The standard decision-making model used in social organizations has tended over time to be that where a Chairperson seeks a simple majority, upon which a decision is carried.  To achieve this the Chairperson calls for a motion, then for speakers for and against that motion, after which a vote is taken.

Many social change groups from the 1960s onwards decided that that process too often meant that almost half of a group ended up feeling left out.  Groups were fairly easy to “stack”.  Issues such as domination by older males were raised.

Instead, some groups (particularly feminist groups and groups having a strongly non-violent line) adopted practices from dissident religious groups such as the Quakers.

Consensus differs from the standard decision-making model in that where there is conflict over a course of action, the solution is not found by competitively adopting one over the other, but by seeking a course of action that either encapsulates the best of all proposals under consideration, or else is sufficiently good that everyone feels sufficiently good about it.  The background idea here is that The Group is more important than any given decision.

The consensus process has a number of peculiarities compared with standard decision-making models:

Facilitation

In standard decision-making, the Chair has the right to over-rule and decide in some situations according to Standing Orders.  In a consensus model this right does not exist, in principle, at least.  The role of Chair is replaced with that of facilitator.  The facilitator’s task is basically to encourage the group to make decisions according to the aims it sets itself.  The facilitator (among other things) typically:

• Calls for the formation of an agenda if there isn’t one already, and carries that agenda through;

• Makes sure speaking turns are allotted equitably;

• Encourages the group to make decisions about the length of the meeting, priority of agenda points, and so on;

• In addition, the facilitator will watch for the feel of the meeting: are people getting heated on a topic?  Perhaps take a break.  Are there too many items and not enough time?  Call for a prioritisation, and suggest holding other items over to the next meeting.

An example

Let’s say that a decision needs to be made about FoE Brisbane's (FoEB) position on a coming war.  Generally, a person will have circulated a proposal previously, though others may come to the meeting with other proposals.

The discussion will often commence with an information-only session – what is the background?  Is there an existing FoE Brisbane Principle to take into account?  Does FoE Australia or FoE International have an existing position?

Then, on to the proposal itself.  Generally FoEB does not require that proposals be seconded. In common with standard decision-making procedure, the proposer first has an opportunity to defend the proposal; the Rules allot a maximum of ten minutes for this, though this can be extended. 

Now comes the time for debate, with one or more speakers for or against the proposal, 5 minutes per speaker.  It may happen that the proposal is clearly in line with other FoEB directions, and if no present Active Members raise clear dissent; under such circumstances the facilitator may test for consensus immediately.  But more often there will be considerable discussion, especially over important issues.  While the discussion may begin with an ordered speaking list, it is not uncommon for discussion to become less structured – that is, to take on the form of a discussion, rather than a formal debate.

It is for the facilitator to judge when discussion has begun to become repetitive or circular; and that is the time to suggest that the proposal be informally tested by means of what is often termed a “straw vote”.  This is the point where in standard decision-making the motion would be put and voted on, and either carried or lost.  This “straw vote” has a much less important role in consensus decision-making – it is merely an indicator of how close consensus is. 

At this point it is usual for the facilitator to summarize what the differences of opinion are and to encourage the group to try to work out whether there is a way to move towards a position that all find sufficiently acceptable. This might be done by amending the original proposal, or by attempting to find a new proposal that includes the best aspects of both the original proposal and the arguments against it.  In terms of the chart, this is represented by the arrows returning to the starting position: discussion in a sense “goes round and round” the cycle until consensus is reached.

It does happen, however, that one or members are opposed to a proposal on the basis of principle.  In this situation, any member or members is entitled to block a proposal. Some words on this seem in order.

Blocking

One feature of consensus decision-making that often seems strange to newcomers to the process is “blocking”.  This is the right of any member to veto a decision.  Blocking can work well where everyone is familiar with what the group is about (Principles and so on); but less well in groups that do not have a core set of agreements.  Clearly blocking is a big responsibility: a member who blocks must genuinely think or feel that a given proposal is contrary to the spirit or letter of the Principles; or is detrimental in some other way to the campaign.

It is vital that a person blocking be able to argue their case for blocking the proposal in question.

It is equally vital that other members respect the stand the person blocking has taken.  If done honestly, it does require courage.  Blocking, done properly, is not merely obstructionist.  It is a sign that there is deep dissatisfaction in a group: the person actually blocking is probably only the tip of an iceberg of uncertainty, and should be supported for bringing the hidden disagreement into the open.

Once a blocking has occurred it is the task of the facilitator to:

• Make clear what the basis of the blocking is;

• Find out whether an amendment to the original problem might be satisfactory to all parties;

• Find out whether there might be some proposal that in a sense encapsulates both the original proposal and the reason for blocking – that is, whether there is a mutually amicable solution;

If these attempts to take the blocker’s position into account do not work – that is, if the block remains – then the facilitator refers the proposal to a formal FoEB decision-making process (technically, a “double-consensus” model), as follows:

Advantages?  Disadvantages?

To some the consensus approach may seem unwieldy, and in some ways it is.  The history of its use in Australia has certainly been somewhat chequered. 

The point is that any decision-making process is open to abuse, be it the powers vested in the Chair in standard decision-making procedures, or be it the power to block.  

Adherents of consensus decision-making argue that while it is certainly true that seeking full consensus can take a lot of time, the time is well spent in getting a better decision, one that feels right for the group as a whole.  Critics don’t necessarily agree.  Those who drafted the FoEB decision-making structure agreed in some measure with the critics, since the move to a 2/3 majority after two rounds of consensus is effectively a circuit-breaker.

The advantage is certainly that opinions are canvassed thoroughly.  Another advantage is that clear factionalism is avoided: there is no clear section of the membership that consistently misses out, since the process encourages inclusion to such a high degree.

But it certainly takes practice – as does any decision-making system.

The chart that flows is a guide to the decision-making model used at FoE.