I had a most interesting talk with a former politician. His view on consensus was interesting. Basically the idea was that you start with your vision, put that forward, extract those who aren’t helpful to the fulfilment of that vision, and then you have consensus.
Of course, Obama’s and Trudeau’s election wins were related to another kind of consensus. The idea was to poll the people, pulling from them their ideas and visions. Then you put those all together and see if you can come up with a consensus.
The truth of the matter is probably found in context. A fragmented group needs a vision. A homogeneous group needs conversation.
The recent election in the United States seems to indicate that there is a fragmented group that needed a vision. Consensus through conversation was not about to be found.
My own inclination is towards conversation. I think we work best when we feel together, when we agree without coercion. But, perhaps there are times where a benevolent dictator is the best option.
OK, these are starting thoughts for an editorial in the next few months.
Any further thoughts or feedback??