Hello,
I am writing this as someone who has been involved in the process organising the 2004 European Social Forum (ESF), which may be taking pace in London.

I come from a political background that is difficult to define, made up of individuals, loosely connected in organic networks: Earth First!; Reclaim the Streets; anti-Capitalism; European autonomist squat movements etc. In short, I come from a political culture quite alien to the processes, experiences and backgrounds of many of those involved in organising the 2004 ESF. Trying to work with Trades Unionists, Trotskyists and the Greater London Authority has been a steep learning curve, and I am often very uncomfortable with it.

I am sticking it out, because I believe that the networks I come from have a lot to bring to the process and also a lot to learn. I think it would be a shame if we were not represented at all in a forum that claims to be the voice(s?) of radical dissenting politics.

In the past week I have been thinking a lot about meeting processes. In the ESF process people make a lot of use of the terms "open", "transparent" and "consensus decision making" to describe the way we work. I think we need to reach some agreement on what we mean by these words, and be clear in our usage of them.

My major criticism of the process so far is not that a small group of people have made decisions, nor that some people clearly have more power within the process than others. I believe both of these statements to be true; however, I accept that something needs to get done or the ESF will not happen at all.

However, I think that people are becoming disempowered (and personally I am infuriated) by the assertions that the process is open, transparent and based on consensus decision making, when this is not true. People trying very hard to participate in the process are finding it opaque and being presented with decisions they are not entirely happy with and were no part of making.

I understand openness, transparency and consensus decision making to mean very concrete things in this context. I have expressed frustration at the misuse (and abuse) of the terms in the ESF process and been told by three individuals (all male trades union representatives, though that may be a coincidence) that if I don't like it I should just go work on something else. This is depressing. Assuming we do want to work together (which I do), we need to reach some common definitions (which don't have to be mine!) so that we can understand each other across political cultures when we talk, and not just use empty rhetoric.

It is in the spirit of this mutual understanding that I have enclosed here my reading of these terms. I would be very interested to hear other people's views, especially where they conflict with my own.

INTRODUCTION
This is quite a long essay, so I will summarise what it says to make it easier to follow:
1. My understanding of the term “open” as related to political organising.
2. My understanding of the term “transparent” as related to political organising.
3. A definition of “consensus decision making”
4. A possible model for consensus decision making
5. Training in Consensus Decision Making
6. CONCLUSIONS – a proposal for an ESF constitution


OPENNESS
This means that anyone can take part in the process.

However, there are different levels of openness. For example a meeting may be theoretically open for anyone to attend; however, if it is not widely publicised then the actual openness of the meeting will be limited. The extent to which a meeting is open therefore also depends on how transparent it is. (see definition below)

It is worth noting that, if an entire process (rather than just a single meeting) is to be described as open, it is not sufficient to have open meetings like last Saturday; especially if those meetings are going to be presented with decisions that cannot be changed in the meeting.

Just as meetings themselves must be transparent for people to be able to participate, the process and organisation behind those meetings; how the meetings are called, and by whom; what is on the agenda; how the decision-making process will work; and what the decision making power of the meeting actually is, all needs to be clear to everyone participating.

Where and when meetings are happening must be publicised well in advance to give people a realistic chance to attend. The agenda must be published well in advance and how to contribute to the agenda should be clear.

Openness can also be qualified, for example that meetings are open to observers, but actual decision making is restricted to a closed group. If so, this must be clearly defined, and the meeting cannot simply be described as open.

TRANSPARENCY
To me this is even more important than openness.
It means that a process is clearly explained and can be understood by participants and observers. All the workings of that process are on show and open to scrutiny.

A process that is transparent need not be open. It may be run by a steering committee, but the workings of that committee; who is on it; how decisions are made; what influences decisions etc. are clearly visible and easy to understand.

If a process is open it is however vital that it be transparent, because in reality it is impossible for people to participate in or even observe an "open" meeting if they do not understand how that meeting is run, how decisions are made and what influences those decisions.

Proper facilitation of meetings should include an explanation at the beginning of every meeting (to be inclusive to newcomers) of how the meeting works and how decisions will be made, so that everyone is empowered to participate in that process.

So, for example, an explanation should be given of the agenda, how decisions will be made on any points that come up, and of how action will be taken on those points in the future.

If any parts of the ongoing process are to be described as open, then it should also be made clear to everyone how to participate in this: dates and times of future meetings, working groups, e-mail lists etc. Minutes should always be taken and it should be clear how to get access to those minutes.

For this to work it is vital that the decision-making process be understood and respected and adhered to by all participants.

CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING
We currently claim to be using "consensus decision making" in our process, however, there has been no definition, nor explanation nor agreement as to what this means or how this process actually works.

There are many ways that groups can make decisions. Some of the most commonly understood ways are:
The Vote: a majority of participants in the process in favour of a proposal means it gets passed. There can be conditions specified such as requiring 2/3 of participants to support a proposal for it to be passed, or requiring a certain number of participants to make a meeting "quorate" (having enough participants to make a decision).
Executive Decisions: decisions are made by a small group or an individual, on behalf of the rest of participants, perhaps after having heard the opinions and comments of the participants.

