It’s often understood as applying mostly to the debate moderation and the knowledge of tools (sometimes with extra focus on ensuring enough space in the talk for people or groups otherwise marginalized or silent in the discourse or broadly in society). It is, however, crucial to understand consensus as a whole idea well, too, to explain it to participants… and perhaps sometimes also to have a strong voice during the decision taking part of the process. Facilitator has a lot of power, especially if the discussion is not easy — even if, as it’s often suggested, the person clearly avoids prioritizing their own speaking and always makes it clear when they express a personal opinion separately from speaking as smb-in-the-role (a widely recognised weak spot of the system, which is why authors advise at least rotating the role, switching it, etc).

    Some people think it’s better if there’s just one person in charge and compare it to driving a vehicle instead of more persons, but it doesn’t seem to be a strong argument in the spirit of consensus, and it’s better for learning the skill and building experience in the system for more people and for future to fulfill this duty not always as single person (at least or especially for bigger groups). We believe it’s better it’s nice to have two facilitators.

  • It’s sometimes not noted enough that various people may have very different stakes in particular decisions and it should be taken into account how it affects whom. For instance, during discussion about acceptable forms or ‘extent’ of nudity in public, the opinions of people more commonly exposed to other’s gaze, comments or judgement shall ‘weigh’ more and be heard first.

  • Consensus Decision Making may be difficult and exhausting — especially for groups not used to it or culturally diverse. Even though it’s more effective and decisions taken after tough discussions are more (likely to be) easily followed in circumstances where there’s no economic or sheer power enforcement of them, by majority or minority with power subgroup.

    Petty or very technical issues are often discussed first and more eagerly and may even create an illusion that Consensus Decision Making be smooth and much easier than it actually is. Controversial or complex topics may get pushed aside, postponed, delayed… This, in turn, can contribute to status quo cementing, reinforce or encourage problematic dynamics present and make problems grow meanwhile with a holy war taking place later when everything surfaces with extra intensity, sometimes things may even erupt beyond control. Conflicts are sort of a taboo in our culture, but can be seen as not only a part of life, but, too, an opportunity for development. Alternatively, poorer decisions on difficult topics can be taken because of people being too busy and worn/tired.

    It is important to prioritize wisely and tackle potential controversies. Some issues can be discussed in more than one meeting. Sometimes a group may want to agree to a preliminary/privisional/temporary solution and to resume discussion afterwards. Petty or very technical issues that do not make much difference nor affect some critical ideological principles are ideally also decided upon within the consensus framework, but if it’s too hard or too impractical they may be processed within dedicated Working Groups (are they open? how are decisions exactly made inside them?) and should not be possible to be vetoed.

    There are voices warning against the (wide) use of Working Groups as non-democratic. But, if this idea is not abused or applied wrongly (to Big Questions, without need) it shouldn’t be dismissed, for it is practical and can help work on important stuff truly broadly and justly. WorkGroups can also prepare solutions and pros/cons to present to the whole group, often to good end results.

    Counterintuitively, it doesn’t have to be easy or small things were the system shines. There was an opinion that Consensus Decision Making be not applicable to selecting among bad choices. Seems nonsense; life’s full of identifying the lesser evil and we need to acknowledge it when it happens, hold a quality discussion and use the potential in our system by choosing and agreeing on such.

    By the way, it helps if meetings are frequent and regular, rather than have long ones only when it becomes clear that ‘something we need to really talk about finally’, without quasi-leaders effectively announcing these meetings when they decide something deserves it. Good, too, to make notes and check them.

  • Quick Consensus. It’s intuitive and known that the default system needs much time. Life at times present necessities to act quickly, though. Besides ideas for near-consensus (which is ofc, as the names says, not The ‘REAL’ Consensus), some practicioners recommend cutting on what is the central part — debate — simply trying to rely on the expressed opinions towards possible choices.

  • The influence of the size of the group. One thing is that a disagreement or concern can intuitively mean more in a smaller group than in a bigger one. It’s often right, however in certain aspects/situations we may need to remember that a person or group being badly outnumbered can get double harmed/hurt — precisely because of being in minority and deserve a special consideration and prevention of group pressure. Second thing is that big groups have usually a harder job, more conflicting needs and the same amount of time. Prioritization becomes more important. If a group is to be kept one and big, delegation systems can be employed (in order to not fall into representative democration tracks with degraded transparency or manipulations, delegates would need to be responsible to their groups and not permamenently in function). Some ideas have been described (eg spokescouncils) or can be inspired by revolutionary societies.

  • Ecotopia Bike Tour specific conditions.

    The tour gathers people of greatly different walks of life and experiences, from different places, in different age, in a rapidly-ever-changing composition (a large deal of ppl being on vacations or retreat, btw). Usually many have been to the tour already or come after hearing reports from their friends and comrades, some are or have been activists. But it’s not always effortless even language-wise; a lot of people don’t know each other, there are contrasting needs… and the unpredictable nature of the journey presents suprises and challenges, sometimes even stressors or time pressure. Coming to the tour, we have different hopes, anxieties and expectations.

    Usually, when one joins a group which uses consensus-based decision making — be it a community, action group, collective, whatsoever — one knows it and its people quite well, understands them. More often than not, it’s about joining for more time than our week(s) to months travelling. To Ecotopians and Ecotopia organizing group (orga) themselves it’s not very clearly, universally shared/agreed on, what would be actually the main goal(s), rationale, ambitions, raison d’etre (which doesn’t mean we don’t think or talk about it). We just know that it has shifted away from ecological transport promoting of its early years, that we want community, and that it reaches beyond just cycling and having fun; there’ve been developments in some directions.

    The ever-changing nature of the cycling group, with many or most people joining for one or three weeks, reduces the risk of some dominant leadership establishing themselves, but also brings a risk of insufficient commitment or understanding of the decision making system. There is less ‘guarantee’ for one to feel safe and comfortable. One can’t be as certain as in ‘default’, familiar settings, if everybody surely share the same core beliefs (they roughly should, but there’ll usually be still more diversity than in many ‘typical’ groups, quite like in a ‘big tent’ federation of various colours and banners) and whether they understand it the same way. What we need to make it work under described conditions is conscious thought of the method, keeping time and energy for it, and clarity about it.

    Obviously, there is also a question: How are we supposed to work with a system that requires broadly understood trust with people who we often don’t yet know and who will often be there for just so long? It has not always been easy, but it usually works and not rarely quite impressively. We have been for quite a time developing ways, techniques and designs to make it function better. During the tour, the group is meant to build itself and build trust on the go, through this very practice, and sticking to our princinples, taking from the community experience, skills brought from outside and discussions.

The above text comes from one of long-term organizers and, however reviewed, it doesn’t fully reflect the common mindset, which is in the making. There’s an update with some voices from the debates coming, people from the community are naturally welcome to bring their inputs.

Read on

Добавить комментарий

Ваш адрес email не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *