consensus (mohan hiralal)

Consensus Decision-making

EditorMohan Hirabai Hiralal

Vrikshamitra, Chandrapur / Gadchiroli(Maharashtra, India)

Published by :Mohan Hirabai HiralalConvener, ‘Vrikshamitra’Near Chiddarwar HospitalShende Plot, RamnagarChandrapur - 442401(Maharashtra, India)

Tel.: 07172-258134Mobile: 9422835234

e-mail: [email protected]: www.vrikshamitra.org

Printed by :Ranjeet DesaiParamdham MudranalayaPavnar, Dist. Wardha

(Maharashtra, India) 442111

Contribution:Rs. 10/-

* Introduction - - - - - - - - - - - - 4

1. Exracts from ‘ACT UP’ : Civil Disobedience Training Manual - - - - - - - - - - - - 6

2. Extracts from the book ‘On Conflict and Consensus : A Handbook on Formal Consensus Decision-making’ by C.T. Lawrence Butler and Amy Rothstein - - - - - - - 10ghis Bhoodan [Land-gift] Movementwwwwwww3. Extracts from the speeches of Vinoba in the 1950’s during his Bhoodan [Land-gift] Movement - - - - - - - - - - - 28

4. Mendha and the Theory and Practice of Consensus - - - - - - - - - - - - 30

* Appendix: Extracts from ‘Hind-Swaraj’ by M.K. Gandhi - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34

Index:

Printed by :Shyam BrothersGaneshpeth, Nagpur(India) 440018

There are five possible methods of decision-making :

Autocracy —One person makes the decisions for everyone.

Oligarchy —A few people make the decisions for everyone.

Representative democracy —A few people are elected to make the decisionsfor everyone.

Majority rule democracy —The majority makes the decisions for everyone.

Consensus democracy —Everyone makes the decisions for everyone.

The first four methods have been tried, and are beingtried everywhere for making decisions.

They have proved highly unsatisfactory in solving thepeople’s problems; they have rather aggravated conflicts.Instead of empowering the people, they have strengthenedthe forces that exploit them, dominate over them.

Consensus decision-making has hardly been tried; itis dismissed as Utopian.

This booklet seeks to show that it is not so; it is pos-sible. In fact, this is the method that must be tried if hu-man emancipation is the goal.

Intr oduction

Participatory democracy, strengthening of civil society,popular initiatives through NGOs—all these have now becomea part of the current political discourse. That the base of de-mocracy—and therefore participation of the people in the demo-cratic process—should be widened, is being appreciated, at leastat the theoretical level. In fact, as long as equal participationof all the people is lacking, ‘democracy’ is just a misnomer.Vinoba had written in 1941,

“There is a polity that calls itself ‘democracy’ and poses assarvayatan (Rule by all). Its show is going on in Europe andAmerica. But no system based on violence can be termedsarvayatan even if it pretends to work on the principle pf ‘oneman - one vote’”

‘Rule by all’ is what should be aimed at. And to advancein that direction, ways and means ought to be developed forthe equal participation of all in making and implementing de-cisions that concern them.

It is here that consensus decision-making is crucial. Anyother decision-making process is bound to be violent. Brand-ing consensus decision-making as Utopian will therefore takeus nowhere. If it is desirable, then what is needed is to thinkwith wisdom and creativity and make experiments to make ita reality.

During the great Gramdan Movement, Vinoba exhortedthe people, again and again, to work in this direction; for thereinlies the key to the success of the self-governance of the villagecommunity—the Gram-swaraj. Thousands of villages declaredtheir resolve to follow this path. But the Movement unfortu-nately stagnated, and ultimately petered out in the absence ofgrassroot work, which would undoubtedly have included ex-periments in consensus decision-making.

4

It is heartening in this context that the issue is again beingdebated in the West. The efforts in the West, however, are lim-ited to groups of like-minded people or intentional communi-ties. Reaching consensus in village communities much moreheterogeneous is certainly much more challenging and muchmore difficult. But that is what needs to be attempted.

Revolutions have failed because the revolutionaries triedto ‘make’ revolutions ‘for’ the people. If the end being soughtis the freedom for all, then the means must be commensurateto it. It is high time that we realize that ‘process is the key’.

The spectre of globalisation has made the search for con-sensus decision-making all the more urgent. States are kneel-ing down before the evil forces of market, and collaboratingwith them, abandoning the interests of the people which theypretend to guard. Now people must rise against this unholy al-liance; for not only their freedom but also the very existenceof human values is at stake. And consensus decision-makingis the only process that can bring and keep the people togetherby harmonising their varied sentiments, interests and view-points.

This little booklet is therefore timely. This is a commend-able initiative on the part of ‘Vrikshamitra’ and its convenerMohan Hirabai Hiralal. Let us hope that it generates discus-sion on this issue.

- Parag Cholkar

5

- 1 -(From ACT UP : Civil Disobedience Training Manual)

What is consensus?Consensus is a process for group decision-making. It is a

method by which an entire group of people can come to anagreement. The input and ideas of all participants are gatheredand synthesized to arrive at a final decision acceptable to all.Through consensus, we are not only working to achieve bettersolutions, but also to promote the growth of community andtrust.Consensus vs. voting

Voting is a means by which we choose one alternative fromseveral. Consensus, on the other hand, is a process of synthe-sizing many diverse elements together.

Voting is a win or lose model, in which people are moreoften concerned with the numbers it takes to “win” than withthe issue itself. Voting does not take into account individualfeelings or needs. In essence, it is a quantitative, rather thanqualitative, method of decision-making.

With consensus people can and should work through dif-ferences and reach a mutually satisfactory position. It is pos-sible for one person’s insights or strongly held beliefs to swaythe whole group. No ideas are lost, each member’s input is val-ued as part of the solution.

A group committed to consensus may utilize other formsof decision-making (individual, compromise, majority rule)when appropriate; however, a group that has adopted aconsensus model will use that process for any item that bringsup a lot of emotions, is something that concerns people’s ethics,politics, morals or other areas where there is much investment.

What does consensus mean?Consensus does not mean that everyone thinks that the

decision made is necessarily the best one possible, or even thatthey are sure it will work. What it does mean is that in comingto that decision, no one felt that her/his position on the matterwas misunderstood or that it wasn’t given a proper hearing.Hopefully, everyone will think it is the best decision; this of-ten happens because, when it works, collective intelligence doescome up with better solutions than could individuals.

Consensus takes more time and member skills, but useslots of resources before a decision is made, creates commit-ment to the decision and often facilitates creative decision. Itgives everyone some experience with new processes of inter-action and conflict resolution, which is basic but important skill-building. For consensus to be a positive experience, it is best ifthe group has (1) common values, (2) some skill in group pro-cess and conflict resolution, or a commitment to let these befacilitated, (3) commitment and responsibility to the group byits members and (4) sufficient time for everyone to participatein the process.Forming the consensus proposals

During discussion a proposal for resolution is put forward.It is amended and modified through more discussion, or with-drawn if it seems to be a dead end. During this discussion pe-riod it is important to articulate differences clearly. It is the re-sponsibility of those who are having trouble with a proposal toput forth alternative suggestions.

The fundamental right of consensus is for all people to beable to express themselves in their own words and of their ownwill. The fundamental responsibility of consensus is to assureothers of their right to speak and be heard. Coercion and trade-offs are replaced with creative alternatives, and compromisewith synthesis.

Consensus Decision-making / 7

6

When a proposal seems to be well understood by every-one, and there are no new changes asked for, the facilitator(s)can ask if there are any objections or reservations to it. If thereare no objections, there can be a call for consensus. If there arestill no objections, then after a moment of silence you haveyour decision. Once consensus does appear to have beenreached, it really helps to have someone repeat the decision tothe group so everyone is clear on what has been decided.Dif ficulties in reaching consensus

If a decision has been reached, or is on the verge of beingreached that you cannot support, there are several ways to ex-press your objections:

Non-support (“I don’t see the need for this, but I’ll goalong.”)

Reservations (“I think this may be a mistake but I can livewith it.”)

Standing aside (“I personally can’t do this, but I won’t stopothers from doing it.”)

Blocking (“I cannot support this or allow the group to sup-port this. It is immoral.” If a decision violates someone’s fun-damental moral values he/she is obligated to block consensus.)

Withdrawing fr om the group. Obviously, if many peopleexpress non-support or reservations or stand aside or leave thegroup, it may not be a viable decision even if no one directlyblocks it. This is what is known as a “lukewarm” consensusand it is just as desirable as a lukewarm bath.

If consensus is blocked and no new consensus can bereached, the group stays with whatever the previous decisionwas on the subject, or does nothing if that is applicable. Majorphilosophical or moral questions that will come up with eachaffinity group will have to be worked through as soon as thegroup forms.

Roles in a consensus meetingThere are several roles which, if filled, can help consen-

sus decision-making run smoothly. The facilitator(s) aids thegroup in defining decisions that need to be made, helps themthrough the stages of reaching an agreement, keeps the meet-ing moving, focuses discussion to the point at hand; makes sureeveryone has the opportunity to participate, and formulates andtests to see if consensus has been reached. Facilitators help todirect the process of the meeting, not its content. They nevermake decisions for the group. If a facilitator feels too emotion-ally involved in an issue or discussion and cannot remain neu-tral in behavior, if not in attitude, then s/he should ask some-one to take over the task of facilitation for that agenda item.

A vibes-watcher is someone besides the facilitator whowatches and comments on individual and group feelings andpatterns of participation. Vibes-watchers need to be speciallytuned in to the group dynamics.

A recorder can take notes on the meeting, especially ofdecisions made and means of implementation and a time-keeperkeeps things going on schedule so that each agenda item canbe covered in the time allotted for it. (If discussion runs overthe time for an item, the group may or may not decide to con-tract for more time to finish up.)

Even though individuals take on these roles, all partici-pants in a meeting should be aware of and involved in the is-sues, process, and feelings of the group, and should share theirindividual expertise in helping the group run smoothly andreach a decision. This is especially true when it comes to find-ing compromise agreements to seemingly contradictory posi-tions.

Consensus Decision-making / 8 Consensus Decision-making / 9

- 2 -(Extracts from the book ‘On Conflict and Consensus : A Hand-

book on Formal Consensus Decision-making’by C.T. Lawrence Butler and Amy Rothstein)

Formal ConsensusWe must learn to live together cooperatively, resolving our

conflicts nonviolently and making our decisions consensually.We must learn to value diversity and respect all life, not juston a physical level, but emotionally, intellectually, and spiritu-ally. We are all in this together.

We believe that it is inherently better to involve every per-son who is affected by the decision in the decision-making pro-cess. This is true for several reasons. The decision would re-flect the will of the entire group, not just the leadership. Thepeople who carry out the plans will be more satisfied with theirwork.

Formal Consensus has a clearly defined structure. It re-quires a commitment to active cooperation, disciplined speak-ing and listening, and respect for the contributions of everymember. Likewise, every person has the responsibility to ac-tively participate as a creative individual within the structure.

Avoidance, denial, and repression of conflict is commonduring meetings. Therefore, using Formal Consensus might notbe easy at first. Unresolved conflict from previous experiencescould come rushing forth and make the process difficult, if notimpossible. Practice and discipline, however, will smoothen theprocess. The benefit of everyone’s participation and coopera-tion is worth the struggle it may initially take to ensure that allvoices are heard.Conflict

While decision-making is as much about conflict as it isabout agreement, Formal Consensus works best in an atmo-

sphere in which conflict is encouraged, supported, and resolvedcooperatively with respect, nonviolence, and creativity. Con-flict is desirable. It is not something to be avoided, dismissed,diminished, or denied.Majority Rule and Competition

Generally speaking, when a group votes using majority ruleor parliamentary procedure, a competitive dynamic is createdwithin the group because it is being asked to choose betweentwo (or more) possibilities. It is just as acceptable to attack anddiminish another’s point of view as it is to promote and en-dorse your own ideas. Often, voting occurs before one side re-veals anything about itself, but spends time solely attacking theopponent ! In this adversarial environment, one’s ideas areowned and often defended in the face of improvements.Consensus and Cooperation

Consensus process, on the other hand, creates a coopera-tive dynamic. Only one proposal is considered at a time. Ev-eryone works together to make it the best possible decision forthe group. Any concerns are raised and resolved, sometimesone by one, until all voices are heard. Since proposals are nolonger the property of the presenter, a solution can be createdmore cooperatively.Proposals

In the consensus process, only proposals which intend toaccomplish the common purpose are considered. During dis-cussion of a proposal, everyone works to improve the proposalto make it the best decision for the group. All proposals areadopted unless the group decides it is contrary to the best in-terests of the group.The least violent decision-making process

Traditional nonviolence theory holds that the use of powerto dominate is violent and undesirable. Nonviolence expects


10

people to use their power to persuade without deception, coer-cion, or malice, using truth, creativity, logic, respect, and love.Majority rule voting process and parliamentary procedure bothaccept, and even encourage, the use of power to dominate oth-ers. The goal is the winning of the vote, often regardless ofanother choice which might be in the best interest of the wholegroup. The will of the majority supersedes the concerns anddesires of the minority. This is inherently violent. Consensusstrives to take into account everyone’s concerns and resolvethem before any decision is made. Most importantly, this pro-cess encourages an environment in which everyone is respectedand all contributions are valued.The most democratic decision-making process

Groups which desire to involve as many people as pos-sible need to use an inclusive process. To attract and involvelarge numbers, it is important that the process encourages par-ticipation, allows equal access to power, develops cooperation,promotes empowerment, and creates a sense of individual re-sponsibility for the group’s actions. All of these are cornerstonesof Formal Consensus. The goal of consensus is not the selec-tion of several options, but the development of one decisionwhich is the best for the whole group. It is synthesis and evo-lution, not competition and attrition.Formal consensus works better when more peopleparticipate

Consensus is more than the sum total of ideas of the indi-viduals in the group. During discussion, ideas build one uponthe next, generating new ideas, until the best decision emerges.This dynamic is called the creative interplay of ideas. Creativ-ity plays a major part as everyone strives to discover what isbest for the group. The more people involved in this coopera-tive process, the more ideas and possibilities are generated.Consensus works best with everyone participating.

Formal Consensus is not inherentlytime-consuming

Decisions are not an end in themselves. Decision-makingis a process which starts with an idea and ends with the actualimplementation of the decision. While it may be true in an au-tocratic process that decisions can be made quickly, the actualimplementation will take time. When one person or a smallgroup of people makes a decision for a larger group, the deci-sion not only has to be communicated to the others, but it alsohas to be acceptable to them or its implementation will needto be forced upon them. This will certainly take time, perhapsa considerable amount of time. On the other hand, if everyoneparticipates in the decision-making, the decision does not needto be communicated and its implementation does not need tobe forced upon the participants. The decision may take longerto make, but once it is made, implementation can happen in atimely manner.

The amount of time a decision takes to make from startto finish is not a factor of the process used; rather, it is a fac-tor of the complexity of the proposal itself. An easy decisiontakes less time than a difficult, complex decision, regardlessof the process used or the number of people involved.On Decision-making

Decisions are adopted when all participants consent to theresult of discussion about the original proposal. People who donot agree with a proposal are responsible for expressing theirconcerns. No decision is adopted until there is resolution ofevery concern. When concerns remain after discussion, indi-viduals can agree to disagree by acknowledging that they haveunresolved concerns, but consent to the proposal anyway andallow it to be adopted. Therefore, reaching consensus does notassume that everyone must be in complete agreement, a highlyunlikely situation in a group of intelligent, creative individuals.


Formal Consensus is presented in levels or cycles. In thefirst level, the idea is to allow everyone to express their per-spective, including concerns, but group time is not spent onresolving problems. In the second level the group focuses itsattention on identifying concerns, still not resolving them. Thisrequires discipline. Reactive comments, even funny ones, andresolutions, even good ones, can suppress the creative ideas ofothers. Not until the third level does the structure allow for ex-ploring resolutions.

Each level has a different scope and focus. At the firstlevel, the scope is broad, allowing the discussion to considerthe philosophical and political implications as well as the gen-eral merits and drawbacks and other relevant information. Theonly focus is on the proposal as a whole. Some decisions canbe reached after discussion at the first level. At the second level,the scope of the discussion is limited to the concerns. They areidentified and publicly listed, which enables everyone to getan overall picture of the concerns. The focus of attention is onidentifying the body of concerns and grouping similar ones.At the third level, the scope is very narrow. The focus of dis-cussion is limited to a single unresolved concern until it is re-solved.

Try to encourage comments which take the whole proposalinto account; i.e., why it is a good idea, or general problemswhich need to be addressed. Discussion at this level often hasa philosophical or principled tone, purposely addressing howthis proposal might affect the group in the long run or whatkind of precedent it might create, etc. It helps every proposalto be discussed in this way, before the group engages in re-solving particular concerns. Do not allow one concern to be-come the focus of the discussion. When particular concerns areraised, make note of them but encourage the discussion to moveback to the proposal as a whole. Encourage the creative inter-

play of comments and ideas. Allow for the addition of any rel-evant factual information. For those who might at first feel op-posed to the proposal, this discussion is consideration of whyit might be good for the group in the broadest sense. Their ini-tial concerns might, in fact, be of general concern to the wholegroup. And, for those who initially support the proposal, thisis a time to think about the proposal broadly and some of thegeneral problems.

If there seems to be general approval of the proposal, thefacilitator, or someone recognized to speak, can request a callfor consensus.Call for Consensus

The facilitator asks, “Are there any unresolved concerns?”or “Are there any concerns remaining?” After a period of si-lence, if no additional concerns are raised, the facilitator de-clares that consensus is reached and the proposal is read forthe record.

The length of silence ought to be directly related to thedegree of difficulty in reaching consensus; an easy decision re-quires a short silence, a difficult decision requires a longer si-lence. This encourages everyone to be at peace in acceptingthe consensus before moving on to other business. At this point,the facilitator assigns task responsibilities or sends the deci-sion to a committee for implementation.

It is important to note that the question is not “Is thereconsensus?” or “Does everyone agree?”. These questions donot encourage an environment in which all concerns can beexpressed. If some people have a concern, but are shy or in-timidated by a strong showing of support for a proposal, thequestion “Are there any unresolved concerns?” speaks directlyto them and provides an opportunity for them to speak. Anyconcerns for which someone stands aside are listed with theproposal and become a part of it.


Rules of Formal Consensus:1. Once a decision has been adopted by consensus, it can-

not be changed without reaching a new consensus. If a newconsensus cannot be reached, the old decision stands.

2. In general, only one person has permission to speak atany moment. The person with permission to speak is determinedby the group discussion technique in use and/or the facilitator.

3. All structural decisions (i.e., which roles to use, whofills each role, and which facilitation technique and/or groupdiscussion technique to use) are adopted by consensus withoutdebate. Any objection automatically causes a new selection tobe made. If a role cannot be filled without objection, the groupproceeds without that role being filled. If much time is spenttrying to fill roles or find acceptable techniques, then the groupneeds a discussion about the unity of purpose of this group andwhy it is having this problem, a discussion which must be puton the agenda for the next meeting, if not held immediately.

4. All content decisions (i.e., the agenda contract, com-mittee reports, proposals, etc.) are adopted by consensus afterdiscussion. Every content decision must be openly discussedbefore it can be tested for consensus.

5. A concern must be based upon the principles of thegroup to justify a block to consensus.

6. Every meeting which uses Formal Consensus must havean evaluation.On Conflict and Consensus

Conflict is usually viewed as an impediment to reachingagreements and disruptive to peaceful relationships. However,it is the underlying thesis of Formal Consensus that nonvio-lent conflict is necessary and desirable. It provides the motiva-tions for improvement. The challenge is the creation of an un-derstanding in all who participate that conflict, or differing opin-

ions about proposals, is to be expected and acceptable. Do notavoid or repress conflict. Create an environment in which dis-agreement can be expressed without fear. Objections and criti-cisms can be heard not as attacks, not as attempts to defeat aproposal, but as a concern which, when resolved, will makethe proposal stronger.

This understanding of conflict may not be easily acceptedby the members of a group. Our training by society underminesthis concept. Therefore, it will not be easy to create the kind ofenvironment where differences can be expressed without fearor resentment. But it can be done. It will require tolerance anda willingness to experiment. Additionally, the values and prin-ciples which form the basis of commitment to work togetherto resolve conflict need to be clearly defined, and accepted byall involved.

If a group desires to adopt Formal Consensus as its deci-sion-making process, the first step is the creation of a State-ment of Purpose or Constitution. This document would describenot only the common purpose, but would also include the defi-nition of the group’s principles and values. If the group dis-cusses and writes down its foundation of principles at the start,it is much easier to determine group versus individual concernslater on.

The following are principles which form the foundationof Formal Consensus. A commitment to these principles and/or a willingness to develop them is necessary. In addition tothe ones listed herein, the group might add principles and val-ues which are specific to its purpose.Foundation Upon Which Consensus Is Built

For consensus to work well, the process must be conductedin an environment which promotes trust, respect, and skill shar-ing. The following are principles which, when valued and re-spected, encourage and build consensus.


TrustForemost is the need for trust. Without some amount of

trust, there will be no cooperation or nonviolent resolution toconflict. For trust to flourish, it is desirable for individuals tobe willing to examine their attitudes and be open to new ideas.Acknowledgment and appreciation of personal and cultural dif-ferences promote trust. Neither approval nor friendship are nec-essary for a good working relationship. By developing trust,the process of consensus encourages the intellectual and emo-tional development of the individuals within a group.

RespectIt is everyone’s responsibility to show respect to one an-

other. People feel respected when everyone listens, when theyare not interrupted, when their ideas are taken seriously. Re-spect for emotional as well as logical concerns promotes thekind of environment necessary for developing consensus. Topromote respect, it is important to distinguish between an ac-tion which causes a problem and the person who did the ac-tion, between the deed and the doer. We must criticize the act,not the person. Even if you think the person is the problem,responding that way never resolves anything.

Unity of PurposeUnity of purpose is a basic understanding about the goals

and purpose of the group. Of course, there will be varying opin-ions on the best way to accomplish these goals. However, theremust be a unifying base, a common starting point, which isrecognized and accepted by all.

NonviolenceNonviolent decision-makers use their power to achieve

goals while respecting differences and cooperating with oth-ers. In this environment, it is considered violent to use powerto dominate or control the group process. It is understood thatthe power of revealing your truth is the maximum force allowed

to persuade others to your point of view.Self-empowermentIt is easy for people to unquestioningly rely on authorities

and experts to do their thinking and decision-making for them.If members of a group delegate their authority, intentionally ornot, they fail to accept responsibility for the group’s decisions.Consensus promotes and depends upon self0empowerment.Anyone can express concerns. Everyone seeks creative solu-tions and is responsible for every decision. When all are en-couraged to participate, the democratic nature of the processincreases.

CooperationUnfortunately, Western society is saturated in competition.

When winning arguments becomes more important than achiev-ing the group’s goals, cooperation is difficult, if not impossible.Adversarial attitudes toward proposals or people focus atten-tion on weakness rather than strength. An attitude of helpful-ness and support builds cooperation. Cooperation is a sharedresponsibility in finding solutions to all concerns. Ideas offeredin the spirit of cooperation help resolve conflict. The best de-cisions arise through an open and creative interplay of ideas.

Conflict ResolutionThe free flow of ideas, even among friends, inevitably

leads to conflict. In this context, conflict is simply the expres-sion of disagreement. Disagreement itself is neither good norbad. Diverse viewpoints bring into focus and explore thestrengths and weaknesses of attitudes, assumptions, and plans.Without conflict, one is less likely to think about and evaluateone’s views and prejudices. There is no right decision, onlythe best one for the whole group. The task is to work togetherto discover which choice is most acceptable to all members.Avoid blaming anyone for conflict. Blame is inherently vio-lent. It attacks dignity and empowerment. It encourages people


to feel guilty, defensive, and alienated. The group will lose itsability to resolve conflict. People will hide their true feelingsto avoid being blamed for the conflict. The presence of con-flict can create an occasion for growth. Learn to use it as a cata-lyst for discovering creative resolutions and for developing abetter understanding of each other. With patience, anyone canlearn to resolve conflict creatively, without defensiveness orguilt. Groups can learn to nurture and support their membersin this effort by allowing creativity and experimentation. Thisprocess necessitates that the group continually evaluate andimprove these skills.

Commitment to the GroupIn joining a group, one accepts a personal responsibility

to behave with respect, goodwill, and honesty. Each one is ex-pected to recognize that the group’s needs have a certain prior-ity over the desires of the individual. Many people participatein group work in a very egocentric way. It is important to ac-cept the shared responsibility for helping to find solutions toother’s concerns.

Active ParticipationWe all have an inalienable right to express our own best

thoughts. We decide for ourselves what is right and wrong.Since consensus is a process of synthesis, not competition, allsincere comments are important and valuable. If ideas are putforth as the speaker’s property and individuals are strongly at-tached to their opinions, consensus will be extremely difficult.Stubbornness, closed-mindedness, and possessiveness lead todefensive and argumentative behavior that disrupts the process.For active participation to occur, it is necessary to promote trustby creating an atmosphere in which every contribution is con-sidered valuable. With encouragement, each person can developknowledge and experience, a sense of responsibility and com-petency, and the ability to participate.

Equal Access to PowerBecause of personal differences (experience, assertiveness,

social conditioning, access to information, etc.) and politicaldisparities, some people inevitably have more effective powerthan others. To balance this inequity, everyone needs to con-sciously attempt to creatively share power, skills, and infor-mation. Avoid hierarchical structures that allow some individu-als to assume undemocratic power over others. Egalitarian andaccountable structures promote universal access to power.

PatienceConsensus cannot be rushed. Often, it functions smoothly,

producing effective, stable results. Sometimes, when difficultsituations arise, consensus requires more time to allow for thecreative interplay of ideas. During these times, patience is moreadvantageous than tense, urgent, or aggressive behavior. Con-sensus is possible as long as each individual acts patiently andrespectfully.

