by Ralph Maughan, Ph. D
May 28, 2000

In the last sentence of the news article Senator Larry Craig says, "Consensus and trust can only be forged through an open public process," 

Who could object to such a statement? Not in the abstract, of course, but there is more here than meets the eye, and I can say that  from experience.

"Open public process" generally means public hearings.  I have attended scores of such hearings on Western natural resource issues, and their effect is frequently to polarize issues to a greater extent, although sometimes it allows one side a clear victory in numbers.

Pubic "field" hearings, a term for those hearings held in locales away from the seat of government are rallying points for the supporters of interest groups.  Each group tries to get as many of its supporters to testify as possible, hopefully while the TV cameras are still running and reporters for other media remain. Dispassionate persons rarely attend the site of a such hearing.  Most people testify in front of their friends and their opponents, many of whom they may know personally.  In such a situation, a person is under social pressure to reinforce the views of his or her group. Kinds words for the opposition are discouraged. Even now I can think of ringing phrases -- sound bites or great quotes -- to disparage the views and supporters with whom I disagree.

In other words, ranchers pretty much have to testify against wolves, despite any personal feelings to the contrary. Environmentalists must rally to protect the wilderness, and dirt bikers must argue against government regulation in favor of  "self-regulation."  To do otherwise would destroy one's reputation among those who are your friends.

A public hearing on enlargement of Craters of the Moon would likely be dominated by its opponents because protection for this area has not been a priority for Idaho environmentalists -- a nice thing, but not a rallying cry.

Now let us turn to "consensus," a word that hardly belongs in the context of "open public process."

Consensus means everyone agrees, or least no one disagrees enough to publicly say "no". 

Secretary Babbitt held several meetings in Idaho on the issue of enlarging Craters of the Moon National Monument.  He was careful to touch base and smooth things over with those who were mostly likely object, and so to destroy consensus.  This meant he talked with ranchers, the group historically mostly likely to object to designations.  He assured them nothing would change for them.  In fact, their grazing leases might even be more secure.  While enviros were not enthusiastic about a measure that would grandfather livestock grazing in an area they saw as inherently unsuitable for cattle -- the high desert of the Snake River Plain, a.k.a. "the Arco Desert" -- they would not object to a national monument because they understand that large undeveloped areas, no matter how seemingly inhospitable, attract plans for developments in this overcrowded world.

There is great irony in Babbit's apparent success.  Western Republican congressionals have, in part, been pushing the idea of consensus as the solution for contentions public land and wildlife issues for almost a decade now.  Some conservationists have joined in this idea of having "stakeholders" sit down and talk about their differences and resolve them so that there is consensus.  There have been a few successes, the Henry's Fork Watershed Council being the most cited.  Others are more controversial, such as the results of the Quincy Library Group. Mostly, however, the outcome of consensus groups is no action taken.

There are reasons for this failure to achieve change.

1. Consensus groups are inherently biased in favor of the status quo. No wonder they have appeal to conservatives.  Because anyone in a consensus group can "veto" an agreement, anyone highly satisfied with the status quo, or merely worried about the "devil we know versus the one we don't," has reason to object.  Long-time ranchers, in particular, are very skeptical of any idea from outside their group.

2. Consensus processes only work where the number of stakeholders are few in number, and they can speak with authority for their groups.

As time has passed, more and more groups, and from a wider variety of interests, are concerned with Western natural resources/environmental issues.  It should be obvious that it is much more difficult to get consensus from groups with diverse and inherently competing agendas than from a few groups with much in common.

Moreover, meeting time after time in a consensus process allows people to get to know one another personally, something that does not normally occur on these issues.  However, unlike the consensus group members, the leadership and membership of groups that sent their representatives to sit in the consensus process do not get the benefit of this personal interaction.  Inasmuch as small group dynamics may move the consensus group members toward consensus, that in turn may make them no longer representative of the interest that sent them in the first place.  Therefore, if achieved, their consensus will be disavowed by their parent interest.

3. It is doubly dangerous to sit in a consensus group. If those with whom you disagree, do not eventually come to a consensus, they at least learn who you are and a lot about you. This gives them the incentive and perhaps the means to harm you. Talking things over with your adversaries, sharing your views, does not automatically lead to understanding.  When worldviews clash, hatred often results.

4. Those who are paid to attend consensus decision-making meetings, have a great advantage over those who are using their valuable time to attend. Likewise, participating in such a group process sucks up your organization's resources that could otherwise be used for political mobilization, lawsuits, etc.

5. In the face of much disagreement, consensus decision making is very inefficient. However, if the criterion of small number of people who can indeed speak for their groups is present, it can be much more efficient than democratic methods.  This may be why Babbitt might succeed in having the President create a greatly enlarged Craters of the Moon National Monument.

6. Finally, there is a more abstract argument.  Consensus groups are not democratic.  Democracy requires a majority, with provision for the civil rights and liberties for minority views.  Consensus requires unanimity.

Conflict in democracies usually results in negotiations and bargaining between the groups that have some power.  Consensus simply requires veto or complete agreement.  Negotiation often results in situations where each group wins some of what it wants.  Consensus only results in those least likely to agree to have their way.