Finding Unity: Beyond Majority Rule

On this election day, I’m thinking about “Beyond Majority Rule,” Michael Sheeran's classic about the vote-less Quaker decision-making process.

Today’s voting, if it is conclusive, presumably will assert the will of the majority. Of course, the vagrancies of our anachronistic Electoral College may get in the way of that. And there is always the possibility of multiple recounts and legal determinations of legitimate ballots and voters etc.

Sooner or later there will be winners and losers.

That's a problem for the nation. Moreover, the winners will inherit a losing, divided system of governance. In a sense they will lose to the system. The winners in one branch of government will be the losers in the other.

Some call this "balance" of power "brilliant," but in these challenging times and from my own experience with Quaker decision-making, I'm finding it increasingly absurd and even dangerous.

The Quaker process is refreshingly different and simple. It forbids voting per se because the unity of the Quaker meeting is far more valuable than deciding winners and losers.

In secular terms, the Quaker process calls for reaching consensus. But that doesn’t capture the essence of how Friends decide what to do.

The decision is an amalgam of views that emerge in the course of finding common ground and then articulating it in the form of a motion for action. An action "minute" is read. If someone disagrees, that person is asked to explain and suggest alternative language that will address the concern. Once that is offered, Friends are asked again whether they are “in agreement.” The process continues until agreement is reached by all.

(There is a spiritual side to this as well. Indeed, Friends, as Quakers call themselves, often settle into  meditative silence to seek the solution to the issue at hand. If all goes well, they are “spirit-led” to "finding unity.")

After much discussion and contemplation, some Friends may choose to “stand aside,” an acknowledgement that a “sense of the meeting” has been reached even though those stepping aside may not fully agree with it. They realize that the decision is the meeting's, not that of a collection of individuals.

Could this process work in the governance of a nation — in choosing a president and Congress as we will do today?

For starters, polarized, hardened partisan politics seems antithetical to the Quaker approach. To reform our present system, parties would have to be abolished. More likely, they would simply be made irrelevant. If the object is no longer to win an election but to find agreement for the greater good, non-partisanship seems the only alternative.

Likewise, the process is not about politicians but about ideas and actions. Those ideas and actions shouldn’t be voted on but forged in public by those valuing the public interest first and foremost. Paid lobbyists for private interests, whose views would be heard and weighed, would be barred from deliberations as their motives clearly would be compromised by money.

The executive branch, in our case the presidency, would have the sole function of executing the agreed-upon results of the deliberations. A president would be chosen by an independent group skilled at assessing administrative skills. That body also would arrive at its choice by consensus. There would be no majority or minority view. All would be winners; none would lose.

The composition of the independent selection group would be determined using the same process. Any slate offered to the community must be approved in its entirety. No need to single out those opposed. The whole slate would be rejected and then a new one brought forward for consideration. Without comment, some of the previous names might appear, some might not. In all cases, reputations are respected and protected.

How very alien this is to the exercise we will participate in tomorrow. How far this is from what will happen over the next four years.

Obviously this short essay doesn’t begin to address all the relevant questions, but it may suggest a new way of thinking about governance and government. It begins to address to offer a desperate need in our nation: finding unity.

That's what Quakers have, more of less, managed to do for 350 years.

On reaching consensus

First, thanks to Commissioner Randy Leonard for responding to my post about the Interstate Avenue renaming issue and about the mayor’s self-described “irrelevancy.”

I’ve written a response in which I urge Leonard and his colleagues (including the mayor) to look at the larger issue behind renaming the street. To do so might get the City Council (and other interested parties) back to a point where they could find consensus.

His response to that is that all parties, sadly, seem deadlocked.

Which takes me back to consensus, where I left off yesterday….

In the piles of books donated for our Dec. 9 Hillsdale Book Sale, I came across a well used workbook put out by Pace e Bene Franciscan Non-violence Center. I shared a couple of César Chavez quotations in yesterday’s post. I hope Commissioner Leonard and the other members of the council are familiar with them. Indeed, I hope everyone becomes familiar with them. I confess I wasn’t until I browsed through the workbook.

The workbook also has a concise section on “The Consensus Process” which I also recommend to the council and to anyone else involved in group decision making.

As a Quaker, I well versed in reaching consensus (or, as Friends say, a “sense of the Meeting”) because that is the way Quakers conduct all their business. I also have used the techniques of consensus in chairing various neighborhood committees, and I have made “believers” of friends and neighbors who have been part of the process.

Consensus is a powerful tool.

I find it interesting, and frankly ironic, that an institution within the hierarchical Catholic Church would advocate consensus. But then the Franciscans have always marched to their own drummer. Dare I say, “Thank God!”?)

But there’s more. How to explain that one of the best books written about Quaker consensus-making is “Beyond Majority Rule” by Michael J. Sheeran, a Jesuit scholar? Actually, Sheeran traces the connection between the Catholic Church and consensus to the notion of “Communal Discernment” among early Christians. For more, read this excellent book.

Now, back to the Franciscan workbook on non-violence and its brief section on consensus. City Council members (and others) make note!

The workbook neglects to talk about who should be at the table in the first place. The answer is all (and I do mean ALL) stakeholders. In the case of the street renaming proposal, the gathering should include commercial property owners on Interstate Avenue, leaders of the Hispanic community, City Council members and any others who have a serious, legitimate interest.

The goal is to find agreement, if possible. But there are other important benefits. To quote from the workbook, “Through consensus, we are not only working to achieve better solutions, but also to promote the growth of community and trust. It is also a process which invests everyone in the outcome and in the responsibility to carry it out.”

The workbook presents four brief sections that apply to the naming controversy.

“Voting (as opposed to consensus decision-making) is a win or lose model in which people are more concerned with the numbers it takes to win than with the issue itself. Voting does not take into account individual feelings or needs.”

“With consensus …no ideas are lost; each member’s input is valued as part of the solution.”

“(Consensus) means that the final decision doesn’t violate someone’s fundamental moral values, for if it did, they would be obliged to block consensus….”

“…when (consensus) works, collective intelligence does come up with better solutions than could individuals.”

I’d add one more Quakerly aspect. Periods of silent reflection (whether for minutes or days) bring wisdom and dignity to the process. Time is NOT, and must not be, of the essence. (And time may be needed in the present stalemate as it is described by Leonard.)

In my experience, all of the above are true. If the City Council members would employ the techniques of consensus, I believe they (and the entire city) would benefit from these truths.