FacilitatorThe word facilitate means to make easy. A facilitator con-

ducts group business and guides the Formal Consensus pro-cess so that it flows smoothly. Rotating facilitation from meet-ing to meeting shares important skills among the members. Ifeveryone has firsthand knowledge about facilitation, it will helpthe flow of all meetings. Having two (or more) people facili-tate a meeting, is recommended. Having a woman and a manshare the responsibilities encourages a more balanced meeting.Also, an inexperienced facilitator may apprentice with a moreexperienced one. Try to use a variety of techniques throughoutthe meeting. And remember, a little bit of humour can go along way in easing tension during a long, difficult meeting.

GoodwillAlways try to assume goodwill. Assume every statement

and action is sincerely intended to benefit the group. Assume


that each member understands the group’s purpose and acceptsthe agenda as a contract. Often, when we project our feelingsand expectations onto others, we influence their actions. If wetreat others as though they are trying to get attention, disruptmeetings, or pick fights, they will often fulfil our expectations.

A resolution to conflict is more likely to occur if we actas though there will be one. This is especially true if someoneis intentionally trying to cause trouble or who is emotionallyunhealthy. Do not attack the person, but rather, assume good-will and ask the person to explain to the group how that person’sstatements or actions are in the best interest of the group. It isalso helpful to remember to separate the actor from the action.While the behavior may be unacceptable, the person is not bad.Avoid accusing the person of being the way they behave. Re-member, no one has the answer. The group’s work is the searchfor the best and most creative process, one which fosters a mu-tually satisfying resolution to any concern which may arise.Generic Vision Statements

Common unity is faith in action. We recognize that withsovereignty of the individual comes personal responsibility forthe community. Collectively, we are committed to open andhonest communication. Together, we can create an environmentwhere conflict and differences are expressed openly and safely.

Individually, we practice nonviolence. As individuals andas a group, we are constantly in the process of evolving theability to resolve conflict without violence.

We are committed to living simply. We do not own peopleor things. We have open, non-possessive, honest, egalitarianrelationships with consenting peers. We are all students andteachers. We give unconditional support to those dependentupon us. We are stewards of the earth and all her relations. Westrive for sustainable systems in all our endeavors.

Within our community, we are creating a social order

which is based upon honesty and trust, nonviolence and self-empowerment, and equality and democracy. Within the largersociety, we are an alternative society with a vision of encour-aging the outbreak of peace. We are not turning away from theexisting society; we are the hope and the future of society.Generic Principles

The following is a list of words and phrases from the Vi-sion Statement. Each needs to be defined, in two or three para-graphs (or more), by the membership. This would be a livingdocument, meaning the definitions would evolve, over time,to more accurately reflect the intent and consent of the group.

• Common unity• Faith in action• Sovereignty of the individual• Personal responsibility• Community• Collective• Committed• Open and honest communication• Create an open and safe environment• Conflict• Nonviolence• The ability to resolve conflict without violence• Living simply• Non-possessive• Honest• Egalitarian• Relationships with consenting peers• All students and teachers• Unconditional support to those dependent upon us• Stewards of the earth and all her relations


• Sustainable systems• Social order based upon honesty and trust, nonviolence

and self-empowerment, and equality and democracy• An alternative society• Vision• Outbreak of peace• The hope and the future of society

A Revolutionary Decision-Making ProcessIf you were asked to pick one thing that might bring about

major social, political, and economic change in this country,what would you pick? Most people would pick their favoriteissue; be it civil rights, demilitarization, environmentalsustainability, or whatever. Some people would choose a sys-tem of values to replace the capitalism system such as social-ism or the Ten Key Values of the Greens. But few people wouldeven think of changing group dynamics (the way people treateach other when interacting with one another in a group); orspecifically, the process they use when making decisions.

Process is the key to revolutionary change. This is not anew message. Visionaries have long pointed to this but it is ahard lesson to learn. As recently as the 70s, feminists clearlydefined the lack of an alternative process for decision-makingand group interaction as the single most important obstacle inthe way of real change, both within progressive organizationsand for society at large. Despite progress on many issues ofconcern to progressive-minded people, very little has changedin the way people treat each other, either locally or globally,and almost nothing has changed about who makes the deci-sions.

The values of competition, which allow us to accept theidea that somebody has to lose; the structure of hierarchy,which, by definition, creates power elites; and the techniques

of domination and control, which dehumanize and alienate allparties affected by their use, are the standards of group inter-action with which we were all conditioned. There are but a fewmodels in our society which offer an alternative.

All groups, no matter what their mission or political phi-losophy, use some form of process to accomplish their work.Almost all groups, no matter where they fall on the social, po-litical, and economic spectrum of society, have a hierarchicalstructure, accept competition as “natural”, acceptable, and evendesirable, and put a good deal of effort into maintaining con-trol of their members. It is telling that in our society, there areopposing groups, with very different perspectives and values,which have identical structures and techniques for interactionand decision-making. If you played a theater game in whichboth groups wore the same costumes and masks and spoke ingibberish rather than words, a spectator would not be able totell them apart.

So what would an alternative revolutionary decision-mak-ing process look like, you ask? To begin with, a fundamentalshift from competition to cooperation. This does not mean todo away with competition. Ask any team coach what the keyto victory is and you will be told “cooperation within the team”.The fundamental shift is the use of competition not to win,which is just a polite way of saying to dominate, to beat, todestroy, to kill the opposition; but rather, to use competition todo or be the best. In addition, the cooperative spirit recognizesthat it is not necessary to attack another’s efforts in order to doyour best; in fact, the opposite is true. In most situations, help-ing others do their best actually increases your ability to dobetter. And in group interactions, the cooperative spirit actu-ally allows the group’s best to be better than the sum of its parts.

Cooperation is more than “live and let live”. It is makingan effort to understand another’s point of view. It is incorpo-


rating another’s perspective with your own so that a new per-spective emerges. It is suspending disbelief, even if only tem-porarily, so you can see the gem of truth in ideas other thanyour own. It is a process of creativity, synthesis, and open-mindedness which leads to trust-building, better communica-tion and understanding, and ultimately, a stronger, healthier,more successful group.

The next step is the development of an organization whichis non-hierarchical or egalitarian. A corresponding structurewould include: participatory democracy, routine universal skill-building and information-sharing, rotation of leadership roles,frequent evaluations, and, perhaps most importantly, equal ac-cess to power. Hierarchical structures are not, in and of them-selves, the problem. But their use concentrates power at thetop and, invariably, the top becomes less and less accessible tothe people at the bottom, who are usually most affected by thedecisions made by those at the top. Within groups (and withinsociety itself), there becomes a power elite. In an egalitarianstructure, everyone has access to power and every position ofpower is accountable to everyone.

This does not mean that there are no leaders. But the lead-ers actively share skills and information. They recognize thatleadership is a role empowered by the entire group, not a per-sonal characteristic. A group in which most or all of the mem-bers can fill any of the leadership roles cannot easily be domi-nated, internally or externally.

The last and most visible step toward revolutionary changein group process is the manner in which members of the groupinteract with each other. Dominating attitudes and controllingbehaviour would not be tolerated. People would show respectand expect to be shown respect. Everyone would be doing theirpersonal best to help the group reach decisions which are inthe best interest of the group. There would be no posturing and

taking sides. Conflicts would be seen as an opportunity forgrowth, expanding people’s thinking, sharing new information,and developing new solutions which include everyone’s per-spectives. The group would create an environment where ev-eryone was encouraged to participate, conflict was freely ex-pressed, and resolutions were in the best interest of everyoneinvolved. Indubitably, this would be revolutionary.


- 3 -(Excerpts from the speeches of Vinoba in the 1950’s during his

Bhoodan [Land-gift] Movement)

The will to power in men needs to be rooted out. To reinin this will to power, everyone has been given the right to votein a democracy. This implies that distribution of power is thefirst step.

When men differ from each other in every respect, whatcould be the basis for granting this right to all? Unity of soulcould be the only basis for it.

But although democracy has given the right to vote to ev-eryone, it stipulates counting of votes and the power is entrustedto those securing majority, howsoever thin it may be. The ideo-logues of democracy should, in fact, understand that this is nota question of arithmetic; for the idea of the unity of soul is ametaphysical rather than a mathematical idea.

Sarvodaya removes this anamoly. It says that enerybody’sideas should be respected. It is wrong to consider that threeout of five are right and two are wrong; it is the unanimousopinion of all the five that should be upheld. It is because ofthe rejection of this principle that the whole world is now tornwith conflicts between majorities and minorities.

We want decision-making by consensus. We should thinkover the ways and means to bring this about. The UN SecurityCouncil has adopted this principle. The Quakers too follow thisprinciple. This is just a beginning. We should make further ex-periments in this direction.

All may not agree on all the points. There may be somedifference of opinion. Those having a different opinion mayexpress it, but may not stand in the way of the rest. We cancall this ‘sarvanumati’ (consent by all) as against‘sarvasammati’ (total agreement).

An objection is often raised that a single man may the beable to block any decision, defying all others. What could thenbe done? The man may be right or he may just be obdurate. Ifhe is right, he will make others understand his point of view. Ifhe is obdurate, the village community should devise ways tobring him round. It should be creative enough to do so.

Consensus may not be reached in a few village communi-ties; but that would obstruct their progress, while the commu-nities that succeed in doing so would go ahead. That wouldmake the former sit up and set them thinking. It is through lovethat real progress takes place; not through fear. One has to bepatient. A child sows a seed, but has no patience to let it takeits own time for germination. This is not how the adults shouldbehave. When the people realize that one should not stick toone’s views obstinately at the cost of the village unity, consen-sus will not be difficult to achieve.

In fact, majoritarianism is against human nature; consen-sus is more in keeping with it.


28

- 3 -Mendha (Lekha) and the

Theory and Practice of Consensus

(Mohan Hirabai Hiralal)

Consensus decision-making has been and is being at-tempted in some intentional communities. Gandhian thinkershave advocated its use in the village communities governingthemselves; in fact, they have held that it is an essential condi-tion for the village community to become and remain self-gov-erning. However, this is, more often than not, dismissed out ofhand as Utopian. Consensus decision-making is not deemedpossible in a village community.

Mendha (Lekha) has proved that it is possible.And if one village can do it, any village or any small

community—even urban community—can do it.People of Mendha (Lekha), a village in the Gadchiroli dis-

trict in Maharashtra, have declared that ‘We have our govern-ment in Delhi and Mumbai, but in our village we ourselvesare the government’, that is, while they send their representa-tives, like all Indian citizens, to the State Assembly and theCentral Parliament, they govern themselves at the village level.They have made their own laws, rules and regulations for theirgovernance. All decisions regarding the village affairs and itsdevelopment are taken in the village assembly—the realGramsabha or the Gaon-samaj sabha—consisting of all theadult men and women in the village. Every issue is thoroughlydebated therein. Everyone’s active participation is sought andencouraged and valued. And all the decisions are taken by con-sensus.

The villagers of Mendha had no knowledge of the ideasof Mahatma Gandhi—hearing about C.T. Lawrence Butler and

Amy Rothstein was out of question—when they decided ontheir own accord to take decisions about the village affairs byconsensus. It was their own innate wisdom that made them takethis decision. And they have since stuck to that resolve againstall odds. It was only in 1987 that they came to know aboutMahatma Gandhi and his seminal work ‘Hind-Swaraj’ duringthe Participatory study on People and Forest. And only recentlydid they learn that writers like C.T. Lawrence Butler and AmyRothstein in the West have written extensively on the theoryof consensus as the only worthwhile method of decision-mak-ing in human groups.

The residents of Mendha can learn much from such think-ers; and they too can make their own contribution to the theoryas well as practice of consensus. They have, in fact, alreadymade singular contribution.

The method of Consensus decision-making is being suc-cessfully practised in Mendha. What could be the reason?

The easy answer is—Because it is a homogeneous com-munity with all the residents belonging to a single tribe—theGonds.

But is it so?Mendha (Lekha) is not the only village which is homoge-

neous. Then why does’nt this happen in all homogeneous vil-lages?

Clearly, it is not a potential that is an exclusive preroga-tive of any caste, class, religion, race or gender. It is a humanpotential. That it is dormant now is a fact. But it can surely beactivated, just as a seed gets germinated when proper condi-tions are provided for the same. Proper conditions need to beprovided for the activation of human potentials too.

Mendha’s experience shows that a particular structure anda particular way of working are conducive to the success ofthe consensus model.


30

In Mendha, the forum for decision-making is the VillageCommunity Council (Gaon-Samaj Sabha). All the adult vil-lagers participate in it. Such participation is possible becausethe number of the members is limited. Everybody knows ev-erybody else. The geographical area of the village is such thatthe villagers can assemble at any time with short notice. These,then, are the key factors. The number of the persons in the groupand the geographical area in which they live should be suchthat active participation by all is possible.

The villagers in the Mendha have resolved to take deci-sions by consensus only. Everybody is aware of it. So consen-sus is not tried half-heartedly and abandoned at the slightestpretext. Participation of those with different views is not onlytolerated or encouraged, but deliberate efforts are also made toensure it, and their views are respected. Such persons knowthis. This serves in preventing the formation of groups.

