Sociocracy: Add Value to Democracy in Nepal

Megha Ratna Shakya

The Nepalese people are dreaming that their destiny will be made when New Nepal is created with the crafting of new constitution by the Constitutional Assembly. Writing a new constitution itself will have to be based on democratic principles following democratic practices. The fundamental core values, principles and human rights of people as charted by numerous global statutes will guide the work. The work process itself will have to be thoroughly consultative and transparent hearing the voice of every single person or groups who are its citizens of this nation. This point to the system of governance and how the people in charge would steer the course. The way democracy is handled in the country today raises many questions because there is a tendency to act undemocratic, trade off core values for petty party interests, compromise the national interests for other factional interests. Therefore, it is only natural that people wonder how consensus will be achieved when the final constitution is produced.

Democracy, the most favored choice of the majority of the global population, despite its myriad flaws based on majority rule, is what we are adopting. However, look at the political and social organizations in the country and check out people associated with them if they have a high level of commitment to their organizations, if they have governance and organizational structure that can be called democratic, if the people and groups associated with them have felt included in decision making, if the communications among themselves are unhindered. If the minority voice is ignored by majority, how will it affect the long term development of their relationship? As an added value to democracy, Kees Boeke (1884-1966, a Dutch educator during Nazi occupation, introduced the concept to Sociocracy in May 1945. At the end of the Second World War the Germans imprisoned him for harboring Jews, and almost killed him because in his pocket was found a declaration entitled "No Dictatorship". The concept of Sociocracy was later significantly improved and expanded by Gerard Endenburg, an engineer and entrepreneur. After half a century, Sociocracy has been noticed as a viable solution to make up flaws in democracy. Sociocracy is an advanced form of democracy with its focus on steering dynamic processes of the governance, whether simple or complicated.

Sociocracy ensures inclusiveness, accountability, transparency, and productivity by creating the organizational structure involving all members of the organization in policy making decisions and producing a strong and efficient decision-making structure. It is in fact a rule set by a "circle" that is, people of the organization. Each "circle" has a voice that cannot be ignored by the organization. There are some four basic rules of Sociocracy: Consent: this is the decision-making process. This means that a decision can only be taken if no-one within a given circle has any (major and argued) objection to that decision. (b) Circle: each circle has its own specific aim; it delegates the three basic functions of leading, acting and getting feedback to its own members. (c). Double link: two circles form a double link which means that at least two people from one circle take part in the decision-making on the next-higher level of decision-making. They are the functional leader and one or more elected representative(s). (d). Elections: all tasks and functions are delegated by way of elections, applying the consent principle, after open discussion about criteria to be met (such as knowledge, skills and qualifications of the person involved).

At the first glance, this may sound virtually impossible to implement it in Nepal because we are conditioned to think in certain ways, such as majority rule, leaders and followers, bosses and servants etc. Of late in Nepal, we hear so much about the need of consensus on certain issues by political parties or consensus on common minimum program of coalition partners in the government. But have we got them? Sociocracy can help in this because Sociocracy is a form of government or management that recognizes equality of individuals and all decisions are based on consent. This equality is not expressed with the 'one man one vote' law of democracy as we are used to, but with the principle that a decision can only be taken if none of those present in the meeting have an reasoned objection to it. In Sociocracy decisions are made by consent rather than consensus following certain process.

The process is simple. A proposal is tabled at any level and all participants are asked if they have a reasoned and paramount objection. If there is such objection, the group has a process to determine if an objection is reasonable. In such case, the proposal is reworked to address the issues raised in the objection. The decision to go ahead with the proposal is made only if there are no more objections to it. Sociocracy follows consent rather than consensus where someone can object and block proposals for no good reason or unnecessarily drag out discussion. Many political decisions in Nepal are attempted to be taken with consensus and what we have seen so far are conflicts more and less consents.

One question often comes up. What blocks a decision? In consensus decision making in democracy, autocracy and traditional styles, blocking is possible. But in consent decision making, blocking is not possible. You can not block a decision in consent. When someone makes an objection, it doesn't block the decision at all …it would rather add another perspective to the issue at hand. This perspective is integrated into the final decision. Participants to the consent decision making do not think of such objection as blocking. Rather it is looked at as a duty to raise an objection when it is a perspective that needs to be included. It is about steering the group. The Sociocracy system allows the right steering to arise so that the decision is acceptable to all.

One very important element of Sociocracy is the shared aim of the group – one accord. The Constituent Assembly has one aim: to write a new constitution agreeable to all. Then there is the government whose aim is to facilitate the work of the Constituent Assembly. One cannot steer together if you are trying to go in different directions. If the aims are different, then the outcome will be such that there will be more dissatisfactions and conflicts than solutions for which the CA and the government are formed. Consent works when there is some form of consensus in the group to begin with. There can be a consensus on agenda and why they are there. Then there is an aim. That paves way for a consent based decision making process that allows you to guide the system, given that there is the same set of people. That Aim isn't changed, it is always there.

The shared aim guides the group to get into that powerful "we" "us" space that lets the group transcend from their individual interests. To make sure that this happens, supporting structure is needed that allows participants to see such transcendence tangibly. The participants may still have fear around decision making e.g. what if someone disagrees. In Sociocracy, there is no judgment of right or wrong, only a different perspective. It shifts people out of a transpersonal space with such comments like, "I resonate with that or I am not resonating with that." This helps to build the idea of dynamic steering and consent as people bring their perspectives. Integrating them all together is the challenge and this is the key task of the group. It is all about realizing and working with the truth that the group can live with in the moment, neither in the past nor in the future, and letting the work rise through us as a group, transcending their individual interest. It is completely a different thing from what most people do when talking about consensus. The actual meeting process may look very similar to some types of consensus building processes, but the reality is the process of consent.

Nepal needs this kind of decision making system in the present time when it is working on its destiny and it has to be based on consent rather than consensus. Sociocratic principles and system can be priceless tools for the movers and shakers of this nation whose greatness we have barely realized – the land of the Buddha, Sita and Balmiki that gave profound spiritual foundations to the whole earth.

The writer is a Nonviolent Communication Trainer in Nepal