When people hear that
Quakers don't vote, they often jump to the wrong conclusion – that
we don't vote, ever. Like in
elections and things. As Advices and Queries
recommends, however, we are urged to be involved in local, national
and international affairs – and the fundamental way of doing that,
for the first two, is at the ballot box. In my experience, Quakers
vote fairly reliably.
What
we don't do is vote
internally. Decisions are made through the Quaker Business Method,
which very much involves no voting. Given that I'm writing for a
primarily Quaker audience here, I'm not going to fully explain what
our business method involves, just cover some key points as seems
necessary. A business meeting is a Meeting for Worship, simply one
held in order to make some decision, or receive a report, or various
other purposes. People speak (ideally) as they are moved, and all
ministry is heard and weighed by all present, until the clerk is able
to discern the sense of the meeting and write a minute. That minute
is offered to the Meeting, who have the opportunity to indicate
acceptance or not, and suggest tweaks to wording.
Note
that there's no voting there. If there's a disagreement as to whether
the minute reflects the sense of the meeting, we don't have a show of
hands – we place great trust in our clerks and elders to guide us
through business even when it is difficult. That's what we mean when
we say that Quakers don't vote.
But
people still get a wrong idea from it. To most people, voting and
democracy are essentially synonymous. If, and only if fair voting
occurs is a decision taken democratically, to secular sensibilities.
Indeed, perhaps the most famous bit of spiritually-led decision
making in the world, the papal conclave, is said to be a prayerful
activity where the cardinals make their decision based on the
guidance of the Holy Spirit – but they still vote, the will of God
being expressed in the ballots cast. Thus popes are elected, under
the guidance of God, and most people would recognise an element of
democracy in that decision.
Yet
we do not vote. We hold that guidance from the Divine will be
expressed in the unity of our Meetings for Worship for Business, not
in votes cast, however prayerfully. We accept that this means that we
will not always be able to make decisions as quickly as we might
like. That sounds a lot like another form of democratic decision
making recognised by many – though not as many as recognise voting.
Are we then operating under a democratic consensus decision making
structure? As many Quakers before me have said, no. We do not look
for consensus. Unity is not found by everyone agreeing on a course of
action, but rather accepting that a given decision reflects the sense
of the meeting – and no, I'm not going to explain the “sense of
the meeting”, because that's a topic for a whole separate piece of
writing. Let's leave it at the suitably vague idea that the sense of
the meeting is the meeting's collective understanding of what the
divine is urging us towards – or, in more traditional terms, our
understanding of the will of God.
So
people speak, and then a designated individuals tries to write down
what it all means in a clear, expressive and understandable (and
ideally concise) form. How can that be democratic!? Is it not rather
a consultative dictatorship? Well, no. The meeting can refuse to
accept the minute, for starters – if there is significant dissent
to the minute, the clerk will know they need to go back to the
drawing board. But aren't we back at consensus, now? Still, no –
but this is where trust comes into it. In a Meeting for Worship for
Business, we not only have faith that we will be guided to the right
decision, but we have trust in one another that we will follow the
method faithfully. That means trusting that, should the minute not
reflect the sense of the meeting, even those Friends who would
support the content of the minute personally will object. Likewise,
we trust that those who disagree with the content of the minute
personally will acknowledge that it reflects the sense of the
meeting.
So,
are we democratic in our decision making? I say we are, in a deep and
fundamental way, democratic, and more so than any system based on
voting, yet without the problems that pure consensus decision-making
faces. Anyone may speak in a business session, and we believe that,
fundamentally, all present are actively participating, even if they
never speak – though an exploration of why we believe that, and the
different explanations different Friends would put forth, is also a
topic for a whole extra piece of writing. In a large enough meeting,
it may be that not everyone who indicates they are moved to speak
will get to speak, but we have faith that the Spirit will ensure that
what needs saying will be said before any decision is agreed. We
trust in the Divine that all viewpoints needed will be heard, and
everyone participates in forming the sense of the meeting. While we
trust one or more individuals to discern that sense, we do not do so
blindly or without oversight. It is fundamentally a decision made,
with guidance from the Divine, by the people involved –
fundamentally democratic.
Of
course, there are weak points, things that can go wrong. We can have
an unscrupulous clerk, a timid elder, or a Friend who does not
properly test their ministry – or even one who attempts everything
they can to obstruct a decision they personally disagree with. We
have systems and practices to try to minimise that risk, but I think
most, if not all experienced Friends will be able to recall a
business session that was not entirely rightly ordered. Yet this is
not unique to our system of decision-making compared to things that
are conventionally accepted as democratic. Both voting and consensus
are vulnerable to demagoguery, to a charismatic individual swaying
people based on clever words and rhetoric, or promises of future
actions they can't be held to. Our method specifically attempts to
prevent that, though I recognise it does not always succeed. Votes
can be swayed by knowing how other people have voted – a risk that
we mitigate in public elections through the legally-enforced secret
ballot, and rules against publishing exit polls until the polls have
closed. And, of course, there are many ways in which a vote can be
made less than free and fair. The most subtle yet pernicious risk of
voting is the tyranny of the majority, where a majority vote can
allow that majority to trample on the wishes, even the needs of a
minority. Modern democracies generally have some sort of system to
counterbalance that, though it's never of more than limited effect.
Consensus decision-making may be seen as the ultimate standard in
decision-making with universal consent, with one person able to
obstruct a decision they don't like, but even where such pure
consensus decision-making is used we find that social pressure and
unofficial retribution can be levelled on such people, so they do not
avail themselves of that opportunity.
Our
business method is flawed, but it is also democratic – and no
democratic system is without its own flaws.
