Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Consensus democracy [1] is the application of consensus decision-making and supermajority to the process of legislation in a democracy.It is characterized by a decision-making structure that involves and takes into account as broad a range of opinions as possible, as opposed to majoritarian democracy systems where minority opinions can potentially be ignored by vote-winning majorities. [2]
The word consensus is Latin meaning "agreement, accord", derived from consentire meaning "feel together". [2] A noun, consensus can represent a generally accepted opinion [3] – "general agreement or concord; harmony", "a majority of opinion" [4] – or the outcome of a consensus decision-making process.
Term Description Examples Autocracy: Autocracy is a system of government in which supreme power (social and political) is concentrated in the hands of one person or polity, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control (except perhaps for the implicit threat of a coup d'état or mass insurrection).
The Washington Consensus is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered in the 1980s and 1990s to constitute the "standard" reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by the Washington, D.C.-based institutions the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United States Department of the Treasury. [1]
Rough consensus, a term used in consensus decision-making to indicate the "sense of the group" concerning a matter under consideration. Consensus democracy, democracy where consensus decision-making is used to create, amend or repeal legislation. Consensus-based assessment, the use of consensus to produce methods of evaluating information.
Historian Guðmundur Jónsson said that it would be historically inaccurate to include Iceland in one aspect of the Nordic model, that of consensus democracy. Addressing the time period from 1950 to 2000, Jónsson writes that "Icelandic democracy is better described as more adversarial than consensual in style and practice.
Philosophers critical of majority rule have often argued that majority rule does not take into account the intensity of preference for different voters, and as a result "two voters who are casually interested in doing something" can defeat one voter who has "dire opposition" to the proposal of the two, [8] leading to poor deliberative practice ...
Consociationalism (/ k ən ˌ s oʊ ʃ i ˈ eɪ ʃ ən əl ɪ z əm / kən-SOH-shee-AY-shən-əl-iz-əm) is a form of democratic power sharing. [1] Political scientists define a consociational state as one which has major internal divisions along ethnic, religious, or linguistic lines, but which remains stable due to consultation among the elites of these groups.