An Alternative to Political Heirarchy

Consensus-Based Decision Making -

an alternative to political hierarchy

By Brian Krueger

This is a talk I gave at Ankara University at the request of Dr. Salih Ak, a professor of economics. I prepared the talk with the expectation of meeting a class of economics students, but in fact, they were of a variety of majors. All were studying english, and I gave the talk and took questions completely in English as my Turkish was quite poor at the time.

Summary

This talk will briefly discuss some of the problems of economic theory in order to see why a good understanding of political hierarchy is so important. Then we will take a short look at the state, and examine the types of government to see how they differ from non-hierarchical decision-making processes. Finally, we will discuss how democratic decision-making based on consensus works in practice and try to use this model to suggest means to achieve a classless society.

Introduction

In any economic system, groups of people must make decisions - a political system must exist. In the world today, few people make decisions that really affect their lives. This is because others make those decisions for them. That's hierarchy. Examples of hierarchy are class relations (economic), caste systems (social), and governments (political).

Much talk is made of democracy today. It is held to be a political ideal that almost everyone in the world believes is worth working toward. But what is democracy really and how does it work in practice? Democracy is when people have the freedom to participate as equals in those decisions which affect them. It is the absence of political hierarchy. Because most people are not included in important decisions which are made, democracy is not something that people have much practical experience with in todays world.

Few argue that Capitalism is a good system. Most people know this by the experiences in their daily lives: the need to constantly fight to keep from misery; the worst that comes out in each of us if we become a boss; the loneliness and meaninglessness of doing what we're told: endlessly working and consuming and sleeping and working. Even Capitalism's most excitable supporters merely argue that it's the best system of the two available in the modern world - Capitalism or Socialism. Much has been written about this, and in this short talk there is not time to discuss Capitalism's many problems in depth and compare it with the many problems of State Socialism. But it is important to know that there are alternatives to both Capitalism and State Socialism.

In searching for an alternative to Capitalism, socialist and anarchist theorists such as Marx and Kropotkin have proposed systems of worker ownership of the means of production in which workers would make decisions based on mutual aid. They called this Communism, the absence of economic hierarchy and argued intensely over how to achieve it.

In essence, Marx felt that there would need to be an intermediate step between Capitalism and Communism in which workers would seize control of the state and use it for their own political ends - building a Communist society. Marx called this the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marx and Oppenheimer both predicted the withering away of the state once class conflict had been resolved. In fact, it does not and cannot wither away. The first and foremost responsibility of those in power is to stay in power. Any leader who does not follow this rule will quickly find themself replaced.

The anarchists argued that rule by certain socialist workers would in fact be an authoritarian oligarchy which would not develop into communism. These authoritarian tendencies in Marxism and the anti-authoritarianism of Bakunin and the anarchists led to the split of the first International.

The anarchist theorists did not propose a clear model of how to achieve communism, saying that the participation of all in the creation of such a society would be necessary.

Neither anarchist nor Marxist theory offer a clear description of how decisions can be made in an organized manner without hierarchy. Historically, in their own groups they failed to use non-hierarchical decision-making. As well, The nature of the failure of their methods (syndicalist general strikes or violent revolution) in the revolutionary era (not to mention today's world) is exactly why a clearer understanding of political hierarchy is so important.

Different Systems of Decision-making

Throughout recorded history, people have imposed their will by force with increasing frequency upon others. The modern state has developed sophisticated means to impose the leadership of the ruling class. The state does not exist by the consent of those governed. It exists by force. No state exists without prisons or hierarchy. All states serve to promote the interests of the ruling class.

Historically speaking, the state is a relatively new apparatus. It is important to realize that many societies have existed without the use of prisons or the creation of armies. We take the existence of government for granted, and imagine that society cannot exist without prisons and police. In fact, many societies have existed even relatively recently completely without such things. So how can people make decisions without hierarchy?

To make decisions and apply them, there are five basic types of political organization, as seen below. They vary from totalitarianism (extreme hierarchy) to democracy:

<== totalitarianism			democracy ==>
dictatorship	oligarchy	representative		majority	consensus

(note that the left and right do not denote conservative or liberal)

Dictatorship is a form of totalitarianism, where one person has power over all of the decisions which are made which affect the society as a whole.

Oligarchy is similar, but that a group or committee has power over all the decisions.

Representative government differs from dictatorship or oligarchy in that the people choose a person or group of people who will then rule them - make all the decisions.

Majority government is the first of these processes in which people actually take part in the process of decision-making. The largest group has the power of decision.

Consensus is the process in which no decision can be made which does not involve the agreement of all concerned. All who are involved in this process must agree to the goals of the group. Thus it is based on a common interest.

As we have said, democracy is people making decisions themselves that affect them and allowing others the same ability to decide. Consensus is a way for groups to come to a decision without the use of force - a democratic means of decision.

None of these methods of decision-making ensure good decisions. Opinions vary as to what is a good or bad decision.

How consensus works

Once all of the people in a group have agreed to the basic principles of the group, they may begin to try and discuss to form group decisions, using compromise and logical argument to reach consensus (agreement by all). Like any group process the dynamics of the group will determine the individual group needs, such as formality, procedure, interruption, and order of business. It is hard to visualize until seen used in practice.

The advantage of a decision made by one person or a group of people in power (government) is that they can make the decision without asking the others. decisions can be made very quickly. The disadvantage is that the implementation of such decisions may be slowed especially by people who do not agree with the decision being made It requires the obedience of the group to authority.

The disadvantage of a decision made by consensus is that it requires everyone to agree to the principles of the group, and especially at first, may take some time to make the simplest decisions. (People are used to hierarchical styles of decision making, in which compromise and logical arguing are uncommon). The advantage is that once a decision is made, all have agreed and the implementation can be very quick.

The question is, how can we achieve a society without economic and political hierarchy?

I have tried to describe how a system works without political hierarchy. It is your job to try to describe a society without economic hierarchy. But one thing is certain - to try to get there by force will not be successful.

Relating to economics

The model for consensus-based decision-making can be applied in any situation where decisions are required. The use of consensus changes the nature of power relationships and allows people to relate as equals.

Using the model for consensus, we will discuss how alternative, non-hierarchical economies might be developed within the capitalist system. Examples include cooperative volunteer efforts, donation of time and materials. Since money creates power relationships whenever it changes hands, there must be an independence from the necessity of money.

The road to a society without economic hierarchy is left to us to find. But in building this road, we must learn from the mistakes of the past - a system which ends hierarchy must also be a system which ends both economic and political hierarchy.

Difficult terms

political hierarchy: siyasal hiyerarsi

means of production: üretim araçlarI

worker ownership: isçi mülkiyeti

mutual aid: karsIlIklI yardIm

ruling class: yönetici sInIf

consent of the governed: yönetilenlerin rIzasI

force: zor

dictatorship: diktatörlük

oligarchy: oligarsi

representative (government): temsili (hükumet)

majority (government): çogunluk (hükumeti)

consensus: oydasma

parliamentary procedure: parlamanter usul

common interest: ortak çIkar

compromise: uzlasma

group dynamics: grup dinamigi

formality: formellik

order of business: yapIlacak is, gündem

implementation: ifa, yerine getirme

authority: yetke

power relationships: güç iliskileri