Consensus Decision Making: is however less commonly used and less clearly understood. This is partly the fault of the more general uses of the term "consensus" to mean a general agreement or trend in opinion. However, in the context of the phrase Consensus Decision Making, it is used in its more precise sense of "unanimity" i.e. everyone in agreement.

This is, of course, a very difficult (and sometimes impossible) thing to achieve. However, it is a more democratic way of reaching decisions: whereas, under a voting or executive decision making system some people may be unhappy with the decision (in the case of the repeated re-election of Mrs Thatcher, about 60% of voters!), in theory at least, under a consensus decision making system, everyone consents to the final decision. This is why it is so often used as a political buzzword, to add democratic credibility to things people are saying.

I would like to move us away from this rhetorical use of “consensus” to a practical, democratic application of it. There are many different ways of doing it, which need to be considered in the context of the type of processes and decisions we are dealing with.

Probably the purest and truest way of reaching consensus is that practised by communities run by consensus decision making. Some examples of this include the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico and some of the Barrio meetings in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in the aftermath of the economic crisis there. These communities may spend literally months debating an issue and trying to find compromises and solutions that will carry everyone into unanimous agreement on an issue. To take decisions in this way, requires the commitment of all involved, and the willingness to compromise and put reaching a unanimous decision before one’s own personal opinions wherever possible. This kind of commitment is based on everyone respecting the process and the fact that to create a split in the community could mean the end of it, and may even be a question of life or death for its members.

For what we are trying to do with the ESF, this form of truly democratic consensus decision making is not really appropriate. We therefore need to define what we do mean by consensus decision making (or if we really do mean consensus decision making) and how decisions are to be reached in our case.

A CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING MODEL:
I have taken part in many processes that used (more or less bastardised) forms of consensus decision making. It has always seemed to me that clarity, purpose and sticking to the point are the keys to making it work. Here is a simple example of how a consensus decision making meeting might work, drawn from my personal experiences:

1. An explanation of how decisions will be made is given to the entire assembly and any direct questions taken and doubts cleared up. This process must be accepted and respected by everyone. (In this case the process would be the one outlined below).

[NOTE: This is a potential sticking point, if there is dissent from the outset about what the decision-making process will be. At the very least, a working process must be accepted and respected in order to take a decision on how decisions will be made in future.]

It is also important that the function or purpose of the meeting is clear to everyone there. For example, it may me a meeting that has to reach a decision on a concrete point, or it may be that reaching a decision is not so important, but hearing everyone’s opinion is, so a smaller group can then go away and write a proposal to be brought to the next meeting etc. How people participate in a meeting constructively depends on having an understanding of what the meeting is for.

For example, I am still unclear what the function of the January 24th ESF meeting at City Hall was. Were we there to reach a decision on a proposal for a structure to the ESF? Or were we there to simply receive information about a decision that had already been made and have some debate about it (with no actual decision making power)?

2. The agenda is read out. There should be an opportunity for participants to add things to the agenda, either by circulating it widely beforehand and taking additions/amendments, or having space at the start of the meeting.

3. One by one the points on the agenda are worked through. Some of this may be simple reports back etc. However, some of it will raise questions or proposals that require decisions to be made. It is the role of the facilitator to highlight and articulate these questions and proposals well so that everyone understands them.

4. The meeting then tries to find consensus on the proposals, one at a time. This requires a more sophisticated and restricted system of chairing than the one we have been using so far in the ESF meetings.

An example of how this might be done is the following (this would be better expressed as a flow diagram, but I don't know how to do one in plain text!):

§ A proposal is read out, along with supporting statements.

§ Any direct questions or points of clarity are dealt with.

§ CHECK FOR CONSENSUS:
This means that the facilitator stops the meeting to ask if there is consensus on passing the proposal. This is a direct question. If you support the proposal as it stands you express consensus. If you object to it or would like to amend it, you express dissent. Dissent does not mean a deadlock, simply a wish to continue the process of discussing that proposal.

In my networks (unaffiliated autonomists, libertarians and environmentalists, more or less) we use hand signals: waving hands to show consensus; raising a hand to show objection and a desire to continue the debate. (There are other, more complex ones, but this will do for the purposes of a simple example!)

§ IF YES If there is unanimous agreement to the proposal then it is passed, minuted and acted upon. The meeting moves forward to the next proposal/question and the process starts again.
§ IF NO then people who object to the proposal are asked to express why:

This means starting a new discussion (not just continuing down a line of people waiting to speak) where people speak only on the question in hand: why are they objecting to the proposal?

The aim of this debate is to find the roots of the disagreement and reach a compromise agreement that will get consensus. Ideally therefore, responses to this question should be constructive, aiming to reach a mutually acceptable compromise. This may mean proposing amendments.