Mendha has resolved that at least one male and one fe-male member of each household must attend the meetings ofthe gaon-samaj-sabha. If they fail to do so, they are fined. Par-ticipation of women in the village affairs is at best token ev-erywhere. Reservation for them in the panchayat bodies havehardly made any difference. That Mendha has made participa-tion of at least one woman from every house compulsory issignificant in this context.

Decisions are taken in the village assembly. But it is notpossible to debate all the issues thoroughly there. Sometimes,help from outside experts and knowledgeable friends is neces-sary to know the relevant facts and different facets of the is-sue. So Mendha has complemented the village assembly witha study circle. Alongwith the villagers having an appetite forknowledge and interest in debating various issues, friends fromoutside the village too can participate in the study circle; and,at times, their participation is sought to know more about the


issue at hand. The study circle is not a formally structured body;it has no definite membership. Participation in it is voluntary,not compulsory, unlike that in the village assembly. It can meetas many times as the people want; as the situation warrants.And it meets at a public place openly. When consensus eludesthe village assembly, the issue in question is referred to the studycircle for review and more in-depth discussion. The study circleis not supposed to take any decision; that is clearly the pre-rogative of the village assembly. Its function is to help the vil-lage assembly in taking proper decisions.

While consensus model is adopted for decision-making,it logically follows that implementation should also ensuremaximum possible participation. In fact, it is an essential cor-ollary. Mendha is aware of it. The system of Bank account op-eration may be mentioned in this context. The communityauthorises two persons to operate the account, a third personto keep the pass book, and a fourth one to keep the accounts.This authorisation is not for any specific period; any time itcan be changed. This also ensures transperancy in financialmatters and obviates corruption which is the bane of the presentdemocratic and bureaucratic structures.

Appendix :Extracts from the book ‘HIND-SWARAJ’ or INDIAN HOMERULE by M. K. Gandhi (1909)

CHAPTER VTHE CONDITION OF ENGLAND

Reader: Then from your statement I deduce that the Governmentof England is not desirable, and not worth copying by us.

Editor: Your deduction is justified. The condition of England atpresent is pitiable. I pray to God that India may never be in thatplight. That which you consider to be the Mother of Parliamentsis like a sterile woman and a prostitute. Both these are harsh terms,but exactly fit the case. That Parliament has not yet, of its ownaccord, done a single good thing. Hence I have compared it to asterile woman. The natural condition of that Parliament is suchthat, without outside pressure, it can do nothing. It is like a pros-titute because it as under the control of ministers who change fromtime to time. Today it is under Mr. Asquith, tomorrow it may beunder Mr. Balfour.

Reader: You have said this sarcastically. The term “sterilewoman” is not applicable. The Parliament being elected by thepeople, must work under public pressure. This is its quality.

Editor: You are mistaken. Let us examine it a little more closely.The best men are supposed to be elected by the people. The mem-bers serve without pay and therefore, it must be assumed, onlyfor the public weal. The electors are considered to be educatedand therefore we should assume that they would not generallymake mistakes in their choice. Such a Parliament should not needthe spur of petitions or any other pressure. Its work should be sosmooth that its effects would be more apparent day by day. But,as a matter of fact, it is generally acknowledged that the mem-bers are hypocritical and selfish. Each thinks of his own little in-terest. It is fear that is the guiding motive. What is done todaymay be undone tomorrow. It is not possible to recall a single in-

stance in which finality can be predicted for its work. When thegreatest questions are debated, its members have been seen tostretch themselves and to doze. Sometimes the members talk awayuntil the listeners are disgusted. Carlyle has called it the “talkingshop of the world”. Members vote for their party without athought. Their so-called discipline binds them to it. If any mem-ber, by way of exception, gives an independent vote, he is con-sidered a renegade. If the money and the time wasted by Parlia-ment were entrusted to a few good men, the English nation wouldbe occupying today a much higher platform. Parliament is sim-ply a costly toy of the nation. These views are by no means pecu-liar to me. Some great English thinkers have expressed them. Oneof the members of that Parliament recently said that a true Chris-tian could not become a member of it. Another said that it was ababy. And if it has remained a baby after an existence of sevenhundred years, when will it outgrow its babyhood?

Reader: You have set me thinking. You do not expect me to ac-cept at once all you say. You give me entirely novel views. I shallhave to digest them. Will you now explain the epithet “prosti-tute”?

Editor: That you cannot accept my views at once is only right. Ifyou will read the literature on this subject, you will have someidea of it. Parliament is without a real master. Under the PrimeMinister, its movement is not steady but it is buffeted about likea prostitute. The Prime Minister is more concerned about hispower than about the welfare of Parliament. His energy is con-centrated upon securing the success of his party. His care is notalways that Parliament shall do right. Prime Ministers are knownto have made Parliament do things merely for party advantage.All this is worth thinking over.

Reader: Then you are really attacking the very men whom wehave hitherto considered to be patriotic and honest?

Editor: Yes, that is true. I can have nothing against Prime Min-isters, but what I have seen leads me to think that they cannot be


34

considered really patriotic. If they are to be considered honestbecause they do not take what are generally known as bribes, letthem be so considered, but they are open to subtler influences. Inorder to gain their ends, they certainly bribe people with honors.I do not hesitate to say that they have neither real honesty nor aliving conscience.

CHAPTER XVI BRUTE FORCE

Reader: This is a new doctrine, that what is gained through fearis retained only while the fear lasts. Surely, what is given willnot be withdrawn?

Editor: Not so. The Proclamation of 1857 was given at the endof a revolt, and for the purpose of preserving peace. When peacewas secured and people became simple-minded its full effect wastoned down. If I cease stealing for fear of punishment, I wouldrecommence the operation as soon as the fear is withdrawn fromme. This is almost a universal experience. We have assumed thatwe can get men to do things by force and, therefore, we use force.

Reader: Will you not admit that you are arguing against your-self? You know that what the English obtained in their own coun-try they obtained by using brute force. I know you have arguedthat what they have obtained is useless, but that does not affectmy argument. They wanted useless things and they got them. Mypoint is that their desire was fulfilled. What does it matter whatmeans they adopted? Why should we not obtain our goal, whichis good, by any means whatsoever even by using violence? ShallI think of the means when I have to deal with a thief in the house?My duty is to drive him out anyhow. You seem to admit that wehave received nothing, and that we shall receive nothing by peti-tioning. Why, then, may we not do so by using brute force? And,to retain what we may receive we shall keep up the fear by usingthe same force to the extent that it may be necessary. You will notfind fault with a continuance of force to prevent a child from thrust-ing its foot into fire. Somehow or other we have to gain our end.

