Consensual Democracy

The flower of democracy has been ever so slowly unfolding over the last two thousand years, give or take. But once in a great while there is a burst of progress, bringing us into the light of a new era of democracy that quickly renders the old methods quaint. There is currently such a movement underway to bring democracy to new heights, or should we say new lows? Perhaps the towering "heights" of representative democracy are at the crux of the problems we face, democracy actually improves in quality when it gets lower to the ground where the people can access it. In a representative government you cannot access real power at all except through those so called representatives, who may not be very accessible themselves. And their accessibility may vary from one class to another, one person one vote just isn't good enough to get an audience with a senator.

At the heart of the direct democracy movement, now taking place largely under the umbrella of the 99%/Occupy Wall St. movement, lies the consensus process. This process is not new but it is becoming widely recognized as a positive alternative to representative democracy. Even those who are still deeply invested in the representative system and strongly identify with specific parties or politicians realize that the consensus process is far more true to the spirit of democracy. One reason why some can still have "Hope" for "Change" in the representative system, yet still actively participate in a direct democracy system is the obvious dilemma we all face with party politics. When you vote for a person you don't get to pick and choose which parts of their agenda you vote for, you get the whole package for better or worse. And that would be frustrating enough if we could trust them to do what they say they will do once they are elected.

Direct democracy is our next step, and perhaps our only hope to practice a true democracy on this planet. But the transition from representative democracy will not be a smooth one and we should be prepared for a great deal of turbulence. We went from having a king, a ruler, a monarch, to having a billion dollar ego-fest every other year to choose professional politicians to "represent" 'we the people' in a very small and closed power circuit. Besides the complete waste of time and money the unfortunate effect is that we have commodified our political world and handed it over to "professionals" who only see the value of the dollar and who represent no ones interest but their own family's financial well being. Though we can vote during election seasons, once politicians take office money is the only thing that sways them. Those with property, wealth, and power are the ones whose interests are being served, representative democracy is for sale.

Direct democracy on the other hand is something shared between consenting adults, it is a deeply philosophical and spiritual practice for many and must be approached with the utmost respect and consideration for the group and the process. When people come together to find their common ground there is a great deal of trust and openness required to create the atmosphere of inclusion and cooperation that draws the group in and exposes the heart of the matter, and hopefully brings forth the point of consensus. Approaching the group, therefore is like approaching a timid lover, whose mutual will you are prepared to woo into being. For many, approaching a group with an issue or agenda item can be a frustrating affair, they may see the group in general as being unreasonable, or the process as impractical. And though the group may actually be willing to embrace the idea, they might prefer the power point equivalent of dinner and a movie.

One cannot blame the group for being timid and even a little frigid, after all we've been through with "representative democracy" many of us feel abused, violated, and dare I say it, raped. After all, what is the opposite of consent? Career politicians are like drunk frat boys who will say anything at all to get into our pants and then do just the opposite once they have taken their prize. Women of the world may have noticed that they have more leverage with their man and their politician when the "polls" are open, and this is why it's a good idea to get a solid commitment before you give up the goods. And this is exactly the kind of unequal democracy we have practiced for far too long, where the majority of us are seduced by a slick talking walking ego who has no respect for us in the morning. This political courting pageant we call election season leaves the bulk of us so confused and disoriented that we feel as though someone slipped something into our drink and now we're waking up in the back of a strange van wondering what happened to our underwear.

It's equally understandable why many people approach the consensus process with little regard for the feelings and reaction of the group. We have been born into and fed a pure diet of "representative democracy" our entire lives, we are immersed into this world of ego-maniacs trying to control the planet. And to give them the benefit of the doubt we should try to recognize that these people are like soldiers who have never made love to a woman, only paid for prostitutes. For some in the party system they may even be like prisoners who have only had prison sex and now must learn how to relate in a world of equals who don't dominate one another as a matter of course. Needless to say, prisoners and rape victims make some pretty strange bed fellows, but all hope is not lost if we recognize these subtle dynamics and respond to one another as consciously and considerately as possible. This may be one of my more crude analogies, but for those of us who have been screwed by "representative democracy" our whole lives, it's unfortunately one of my more accurate analogies.

If there is an idea whose time has come, I believe it is this: Democracy can only exist between consenting adults, anything else is a violation of democracy. What is true for love is true for democracy.