Connecting Decision-Making in politics

Our Connecting Decision-Making concept works remarkably well in organisations. Decisions are made from collective intelligence. They are broadly supported and the people who implement them are highly motivated. Smart solutions are put into practice at remarkable speed. Connecting Decision-Making is easy to apply. That is what we hear from the many participants who have attended our sessions.

We often hear questions like ‘Why aren’t these principles applied in politics?’ and ‘What needs to change to apply this way of decision-making in the governance of our countries and regions?’.

Below we describe some bottlenecks and sketch possible alternatives.

Choosing by pro-voting does not work.

Laws are passed when there is a majority of votes (pro-votes). This means that a majority of 51% can impose its will on a minority of 49%. If a few voters change their mind after a while, a law can be undone again by approving a counter-proposal with a new majority. This creates frustration in the minority, which usually translates into obstructive behaviour towards the majority. Doing politics becomes a cat-and-mouse game where nothing of substance gets resolved. With Connecting Decision-Making, we bypass the dominance of the (temporary) majority by taking into account the interests (needs) of all those involved. We do this by entering into dialogue with all stakeholders about what is going on with every issue at hand. What everyone’s needs are. The focus is on what the causes are and on the ultimate goal one wants to achieve. Only when the needs and context are clear do we search for solutions that meet as many needs as possible. Through a system of contra-voting, proposals are gradually refined. Each contra-vote implies an unmet need. This is integrated each time into an adjusted proposal until there are no more fundamental objections. This requires creativity and the ability to engage in dialogue. Unfortunately, quite a few politicians seem to lack the latter. Many are masters at debating, a form of discussion aimed at being proved right and talking the other person into an inferior position.

Power-over does not work.

A guiding principle in politics is that of ‘power-over’. If you have enough power, you can make others do what you want. Belief in this principle goes back centuries. Make sure you have enough power (weapons, money) and you can create the society you want. Politicians acquire this power by winning as many votes as possible. This influence now runs through the media and the internet. The snapshot of election day determines who holds power for the next term. With a referendum, irreversible decisions are made, even if public opinion realises the next day that it made the wrong choice. Alongside the formal circuit of power runs the informal circuit of the powerful, where an old boys’ network ensures that power stays where it is… Yet strong power does not lead to what people actually want to achieve. We saw this in Catalonia, where a strong police force could not break the pride of the Catalans. In Israel too, a tightly organised military system fails to deliver lasting peace. Or closer to home, we try to keep Muslim extremism under control with all available modern technology… The power-over principle ignores the idea that ‘taking good care of yourself works better when you take the other into account’. With Connecting Decision-Making, we start from the idea that a good decision, a valuable government initiative, takes care of all those involved. We look for solutions with the least resistance and therefore the greatest support among the people the decision affects. Connecting Decision-Making seeks to integrate the needs of the minority into the majority’s proposal. Ultimately, this way of consulting and making agreements also benefits the one who holds more power. Those who choose sustainable and affordable solutions do so through dialogue and let go of power-over as much as possible. Compromising does not really work either… When politicians develop solutions, different proposals are pieced together. This is true for government declarations, as well as laws and agreements after union tensions. Often the outcomes are a patchwork of different solutions where the strength of each solution has to give way to the others. Water is added to the wine. The unfortunate thing is that usually none of the negotiators is truly enthusiastic about the worked-out proposals. The watered-down wine does not appeal to the person who wants to celebrate, and the athlete wants no alcohol in the wine at all. With Connecting Decision-Making, we strive to first map out the needs, interests and values.

Is this idealistic?

I don’t think so. To me, it is the logical next step in governance. This means that people who are given responsibility in organisations and governments commit to the principle of dialogue and consultation. These people are representatives of interest groups in society and make agreements based on the principle of ‘power-with-each-other’. We could, as it were, write into a constitution that laws and decrees can only be ratified when the principles of Connecting Decision-Making are respected. If the representatives cannot reach agreement, a council of wise people can help cut through difficult knots. Naturally, such a council also operates from the principles mentioned above.

How far are we from such a form of governance? Perhaps less far than we think. The current ‘operating system’ of politics is due for an update. We need a form of governance that operates and makes decisions from values. We need intelligent leaders who take decisions through dialogue that support the quality of life on earth. Continuing to govern from the ‘power over’ principle will probably lead to an unavoidable crisis. Hopefully that crisis will then generate the insight and energy to take care of the planet and the people who live on it in a different way.

Fortunately…

Fortunately, we see that political parties are integrating the principles of Connecting Decision-Making for internal decisions and policy planning. Internal conflicts and discussions are transformed into strong decisions because they draw on collective intelligence. Strategic goals that are broadly supported make parties strong. This contributes to clear politics.

Hopefully politicians will also see that connecting consultation leads to more efficiency and added value for society as a whole. Taking measures that respect the interests of all those involved leads to greater satisfaction among people and more goodwill to contribute as citizens to a warm, well-functioning society.

Do you find this text interesting? Would you share it with people who are on boards? I would be happy to explain to them how Connecting Decision-Making works.

Warm regards,

Erwin