Editor: Your reasoning is plausible. It has deluded many. I haveused similar arguments before now. But I think I know better now,and I shall endeavor to undeceive you. Let us first take the argu-ment that we are justified in gaining our end by using brute forcebecause the English gained theirs by using similar means. It isperfectly true that they used brute force and that it is possible forus to do likewise, but by using similar means we can get only thesame thing that they got. You will admit that we do not want that.Your belief that there is no connection between the means andthe end is a great mistake. Through that mistake even men whohave been considered religious have committed grievous crimes.Your reasoning is the same as saying that we can get a rose throughplanting a noxious weed. If I want to cross the ocean, I can do soonly by means of a vessel; if I were to use a cart for that purpose,both the cart and I would soon find the bottom. “As is the God,so is the votary”, is a maxim worth considering. Its meaning hasbeen distorted and men have gone astray. The means may be lik-ened to a seed, the end to a tree; and there is just the same invio-lable connection between the means and the end as there is be-tween the seed and the tree. I am not likely to obtain the resultflowing from the worship of God by laying myself prostrate be-fore Satan. If, therefore, anyone were to say: “I want to worshipGod; it does not matter that I do so by means of Satan,” it wouldbe set down as ignorant folly. We reap exactly as we sow. TheEnglish in 1833 obtained greater voting power by violence. Didthey by using brute force better appreciate their duty? They wantedthe right of voting, which they obtained by using physical force.But real rights are a result of performance of duty; these rightsthey have not obtained. We, therefore, have before us in Englandthe force of everybody wanting and insisting on his rights, no-body thinking of his duty. And, where everybody wants rights,who shall give them to whom? I do not wish to imply that theydo no duties. They don’t perform the duties corresponding to thoserights; and as they do not perform that particular duty, namely,acquire fitness, their rights have proved a burden to them. In other

Consensus Decision-making / 37Consensus Decision-making / 36

words, what they have obtained is an exact result of the meansthey adopted. They used the means corresponding to the end. If Iwant to deprive you of your watch, I shall certainly have to fightfor it; if l want to buy your watch, I shall have to pay you for it;and if I want a gift, I shall have to plead for it; and, according tothe means I employ, the watch is stolen property, my own prop-erty, or a donation. Thus we see three different results from threedifferent means. Will you still say that means do not matter?

Now we shall take the example given by you of the thief tobe driven out. I do not agree with you that the thief may be drivenout by any means. If it is my father who has come to steal I shalluse one kind of means. If it is an acquaintance I shall use an-other, and in the case of a perfect stranger I shall use a third. If itis a White man, you will perhaps say you will use means differ-ent from those you will adopt with an Indian thief. If it is a weak-ling, the means will be different from those to be adopted for deal-ing with an equal in physical strength; and if the thief is armedfrom top to toe, I shall simply remain quiet. Thus we have a vari-ety of means between the father and the armed man. Again, I fancythat I should pretend to be sleeping whether the thief was my fa-ther or that strong armed man. The reason for this is that my fa-ther would also be armed and I should succumb to the strengthpossessed by either and allow my things to be stolen. The strengthof my father would make me weep with pity; the strength of thearmed man would rouse in me anger and we should become en-emies. Such is the curious situation. From these examples we may

not be able to agree as to the means to be adopted in each case. Imyself seem clearly to see what should be done in all these cases,but the remedy may frighten you. I therefore hesitate to place itbefore you. For the time being I will leave you to guess it, and ifyou cannot, it is clear you will have to adopt different means ineach case. You will also have seen that any means will not availto drive away the thief. You will have to adopt means to fit eachcase. Hence it follows that your duty is not to drive away the thiefby any means you like.

Let us proceed a little further. That well-armed man has sto-len your property; you have harboured the thought of his act; youare filled with anger; you argue that you want to punish that rogue,not for your own sake, but for the good of your neighbours; youhave collected a number of armed men, you want to take his houseby assault; he is duly informed of it, he runs away; he too is in-censed. He collects his brother robbers, and sends you a defiantmessage that he will commit robbery in broad daylight. You arestrong, you do not fear him, you are prepared to receive him.Meanwhile the robber pesters your neighbours. They complainbefore you. You reply that you are doing all for their sake; youdo not mind that your own goods have been stolen. Yourneighbours reply that the robber never pestered them before, andthat he commenced his depredations only after you declared hos-tilities against him. You are between Scylla and Charybdis. Youare full of pity for the poor men. What they say is true. What areyou to do? You will be disgraced if you now leave the robberalone. You, therefore, tell the poor men: “Never mind. Come, mywealth is yours. I will give you arms, I will teach you how to usethem; you should belabour the rogue; don’t you leave him alone.”And so the battle grows; the robbers increase in numbers; yourneighbors have deliberately put themselves to inconvenience.Thus the result of wanting to take revenge upon the robber is thatyou have disturbed your own peace; you are in perpetual fear ofbeing robbed and assaulted; your courage has given place to cow-ardice. If you will patiently examine the argument, you will see

It is a superstition and ungodly thing to believe that an act of amajority binds a minority. Many examples can be given in which actsof majorities will be found to have been wrong and those of minori-ties to have been right. All reforms owe their origin to the initiation ofminorities in opposition to majorities. If among a band of robbers aknowledge of robbing is obligatory, is a pious man to accept the obli-gation? So long as the superstition that men should obey unjust lawsexists, so long will their slavery exist.

- M. K. Gandhi


that I have not overdrawn the picture. This is one of the means.Now let us examine the other. You set this armed robber down asan ignorant brother; you intend to reason with him at a suitableopportunity: you argue that he is, after all, a fellow-man; you donot know what prompted him to steal. You, therefore, decide that,when you can, you will destroy the man’s motive for stealing.Whilst you are thus reasoning with yourself, the man comes againto steal. Instead of being angry with him you take pity on him.You think that this stealing habit must be a disease with him.Henceforth, you, therefore, keep your doors and windows open,you change your sleeping place, and you keep your things in amanner most accessible to him. The robber comes again and isconfused as all this is new to him; nevertheless he takes awayyour things. But his mind is agitated. He inquires about you inthe village, he comes to learn about your broad and loving heart,he repents, he begs your pardon, returns you your things, andleaves off the stealing habit. He becomes your servant, and youfind for him honorable employment. This is the second method.Thus, you see, different means have brought about totally differ-ent results. I do not wish to deduce from this that robbers will actin the above manner or that all will have the same pity and lovelike you. But I only wish to show that fair means alone can pro-duce fair results, and that, at least in the majority of cases, if notindeed in all, the force of love and pity is infinitely greater thanthe force of arms. There is harm in the exercise of brute force,never in that of pity.

h


consensus (mohan hiralal)

Documents

formal consensus decision

amy rothstein

creative interplay

formal consensus

study circle

parliamentary procedure

lawrence butler

geographical area