1. General aspects
The method of decision-making in plenaries/at KTS shall be consensus-based. By consensus we mean that the process of decision-making and problem-solving rests on the needs of all participants. The aim is to hear all opinions, concerns and ideas; from these, a decision that is supported by all participants shall be elaborated. This decision-making guideline alone cannot prevent the abuse of positions of power or dominance in discussion. Instead, we want to continually engage in creating a respectful and appreciative atmosphere; we aim to actively apply principles of awareness and reflection of privileges in our groups and meetings.
Prerequisites for consensus-based decisions and processes are:
- Sufficient time and a common goal are given,
- All necessary information is transparent and accessible,
- The roles of moderation and minutes are distributed,
- Needs of the group and individuals are reflected upon and can be communicated,
- Responsibility is assumed collectively by the group and mutual trust is given,
- All participants are heard.
Even when these prerequisites are met, it is not necessarily given that everyone can participate equally in the consensus-based process. It is necessary that schemes of power and hierarchy as well as dominant behavior in and by the group are continually questioned and criticized. Particularly (verbal or physical) violence or the threat thereof in order to influence decisions or controversial discussion are not tolerated under any conditions and can initiate a process of suspension from the group/KTS.
2. Consensus principles
Steps to consensus building are:
a) The above-mentioned prerequisites are met.
b) An overview of the pending topic/problem is provided.
c) A precise question is formulated.
d) Needs, worries, and requests of the participants are heard and discussed. Comprehension questions and uncertainties are dissolved.
e) Ideas for a solution or possible decisions are gathered and discussed.f) One or several consensus proposals are discussed and conclusively formulated.
g) The consensus is tested (see below).
h) The consensus (proposal and testing) is recorded in writing and is communicated within KTS or to affected groups/individuals in an appropriate form. When testing the consensus, it is essential that one or several consensus proposals are clearly formulated, that no “either-or”-questions are posed, and that there is sufficient time to ask for and listen to the following positions:
- Vetoes. A veto means that the person who issues the veto fundamentally disagrees with the proposal, cannot go along with is and absolutely rejects the implementation of the proposal by the group. Generally, the person issuing the vetomust be willing to participate in finding a solution, and the veto must be explained (in detail).
A veto must never be abused as instrument of power of individual persons, for example in order to prevent the group from taking decisions or to enforce one’s own political goals. A veto can be issued, for instance, if the group would violate its common basic ideals and principles, if the decision would result in the threat of individuals/groups, or if the decision would be discriminating or lead to a disadvantage of marginalized groups. A responsible use of the power of a veto is essential. In case of a veto, the consensus process will be interrupted. For possible ways of dealing with a veto, see below, if the group continues to be interested in taking a decision.
- Stand Asides. A stand aside means that the person who issues the stand aside cannot go along with the proposal, cannot or does not want participate in its implementation, but leaves the option of implementing the proposal open to the group.
- Grave concerns. Grave concerns mean that the person who issues grave concerns cannot or doe not wan to go along with the proposal in its current form. In case of grave concerns, the proposal must be discussed once more and revised, the concerns must be taken seriously and left sufficient room.
- Slight concerns. Slight concerns mean that the person who issues slight concerns does not fully agree with the proposal, but can nevertheless go along with it. Slight concerns may be discussed upon request of the person who issues them, with the goal of resolving them.
- Consent. Consent means that the person who issues consent fully agrees with the or one of the proposals and supports/participates in its implementation.
A consensus is achieved when there is no veto an when grave concerns have been resolved. (In some cases, which must be determined in advance, a consensus can only be reached if there are also no stand asides, for instance in case of fundamental questions or decisions regarding the common basic ideals and principles.) An existing consensus may be revised, discarded or reaffirmed in case of reassessment of a situation, new information, altered general conditions or other circumstances that require renewed discussion.
3. Dealing with vetoes
See flowchart: Consent Flow Chart
4. Alternative ways of decision-making
In certain situations other means of decision-making are possible as an alternative or addition to consensus building. These methods may also be used as moderation tools. Nevertheless, consensus- based decisions are to be preferred in general.
Important prerequisites (similar to the case of consensus building)
- Consent of the participants to the method,
- Clearly moderated contextualization,
- No fundamental decisions,
- Clearly formulated question,
- Necessary information is made transparent,
- All participants/affected persons are being heard.
Systemic consensus building
- What’s that? There are several proposals/options, and the level of resistance to all options is tested (e.g. by a fix set of points that each participant can distribute freely among the options). The result is a proposal with the smallest resistance.
- Possible application: Decisions without far-reaching scope or consequences; testing tendencies or priorities (for instance before starting a process of consensus building); in case of entrenched situations (of conflict).
Range voting
- What’s that? There are several proposals/options, and the level of consent to all options is tested (e.g. by a fix set of points that each participant can distribute freely among the options). Several dimensions may be tested, such as relevance, personal preference, applicability, goal-orientation etc. (here, a graphic implementation is possible).
- Possible application: Testing preferences; evaluate multi-way options/combinations; prioritize projects etc.
Majority decision
- What’s that? A vote with the options of yes, no, and abstention, and a set threshold for the adoption of a proposal, e.g. 50%, two-thirds majority, or 90%.
- Possible application: Smaller administrative or organizational questions; date arrangements; if necessary when dealing with vetoes after all other options have failed (see flowchart).