Since one of the bases of panocracy is that only individuals make decisions, how can decisions be made that affect a number of, or many, people while taking into account their wishes and needs and their right to participate in the making of decisions that affect them?
An answer is working - organising, managing or governing - by consent. Consent means that enough of the people affected agree with a decision and there is enough lack of disagreement. Other people may disagree with the decision but accept that it is reasonable. Others don't mind what the decision is, are not interested or do not want to be involved.
Disagreement may show up in two ways. The decision is ignored. Some speed limits may be examples of this, being mostly ignored. Alternatively there may be active disagreement, a row, protests or even riot.
Panocracy both supports and and is supported by people being in their own power, being autonomous and making good decisions in their own good interests. Consent becomes an active process in which people are encouraged to participate.
It is individuals who make the decisions, whether they are managers, members of a government body, office holders in an organisations or people taking leadership. Decision makers are personally responsible for the decisions they make, they are not delegates.
Working by consent is not a new idea, it is something that police forces in the UK talk of and aspire to. It also happens in many informal or less structured groups. Individuals take leadership, perhaps with roles such as being secretary or organising and activity, without having any formal authority. It works well, and it frequently does, when these individuals take account of the needs and opinions of the other members of the group and make decisions that have enough consent.
Discussion of the theoretical and actual application of panocracy in practice
1 post • Page 1 of 1