When our forebears decided to reject violence
and become democratic, they did not base that decision on
a punch-up. Instead they voted; it was as if they had already
decided to be democratic in order to become democratic.
In similar fashion, if ever we decide to adopt
a consensual constitution, we shall do so in a context where
consensual decision-making is already broadly accepted. This
change should not be too difficult because some form of consensual
decision-making seems to be instinctive to our species. It
was found in the city states of ancient Greece , in the pow-wows
of the American Indians and in the councils of elders in Africa
. How, then, can a consensual decision-making process be adapted
to work in societies with populations measured in millions?
Majoritarianism
It must first be appreciated how profoundly
undemocratic is the simple “take-it-or-leave-it”
ballot. In many instances, majority votes do not identify
the will of the people or the will of parliament, but simply
endorse the will of the person who writes the question. In
1800, for example, Napoleon suggested he should be Consul,
and 99% said oui; and in the 1930s, Mussolini and Hitler followed
his fine example, the Italians and the Germans both voting
by 98% for dictatorships.
To-day, the EU is to have a new constitution.
Giscard d’Estaing writes the proposals, and only a few
others like Peter Hain have an actual say. Later on, some
European citizens will have a referendum to approve or veto
his proposals, and the rest of us will watch as our elected
representatives debate the issue in parliament where again
the MPs can do little more than approve or veto.
In a word, the majority vote is at best inaccurate
and inadequate; at worst, it is easily manipulated and the
outcome is totally predictable.
Consensus Decision Making
A more democratic method would allow the people,
or at least parliament, not just to approve but to decide.
So how do we identify the will of the people or its theoretical
equivalent, the will of parliament?
In smaller groups, as in Africa , people talk
and talk until they reach a verbal consensus. With today’s
larger numbers, it is easier to aim for a votal consensus.
In theory, if every voter states his/her first and subsequent
preferences, i.e. if all state their individual compromise
options, it is then possible to identify the best collective
compromise. In practice, this common consensus is the option
with the highest average preference; and an average, by definition,
involves every voter.
To achieve this, the chosen voting procedure
must be multi-optional and preferential, and it must take
all preferences cast into account. This ensures that the outcome
is either the unanimous viewpoint (if such exists), or the
collective wisdom (after much debate, perhaps) or, at the
absolute minimum, the best possible compromise.
In a constitutional context, there should
first be a wide-ranging discussion - an independent commission
or some such - in which everyone would be able to make their
suggestions (provided they complied with certain norms such
as the UN Charter of Human Rights). The commission could then
draw up a short list of options on each of the topics in dispute,
to be presented to the people in a few multi-option polls.
As far as the new European constitution is concerned, this
should be done in an EU-wide vote; the outcome would be the
will of the people; and the executive, the European parliament,
would then execute (and hence the name, of course), that will.
The people could thus choose their electoral
system, for example, by voting on a short list of five options,
as was the case in New Zealand . Under another clause, people
could decide how parliament should choose its executive. It
could either elect the government (by a form of PR or by using
a set formula based on party strengths, as in Switzerland
); or various parties could choose a majority coalition (as
in the Netherlands ), or just one person from the biggest
party could select the government (as in Britain ). Next could
come a very interesting question: how should parliament resolve
any non-urgent disputes? Should there be whipped or free majority
voting, weighted majority voting or multi-option voting? Furthermore,
if it is to be multi-option voting, should it be plurality
voting, serial voting, the alternative vote, a Borda count
or a Condorcet count?
In this way, the vote, and thus the debate
which precedes it, could become an educational process in
itself. At the very least, a multi-option process is more
difficult to manipulate. Secondly, the voter has more choice.
Thirdly, a Borda count is a more accurate measure of collective
opinion. Finally, ipso facto, the outcome is far more likely
to represent, literally, the will of the people, the average
of all of them. And that will be more democratic.
1. Dr. Ephraim Kanyarukiga,
speaking at a conference in Kigali on the ‘gacacas’,
the traditional consensus form of decision-making now being
used throughout Rwanda in a bid to overcome the legacy of
the genocide.
OurKingdom, the new economics foundation and the de Borda Institute recently gave interested parties from think tanks, research groups and campaigning organisations, and members of the general public, the opportunity to participate in an online trial of consensus decision making.
The de Borda Institute and nef (the new economics foundation) have received a grant from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust to test the potential of consensus voting More...
Site information now available in a number
of langugages
