Consent and consensus are obviously two different words. The much
broader word consensus covering, as small part, the very basic "consent".
(at the level of revolutions, armed revolts, riots, assassinations,etc,etc)
My example of the consent-word was just an american example and quote, going back
to both dictators, monarchies and rudimentary democratic systems.
The concept of "consensus" became an important concept only after, for example,
voting rights were broaden to all citizens and when multy-party systems "evolved".
(from older systems when both "workers", farmers, traders, priests, aristocrates
and "royals", plus the military were represented, not just "those who rule" and
"their opposition")
In some political system "Consensus, you see, is NOT a necessary condition for a ruling party."
But some systems are designed to produce consensus and consensus decision, especially on
important issues.
This is also connected to the basic "consent of the ruled" but includes the actual mechanisms
for how even a small minority can intervene with, stop (narrow 50%) majority decisions.
(without revolutions, armed revolts, riots, assassinations,etc,etc)
Below that there is the more basic mechanism of how these minorites get acess, seats in
the parliament, that is, proportional representation vs winner-takes-all-(two-party-)districts.
<Consensus, however, involves an active decision to form a coalition regarding a platform or position.>
Yes, exactly, after the overall system is a proportional representation (and muly-party) system
and the government is formed by a coalition of parties. (and the parliament has powers to
change or replace either decisions of the government or the whole government)
< It is not implied but must be actively negotiated>
The active negotiations are based on the actual, realitic risks that the "government opposition",
although a less than 50% minority can either stop or delay decisions by the majority.
To get rid of that "perpetual antagonistic adversary" stuff another mechanism is to achieve that most parties
know that at some point in the future they will be parts of another coalition (as they also have been
before, after the system has been up and running for some time)
Ilmarinen
Anyway, I'm happy that we found consensus (one can also use the word "common ground")
on that "consent of the ruled", I guessed that would be something recognizable for americans.
However, "the consent" is just a very small part of "consensus-systems"
Btw, USA has some mechanisms which can be classified as "consensus-mechanisms",
presidential veto rights and the 2/3 majority to over-rule them and especially what usually
is a fact, that one party has the power of two, the other of one of the three institutions of
house, senate and president.
Another example is the internal process which the two parties go through internally to "activate"
their own minority factions, but that (internal to the party) process is exactly what multy-party and consensus
systems try to minimize (by bringing it "out in the open" and additionally that thing
with that center-party of more moderate citizens)
PPS Obviously english is not my first language, if it would be I would know knothing
about all of this. (probably also a reason why multi-lingual nations in general implement
some level of multi-party consensus systems, and why all modern multi-ethnic nations
are doing the same) |
