A consensus model of political decision-making

In this paper, a model of political consensus is introduced. Parties try to reach consensus in forming a government. A government is defined as a pair consisting of a winning coalition and a policy supported by this coalition, where a policy consists of policies on given issues. A party evaluates all governments the party belongs to with respect to some criteria. We allow the criteria to be of unequal importance to a party. These criteria concern winning coalitions and policy issues. Parties may be advised to adjust their preferences, i.e., to change their evaluation concerning some government(s) or/and the importance of the criteria, in order to obtain a better political consensus.consensus reaching; consensus degree; government; coalition; policy

A consensus model of political decision-making

International audienceIn this paper, a model of political consensus is introduced. Parties try to reach consensus in forming a government. A government is defined as a pair consisting of a winning coalition and a policy supported by this coalition, where a policy consists of policies on given issues. A party evaluates all governments the party belongs to with respect to some criteria. We allow the criteria to be of unequal importance to a party. These criteria concern winning coalitions and policy issues. Parties may be advised to adjust their preferences, i.e., to change their evaluation concerning some government(s) or/and the importance of the criteria, in order to obtain a better political consensus

A General Model of Good Executive Leadership in Policy Contexts

This commentary stipulates a general model of policy leadership, encompassing decision-making, implementation, and evaluation. The model stresses attaining clarity about the nature of the issue being addressed, the values at stake, and the possible outcomes of alternative courses of action. While focused on the context of elected executives in municipal government, the stipulated model has broader applicability to other contexts. The article contends that following the model may both improve the effectiveness of political leaders and help build consensus (or compromise) among distinct political actors

Internal Tribal Fragmentation: An Examination of a Normative Model of Democratic Decision-Making

A recent commentary by Gerald A. Alfred in the spring 1991 edition of the Northeast Indian Quarterly dealt with a subject matter which is either ignored or radically exaggerated when it is broached in Indian Country: political fragmentation (or segments or cleavages) and ideological conflict within North American Indian tribes and the ramifications of such internal conflict on tribal identity. This paper, after restating Alfred\u27s major points about Mohawk segmentation at Kahnawake, describes and then analyzes a viable alternative democratic decision-making model which has been specifically designed to address the problems of how not only to restore, but also to maintain stability in politically, socially, and culturally fragmented societies. The model is consociational democracy (it is also sometimes referred to as power-sharing, amicable agreement, or consensus decision-making), and it is this author\u27s contention that this institutional arrangement of consensual decision-making has significant potential to address the increasing level of fragmentation that threatens to engulf (and has already engulfed) some tribal societies. We argue that the premises behind the power sharing model-elite cooperation, consensus decision-making, grand coalitions, etc.,—are particularly apropos because they intuitively and historically fit well with the historic traditions of unanimity and accommodation that has characterized indigenous communities for millennia

Democratic Self-Determination and the Intentional Building of Consensus

This paper defends two fundamental but under-theorized insights coming from the theory of deliberative democracy. The first is that consensus is valuable as a precondition of democratic collective self-determination, since it ensures that democratic decisions display an adequate degree of integrity and consistency and therefore that the polity can act as a unified agent. The second is that consensus in this integrity-building role is essential if citizens need to act as decision-makers; it ensures that the decisions that issue from the exercise of their political rights are meaningful, and that they are so as the intended result of their joint agency.Aggregative approaches, which do not acknowledge this role of consensus, offer an atomistic account of voting and other political rights, and model the outcomes of democratic decision-making as unintended aggregative consequences of individual votes. In these models, democratic political agency and the decision-making power of citizens are curtailed, because citizens do not exert any intentional control on the final outcome of the decision-making process in which they participate.Although the insight on these shortcomings comes from the deliberative camp, I show that the most prominent accounts of how deliberation is supposed to further consensus in its integrity-building role can be subject to the same criticisms. In fact, in these models consensus is achieved as a by-product of people's engaging in deliberation. Although interactive, these approaches are still atomistic and unintentional. As an alternative, I propose a model of democratic decision-making that acknowledges the role played by the citizens' intentional consensus-building through the strategic use of their political rights

How To Tell What Political Processes People Want? Measuring Citizens’ Process Preferences in Surveys

This paper focuses on the operationalization of citizens’ preferences concerning how political decisions should be made. Recent research suggests that process preferences are a relevant predictor of the level of confidence citizens have in political institutions. However, there is no standardized scale for the measurement of such preferences. Hence, the aim of this paper is to present the development and validation of a multi-dimensional scale measuring citizens’ preferences concerning political decision-making processes. Based on existing research, a theoretical derived model with three dimensions and 16 indicators is tested. Those items were evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in structural equation modeling (SEM) and validated on another independent sample. The results indicate that process preferences consist of three factors: consensus-orientation, competition, and the efficiency of political decision-making processes. Moreover, further studies confirmed the cultural equivalence of the scale and its invariance as regards two different objects of assessment (parliament, government)

Consensus and Dissensus in the Public Sphere: How East Asian associations use publicity

Jürgen Habermas has developed a model describing how civil society can use the public sphere to influence politics. Habermas assumes that, because discourse in the public sphere is open, inclusive, anonymous, and autonomous, the public sphere is best setting in which to develop consensus about common affairs.  However, when this model is examined in the context of political advocacy by East Asian associations, the public sphere turns out to be characterized by dissensus rather than consensus.  Consensus is enabled by trust, shared aims, exclusions, bargaining and exchanges, predictable decision-making procedures, or authority. These conditions helpful for consensus building are often lacking in the public sphere. Nonetheless, civil society can be politically influential because it can use minority influence and cross the state-society boundary

Citizens, Development Interests, and Local Land-Use Regulation

Local governments confer significant benefits and costs on individuals and businesses through their power to regulate private land use. This article analyzes such regulation by using discriminant analysis to test a model of rezoning decision making. The results indicate that the best predictor of a local governing body\u27s decision in a rezoning case is the recommendation of the appointed planning commission. This is contrary to both scholarly and popular expectations that pressure by developers or public protest is the major factor influencing elected officals in rezoning cases. The results suggest that citizen advisory boards may have significant effects on local policy-making, and that elected officials use such institutions both to provide themselves a buffer from political pressure and to forge a consensus on issues

Model Hubungan Politik Era Pemerintahan Jokowi: Mengkaji Peran Media dan Partisipasi Publik

Phenomenon of governance Joko Widodo (Jokowi) is about a model of political relations between actors. Interaction takes place between the ruling elite (state actors) and the community (society actors). Therefore, it is difficult to avoid when the then competition between the interests of the ruling elite and society become dominant in the political process, both at the decision-making and policy implementation. In the exercise of power, it is used to turn up and gained four patterns of political interaction that is complementary patterns, accommodate, compete with and replace. Is asymmetrical relationship model that is not too clear who the opponent and friend. Political cooperation often take the option koopsi the cause potential swingers in the coalition. This, due to the lack of a dominant winning party in the middle of a strong fragmented multiparty system (a highly fragmented Multiparty system) so that all parties would prefer a consensus democracy. In the midst of the crush various issues, public participation is often expressed through mass media and social media. This can be understood as non-conventional forms of political participation