“Lack of consensus reflected differences in theoretical positions” The use of consensus gives us a taste of how things could be done differently. It aims to dismantle all kinds of hierarchies and replace them with shared power. It is based on the values of equality, freedom, cooperation and respect for the needs of all. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of 1569-1795 used consensual decisions in its Sejms (legislative assemblies) in the form of liberum veto. A kind of unanimous approval, the Liberum Veto originally allowed any member of a Diet to veto a single law using Sisto activitatem! (Latin: “I stop the activity!”) or Nie pozwalam! (Polish: “I don`t allow!”).  Over time, it developed into a much more extreme form, in which any member of the Diet could unilaterally and immediately force the end of the current session and repeal all previously passed laws of that session.  Due to the excessive use and deliberate sabotage by neighboring powers bribing members of the Diet, legislation became very difficult and weakened the Commonwealth. Shortly after the Commonwealth banned the Liberum Veto as part of its Constitution of 3 May 1791, it dissolved under pressure from neighbouring powers.  Bringing together different ideas and trying to find a proposal acceptable to all is at the heart of the consensus.
We call this process synthesis: finding connections between seemingly competing ideas and weaving them into proposals. Through consensual decision-making, a group is able to make decisions through conscious discussion in which: “These rights and obligations are based on tacit consensus” Consensus decisions are an alternative to the group`s usual decision-making processes.  Robert`s Rules of Procedure, for example, are a guide used by many organizations. This book makes it possible to structure the debate and to adopt proposals by majority. It does not emphasize the goal of a comprehensive agreement. Critics of such a process believe that it may involve adversarial debate and the formation of competing factions. This dynamic can damage relations between group members and impair a group`s ability to implement a contested decision in cooperation. Consensual decisions attempt to address the beliefs of these problems.
Proponents argue that the results of the consensus process include: The most robust consensus models exclude uniform unanimous decisions and require at least documentation of minority concerns. Some make it clear that unanimity is not consensus, but rather evidence of intimidation, lack of imagination, lack of courage, non-inclusion of all voices, or deliberate exclusion of opposing points of view. In other words, the confusion between unanimity and consensus usually leads to the failure of consensual decisions, and the group then returns to majority or super-majority rule or dissolves. Other common options for decision-making in volunteer groups and co-operatives include an elected committee or direct vote on each decision. These methods have their advantages, and each group must decide what is best for them. Here we explain what we consider to be the advantages of consensus over these options. We`ve also included the “informal hierarchy” – which describes a situation where groups are trying to reach consensus, but some people have much more control than others. One tradition to support approximate consensus is the tradition of buzzing and not (countable) hand lifting; This allows a group to quickly recognize the prevalence of dissent without it being easy to slip into majority rule.
 It is important that everyone has a common understanding of the process used by the meeting. There are many variations of the consensus process, so even if people have experience in using consensus, they may use it differently than you! Group chords or manual signals can also be used, which needs to be explained. Radical Routes is a British self-help network with around 40 member cooperatives. Decisions are made by consensus using a delegated assembly structure. The network meets four times a year at business meetings to make various decisions, including the review of member unions` proposals for the Radical Routes loan fund. All attempts to reach consensus begin with a good faith attempt to obtain full consent, regardless of the threshold of the decision rule. It`s much easier to use consensus continuously when the right conditions are in place: we`ve listed a few key factors here. If your group is struggling, this checklist should help you identify the underlying issues that you need to address to have a better consensus experience.
Alternatively, if your group is far from meeting these conditions, you may decide that consensus at this time is not good for you. Don`t be afraid of disagreements and conflicts. Consensus does not mean that we all think the same thing. Disagreements are natural and predictable. Disagreements can help a group make a decision, because with a wide range of information and opinions, there is a greater chance that the group will find good solutions. An easily attainable consensus can mask the fact that some people don`t feel safe or confident enough to express their disagreements. If you want to come up with a solution that works for everyone, you really have to deal with different needs and ideas. Be creative in your thinking, consensus thrives by mixing many different ideas. After freely discussing the subject, move on to an agreement on what to do. Decision-making by consensus governed the 19th Ordinary Session (1964-1965) and has played a key role in the practice of the General Assembly since then.
The number of member states has increased over time and, according to Oppenheim, the preference for consensus reflects the fact that the interests and positions of member states have also diversified. Since the decisions of the General Assembly express the opinion or will of the institution as a whole, it is desirable to reach as broad an agreement as possible among States. Before you jump into decision-making, it`s worth asking yourself if consensus is the right process for that particular topic. For example, in an emergency, appointing temporary leaders or an emergency group may be the smartest course of action. Consensus is a decision-making approach that aims to gain the support of the entire group for this decision. Many people believe that consensus is the same as unanimous approval, but that is not necessarily the case. Unanimity is when everyone agrees. Consensus is when no one disagrees. Groups are often blocked when individuals or factions adopt strong conflicting positions. Remember that consensus is about working together to find solutions, not competing. Sticking to our personal agendas and opinions is often an obstacle to this collaboration. Encourage self-reflection.
When the language of a discussion starts to take on sounds of “one or the other,” pause and try to encourage a more flexible mindset when you return. For example, ask people to take the perspective they like the least to help them understand the other side of the conflict. Or take on new ideas to surpass those you`ve stayed with. Or identify all the things you have in common and see if you can create a new proposal from there. Outside of Western culture, several other cultures have made consensual decisions. An early example is the Grand Council of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) of the Confederacy, which used a super-majority of 75% to finalize its decisions, perhaps as early as 1142.  In the Xulu and Xhosa (South African) processes, community leaders come together to listen to the public and negotiate figurative thresholds for an acceptable compromise. The technology was also used at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in 2015.   In the Cultures of Aceh and Nias (Indonesian), family and regional conflicts, from playground struggles to legacies, are addressed through a Musyawarah consensus-building process in which the parties mediate to find peace and avoid future hostility and revenge.
The resulting agreements must be followed and range from advice and warnings to compensation and exile.   Moderator: “Does anyone else disagree? No? OK, I think we have a consensus. Let`s just check – raise your hand if you agree with the proposal. Great, we have a consensus, with a caveat. Is the question important enough to require consensus from the entire group? For example, the whole group really has to decide together whether lunch should last half an hour or an hour, or whether this decision would be better made by one person (who can assess people`s needs). Coalitions and alliances formed between pre-existing groups, for example to address a particular problem, may find it difficult to reach consensus. Often, the groups involved have different goals and working methods, and some may not be engaged in consensus. For example, if one of the groups is accustomed to decision-making methods, where different factions each try to “win” an argument, it may be more difficult for them to be flexible with their opinion and work to find solutions acceptable to all. High-stakes decisions, such as decisions of . B court decisions of the courts of appeal always require such explicit documentation. However, there is still a consensus that opposes fractional statements.
Nearly 40% of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, for example, are unanimous, although often for very different reasons. “Consensus in the Supreme Court vote, especially the extreme consensus of unanimity, has often confused judicial observers who adhere to ideological reports on judicial decision-making.”  The historical evidence as to whether the opinions of some judges have been suppressed in favour of public unity varies.  Consent Status; harmony of opinion, statement, action or character; compliance; Harmony; compliance; because there is a good agreement between the members of the Council […].