In the basic consensus, participants are explicitly asked if there is anyone who disagrees. A common phrase in the meetings I observed was: "Is there anyone who can`t live with this decision?" or simply "someone against?", thus offering an explicit place for dissidents, so to speak now or shut up forever. In this practice, consensus appears as a piece of silence, and by observing this silence as the absence of disagreement, the participants determine the existence of a consensus. Silence in this practice makes it possible to express disagreements, allowing dissidents (in relation to the forced and acclaimed consensus) to easily oppose it. General coherence between members of a given group or community, each of whom exercises some discretion in decision-making and follow-up. "They had an agreement not to interfere in each other`s affairs" A vote can help organize discussions on concrete proposals, but it can sometimes create conflict and division. One of the problems with a "yes" or "no" vote on a proposal is that there may be a consensus on an average option. Even a "middle way" option is not enough, as it can prevent the emergence of new ideas that would benefit from increased support. Another voting problem is that it could prevent a real discussion, because voters do not have to justify their position.
This prevents people from assessing the underlying reasons for a vote and from criticizing the weak or imprecise justifications for a vote. It also prevents people from finding alternative ways to satisfy voters` concerns, with a less divisive approach. I think these companies confuse consensus with cooperation. Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Any discussion should involve a good effort of faith, hearing and understanding each other. But once people have had a chance to present their point of view, it may be necessary to ignore someone or give them less weight to move forward with what the group considers to be the best. Sometimes it only takes a broad consensus to move forward. With the incremental process and practical procedures for collaborative decision-making, your team experiences the creativity and adaptability that emerges within a consent system.
They also learn to distinguish when consent is used (for governance at special circle meetings) and when a one-time person or leader is able to make decisions independently. Click here to learn more. Drafters should make good faith efforts to reach consensus. This means that the dissenting party must indicate that the current proposal does not correspond to the interests of the larger group, rather than simply stating that it will not accept it. But after a good-faith discussion, the dissenting party sometimes has to agree to move forward, even if it does not agree with the concrete approach. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of 1569-1795 used consensual decisions in its sejms (legislative assemblies) in the form of a liberum veto. A kind of unanimous approval, liberum veto originally allowed each member of a Sejm to veto a single law by calling Sisto activitatem! (Latin: "I`m going to stop the activity!") Or Never pozwalam! (Polish: "I won`t allow it!").  Over time, it has evolved into a much more extreme form, in which each member of the Sejm could unilaterally and immediately force the end of the current session and annihilate all the laws previously adopted in that session.  Due to the excessive use and deliberate sabotage by neighbouring powers bribing sejm members, the legislation became very difficult and weakened the Commonwealth.