MEETING MA'AT: THE AFRICAN CENTERED HANDBOOK FOR CONDUCTING MEETINGS

“When a council, each member of which was the representative of a lineage, met to

discuss matters affecting the whole community, it had always to grapple with the

problem of reconciling sectional and common interests. In order to do this, the members

had to talk things over: they had to listen to all the different points of view. So strong was the value of solidarity that the chief aim of the councilors was to reach unanimity, and they talked till this was achieved.”----K.A. Busia, Africa in Search of Democracy

 “In our original societies we operated by consensus. An issue was talked out in solemn

conclave until such time as agreement could be achieved.”----Kenneth Kaunda, Former

President of Zambia

As stated in one of passages above, African Consensus was a form of indigenous participatory or consensus democracy---a process in which unanimity of community agreement was a conscious goal of discussion and debate, and in which the consent of the governed was seen as achievable through a negotiation of discussion.  Dialogue and discussion within this process was to get those with opposite views to reconcile towards the center, and to prevail upon minority viewpoints to accept, rather than merely to tolerate or acquiesce to, the larger community perspective.

Where African Consensus was regularly practiced, the end result was not always total community agreement on what to do or how to handle the issue of the moment.  The product was usually a resolution of the issue accompanied by a reconciliation and restoration of community goodwill, given the fact that all participant parties would have had several opportunities to put their views of the subject out on the table and thus they knew that they had helped make a group decision.  This regularly meant community decision-making unity without uniformity. The discussion, dialogue and debate took place to arrive at a solution or resolution that was acceptable to all concerned, or at least not odious to anybody participating in the decision. There would often be, as Kwasi Wiredu has called it, a ‘suspension of disagreement’ which would then lead to community acceptance of a particular approach without necessarily accepting the ideas or rationale for that approach, and to move on.

Contrary to gloriana idealists, voting also regularly occurred in most African Consensus models, not as a last resort but as an integral part of the process. This was not formal, ‘ballot-box’ voting, but usually a show of numbers to carry a particular viewpoint after all relevant discussion

had occurred on the issue at hand, whether it was who to choose to represent the community in the village or town council, or what to do about the planting and harvesting tasks for a particular period.

Overall, theAfrican Consensus process, no matter where on the continent it was used, always had the same basic five elements.