Elements of democracy
The a forementioned cases point out the principal differences from the partybased, parliamentary democracy.
Consensus in stead of voting. In parliamentary circles this concept is often the subject of contempt, and it is said that unity affects decision-making as it demands dilution and nivellation of viewpoints to a corporative system without conflict. Such reasoning is pure demagogical nonsense. Consensus does not imply unity – it implies a mutual feeling or mutual accept. On the contrary, consensus protects minorities and demands a thorough understanding of the context and its variety since it is not possible to go for a majority vote where 49% can be overruled by 51%. The heart of the consensus process is that one keeps on discussing until a mutual understanding is reached – which does not necessarily imply unity. The persons or groups that do not agree, will accept the decision if they find that it is not detrimental to their own activities or interests in a significant way. In those extreme instances when a single person or group repeatedly tries to block decisions the »bungler principle« kicks in. When everyone else finds that a proper solution has been reached and only one person cannot see it, he is deemed a bungler who has lost his right to be taken seriously – he is kept at a distance and will not be asked to participate in further negotations.
Messenger principle in stead of fixed representation. In the parliamentary systems you are elected for at certain number of years with a broad, unspecified mandate. During that period you handle all cases brought before you, whether or not you have the knowledge required to understand them and an interest in them. Together with a system of closed committees this facilitates the making of long-term decisions and deals, without having to make them public. In the messenger system the people who take an interest in and know about the cases in point are those who participate. The discussion processes where you delegate the specific, actual mandate have to be open to everyone because you will not be able to refer to services rendered or deals made earlier on in other cases, since they most likely were handled by other people.
Group autonomy. It is a characteristic trait of basic democracy that in workshops- and interestgroup you have your full freedom to make decisions and are not bound by au-thority and hierarchical decisions from outside the group. If this is not so, the group is likely to dissolve since grass root activists usually don’t feel like participating then.
Overlaps between groups. In a system based on more/several groups with full autonomy, there is a risk that the general wiev and relationships of a project or process is lost. In order to avoid that, it is necessary to participate in more than one group. One can then get a broad impression of what is going on and through contact with other groups include other perspectives on the wholeœproject or process.