Consensus democracy

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consensual , partly also as a negotiation democratic referred to (see also consociationalism , proportional democratic , Politikverflechtung ) refers to a form of democratic , in the place of the exercise of power by the majority of dialog and consensus is desired between all. The aim is to create the broadest possible social consensus for political decisions and also to involve representatives of minority opinions. The opposite of consensus democracy is competitive democracy .

background

Striving for consensus, i.e. going beyond the principle of majority decision-making, is a conscious effort of segmentary societies. It is easier to reach majority agreement than it is to reach consensus. The participants are aware of this fact, but they reject the path of least resistance for the following reason: For them, the opinion of the majority in itself is not a sufficient basis for decision-making, because the minority is deprived of the right to be in the given decision also reflects their will.

Or to put it in terms of the concept of representation : it deprives the minority of the right to representation in the decision in question. In consensus democracies, being represented is a fundamental human right . Everyone therefore has the right to be represented not only in the council, but also in the deliberation process itself in relation to any matter that is relevant to his or her interests or those of his group. This is why the principle of consensus is so important. The pragmatic reason given is that repeated not being represented leads to dissatisfaction and thus endangers the balance of the community.

Examples of consensus democracies

Consensus democracy among indigenous peoples

Forms of consensus democracy are and were often found among indigenous peoples ; they are typical of segmentary societies (see also matriarchy ).

Carlos Lenkersdorf (1926-2010), an ethnolinguist , describes the assembly practice in a tojolabal community (a people of Maya descent ) as follows:

“In the congregation everyone speaks and discusses; At the end of the discussion, an older person interprets and sums up the decision that has been reached. He proclaims: 'we think and say ...' "That means, writes Lenkersdorf," due to the fact that he has already taken courage, he succeeds in grasping our collective thinking, and he proclaims it. A consensus has been reached, which is expressed in the word 'we'. This type of gathering shows us the intersubjectivity realized. It is a community that lives thanks to the participation of everyone and everyone. "

The equilibrium in consensus democracies is constantly being renewed through the political means of building consensus. All decisions are made by everyone in unification processes that lead to unanimity, both at the level of the two genders and the entire clan, as well as at the level of the village and the tribe. The structural division of tribal societies by kinship groups, which, comparable to the segments of a citrus fruit, form compact and homogeneously subdivided social parts, can, due to their stability and flexibility, support functional large structures despite the lack of central authorities. The Nilotic Nuer, for example, comprise around 300,000, the West African Tiv even 700,000 people.

In the smallest unit, the Kinship House, women and men form a council from which no member is excluded. Each decision is made by consensus (agreement) after detailed discussion . Now delegates from each clan house meet for the village council to discuss the decisions from the clan houses at village level, whereby a consensus is again found. So it goes on to the tribal level, which includes delegates from across the nation.

It should be emphasized that the respective delegates are not decision-makers, but that every action at regional or national level must be supported by every clan house. This avoids an accumulation of political power. Kenneth Kaunda , the (democratically) deposed President of Zambia , said: “In our original societies we acted according to the principle of consensus. One thing was discussed in a serious get-together until an agreement could be reached. "

Advantages and disadvantages of consensus democracy

Benefits of Consensus Democracy Cons of Consensus Democracy
  • Policy continuity
  • Involvement of minorities
  • Involvement and a say in all interested parties
  • model character for societies with a heterogeneous political culture.
  • Rapid decisions, which may become necessary under special circumstances (e.g. war, natural disasters), could be delayed
  • Possibly too far consideration of the interests of minorities
  • May very time-consuming and personal dissatisfaction with the lack of progress to the goal of action that can lead to the migration of some thinkers ( " brain drain ")
  • Initially complex dealing with procedural issues

Possible methods

  • Dynamic Facilitation
  • Wisdom Council (Council of Wise Men)

See also

literature

  • Roland Czada, Manfred G. Schmidt (ed.): Negotiating democracy, mediation of interests, governability. Festschrift for Gerhard Lehmbruch . Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen 1993, ISBN 3-531-12473-0
  • Stephan Eisel : Minimal consensus and free democracy. A study on the acceptance of the foundations of a democratic order in the Federal Republic of Germany . Paderborn 1986
  • Clemens Jesenitschnig: Gerhard Lehmbruch - Scientist and Work. A critical appreciation . Tectum, Marburg 2010, ISBN 978-3-8288-2509-3 , chapter 3
  • Gerhard Lehmbruch : Negotiating Democracy. Contributions to comparative governance . Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden 2003, ISBN 3-531-14134-1
  • Gerhard Lehmbruch: Concordance Democracy . In: Manfred G. Schmidt (Ed.): Lexicon of Politics, Vol. 3: The western countries . CH Beck, Munich 1992, pp. 206-211.
  • Gerhard Lehmbruch: proportional democracy. Political system and political culture in Switzerland and Austria . Mohr, Tübingen 1967
  • Carlos Lenkersdorf: Los hombres verdaderos. Voces y testimonios tojolabales . Siglo XXI, México 1997
  • Arend Lijphart : Thinking about Democracy. Power Sharing and Majority Rule in Theory and Practice . Routledge, London 2008, ISBN 978-0-415-77267-9
  • Arend Lijphart: Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-six Countries . Yale University Press, New Haven 1999, ISBN 978-0-300-07893-0
  • Rosa Zubizarreta, Matthias zur Bonsen (Ed.): Dynamic Facilitation: The successful moderation method for difficult and confused situations, Beltz, 2014, ISBN 978-3-407-36559-0

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Prof. Dr. Kwasi Wiredu: Consensus in Traditional Africa - A plea for non-party politics, also with us.
  2. ↑ Lenkersdorf 1997, op.cit., P. 80