Our Tragic Flaw

Here I continue my review of Barbara Epstein's book Political Protest & Cultural Revolution (see part 1 and part 2) with consideration of one final issue that faced the organizations Epstein examines in the book: the consensus process.

The consensus process was used in the three movements she chronicles, the Clamshell and Abalone Alliances and the Livermore Action Group (LAG), with varying degrees of success. By now, consensus has become a fairly divisive issue in radical movements. As Epstein shows, it can be abused; there are inequalities of power that naturally arise in this, like any other, process; and it requires an enormous investment of energy.

This question, in many ways, goes to the point of my book, Our Tragic Flaw: A Case for Nonviolence. When we bring a frame of mind focused on our own narrow self-interest, a lack of openness to new inputs, and a willingness to impose our agenda on others, we can derail any system, no matter how enlightened. Consensus is no different.

Consensus, in a nutshell, simply creates some process around the basic idea that no important group decision should be made without the consent of everyone in the group. Much like our jury process--it takes all 12 jurors to convict--everyone has to agree to, or at the very least allow (by "standing aside"), any decision that changes the status quo.

On a psychological and social level, consensus is really about how we want to treat people. A majoritarian system says, in effect, no matter how strongly you may disagree, no matter how much deprivation you may suffer, and no matter how objectively true your arguments may be, if less than half of the group (or whatever line is drawn) agrees with you, too bad. Majoritarian systems also pit coalitions of people against one another, and factionalize any group.

Consensus puts a premium, instead, on developing the best possible solution that integrates everyone's wisdom, concerns, and dreams. It de-factionalizes the group by requiring everyone to function in an understanding, empathic way to develop solutions that best meet everyone's needs.

Of course, this does not always happen. This is where nonviolence comes in. Consensus is the very best model I know of because in principle it's perfectly sound (unlike majoritarian and representative systems), and furthermore, because in practice abuses of power and unwillingness to work cooperatively are sharply exposed. I mean to say: as a general rule, when consensus process breaks down, the fault clearly lies with the people trying to implement it, and this forces that group to look at its own functioning.

Consensus naturally draws its participants into a long-term process of becoming increasingly nonviolent as they learn to make the system work as it should. In effect, consensus process is a kind of therapy.

Now, I have been in groups that simply didn't do this work, and the consensus process was therefore always at least a little broken. Of course this can happen. But again, that just revealed all the more starkly how little the real practice of nonviolence had been integrated into the group itself.

Alongside the vital work of organizing dual power projects, exposing injustices and absurdities, and building better systems, it is essential that we all look inward as well. How we relate to power and how we use power in our own groups and relationships has everything to do with the kind of revolution we are making. Nothing could be more important.