There are also a variety of ways of holding a discussion. It may be helpful to break the meeting down into small groups and then come back together with proposals. It might be appropriate to form these groups randomly, with a mixture of dissenters and supporters of the proposal; or it might be appropriate to form groups on the basis of affinity.

In the mobilisations against the WTO in Seattle in 1999, for example, a consensus-decision-making process involving literally thousands of people was successfully followed, using “spokes councils”. This is a system whereby people are organised in affinity groups (of people they are used to working with and share similar concerns). These groups would discuss issues and make decisions. Then the groups would participate in “spokes councils” where all the groups came together(and can confer within their group), but only one member of each group could speak. Thus c.1000 people actively participate in a meeting, but only a more manageable 100 are talking. (This process can be expanded even further by creating clusters of affinity groups, such as all field kitchens, all medical teams, or regional clusters, and making each cluster a single “spoke”)


§ TAKING AMMENDMENTS: Where amendments to the proposal are proposed it may be appropriate to try and reach consensus on the amendments (using the same process). If consensus can be reached on amendments, it is possible that the overall proposal will then find consensus.

§ FACILITAION: It is the direct responsibility of the facilitator to try and guide the meeting towards finding consensus, making sure it is really clear what the meeting is discussing and that it doesn’t stray from the issue in hand, and stopping at various points to “check for consensus” (as in point 4 above). This is important because, in a heated debate, people often get carried away with making their point and fail to notice that actually everyone now more or less agrees and the meeting could move on.

HOWEVER, it is vital that people show respect to the facilitator(s) and cooperate with them. It is a very very hard job!

In reality it is everyone’s responsibility to try and make the meeting work and achieve consensus. I have taken part in many meetings, particularly in Mediterranean areas, where there is no facilitation or chair and everyone takes responsibility, and this can work equally well.

So, meetings continue following this cycle of debate and “checking for consensus”. When the check finds unanimous agreement, the decision is minuted and acted upon, and the meeting moves on to the next point. When unanimous agreement is not found, the debate continues, with a view to finding the roots of that disagreement and reaching a compromise.

It can be a long process.

At some point it may become clear that consensus will not be reached, or at least not in time to be useful to the project. In this case, in my experience, there are two possible outcomes:
1. Those holding the minority view may storm out of the meeting, leaving the (now smaller) process to find consensus, accept or abandon the proposal, and move on.
2. The minority view holders may remain, obstructing the meeting and preventing any advance. Or an unhappy consensus may be reached to bow to the will of the minority in order to move on.

This second possibility seems to be the major concern regarding consensus decision making: that an individual or small group can effectively “dictate” the decisions of the meeting by obstructing consensus.

In circumstances like ours in the ESF, where we are trying to balance time constraints with true democracy, it is perhaps best to create some kind of fallback system. A possible example of this would be that if, after a clearly defined consensus decision making process had been followed, unanimous agreement cannot be reached, we vote, and a 2/3 majority will carry a proposal.

TRAINING IN CONSENSUS DECISION MAKING
Making consensus decision making work is not easy, but there are a lot of groups and communities that have many decades of experience. There is a lot of information available about consensus decision making and more detailed or alternative models of how to do it. A “Google” search for “consensus decision making” pulls up some very interesting sites.

Some of the best examples come from the Peace and Anti-Nuclear Movements, which have put a lot of work into developing processes that are clear, participatory and democratic.

There are many useful contacts who could help us to formulate a workable consensus decision making process, such as people from Trident Ploughshares (who attended the last City Hall meeting) or the organisation "Turning the Tide" who offer training sessions in consensus decision making processes and I believe can be contacted via the Friends Meeting House in Euston Rd, London NW1.

If people think it would be useful, I would be keen to organise training sessions for people facilitating our UK assembly (organising committee?) meetings.

CONCLUSIONS
Personally I believe that we should to build an ESF process that is open, transparent and based on consensus decision making, as I have outlined them here. However, I feel that I may be in the minority, and (in the spirit of consensus decision making) I am keen to reach a compromise.

Through the ESF we are bringing together a wide range of political cultures. The scope for misunderstanding and abuse of the process (by those on all sides!) is considerable. The most important thing is therefore clarity. We must have a clear structure of how we are going to operate, and we must all respect it and stick to it.
More important than consensus or even openness is transparency. Everyone should be able to understand how decisions are made and be empowered to make proposals and contribute to the process.

I would therefore propose some kind of constitution. We should create a “process” working group that will investigate different ways of structuring the ESF decision making, similar to, and in cooperation with, those already commissioned to investigate legal structures for the ESF organisation.

The proposal provisionally accepted at the meeting on 24th January would be a very good place to start, as there was broad acceptance (though not unanimous agreement) that it was a good way to move forward.

I perceive that we have people from different political cultures finding difficulties in understanding each others ways of working. Having a written constitution would mean we had a clear framework to bring people from different political cultures together around a common and irrefutable process, and clearly and transparently explained to everyone, with no misuse of language leading to confusion.

In Solidarity,
Katja