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.
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.
There is no consensus about the exact historical background of the polder model. In general, there are three views on this subject. One explanation points to the rebuilding of the Netherlands after World War II. Corporatism was an important feature of Christian democracy and particularly Catholic political thought.
Economic democracy (sometimes called a democratic economy [1] [2]) is a socioeconomic philosophy that proposes to shift ownership [3] [4] [5] and decision-making power from corporate shareholders and corporate managers (such as a board of directors) to a larger group of public stakeholders that includes workers, consumers, suppliers, communities and the broader public.
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.
Costas Panayotakis has argued that the economic inequality engendered by neoliberalism creates inequality of political power, undermining democracy and the citizen's ability to meaningfully participate. [333] Despite the focus on economic efficiency, some critics allege that neoliberal policies actually produce economic inefficiencies.
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 ...