Community Governance

 by Clare Pascoe

I recently attended a seminar at Narara Eco-Village (NEV) about their forms of government and decision-making, which I think have some very useful insights to offer the Initiative and the proposed sustainable village scheme.  

NEV is administrated under a form of dynamic governance known as sociocracy. Rather than a hierarchical model, sociocracy uses a structure comprised of nested circles and operated by consent-based decision-making.

The key principles are:

1. equivalence;

2. inclusivity;

3. transparency; and

4. decision-making by consent (not consensus).

The purpose of these principles is to empower members, enhance efficiency, and foster connection between the residents. They create a dynamic balance between individual needs and NEV’s goals, facilitating continuous improvement through feedback loops and adaptation.

It would take too long here to explain the totality of how sociocracy works, so let me give a brief resume of three elements:

Governing Circles – there are three categories of circle: the board circle (administrative), steering circles (directional), and functional circles (operational). Each circle has members who belong to other circles and report to those other circles, which fosters communication and common goals across the spectrum. Circle meetings operate according to a set procedure, which begins with each person having the opportunity to say where they’re at, without others responding, which means everyone present understands what emotions and context others are bringing to their decision-making. The process for each decision comprises exploring the issues, expressing any reasoned/logical/significant objections, and agreeing on a decision.

Decisions by Consent – consent differs from consensus in a key way: with consensus, everyone has to come to agreement. With consent, however, a disagreeing party only has to agree that their objection isn’t significant enough to hold up the decision or a trial period of the proposed action. The bottom-line questions for dissenters are “Can I live with this proposal?” and “Is it good enough for now?” And the ways in which the circles function allow everyone to feel heard, and thus be more willing to accept alternate paths. This doesn’t eliminate other decision-making methods, because each decision can, by group consent, be undertaken by a particular method, whether that be majority rule, consensus, autocratic decision, consent, ballot, etc.

Elections – the method of electing people to roles/tasks in sociocracy is, in a way, a complete reversal of what most people are accustomed to. Primarily, this is because the nominee isn’t asked for their consent until the very last stage of the process. Instead, when nominations are called for, the nominator must state reasons why they think their nominee would be the right person for the role. Each person in the circle then has an opportunity to say which nominee they think would be the right person, and why. Then each nominator has the opportunity to review their nomination and potentially switch to agree with a different nomination. When the whole circle has resolved who the foremost nominee is, then that person is asked if they agree to take on the role. And I suspect that any nominee, who’s sat through a whole group saying why they’d be the perfect person for the job, would be encouraged in their own capacity to do the role 😊 

That’s a very brief summary of some of the key elements of sociocracy. You can google it if you want to read more about it. I think it holds great promise for use in governing a sustainable heritage village in NAC. Where local government infrastructure exists, it places the burden of decision-making at Council level. But in a micro-community such as the Initiative/Living Lab envisages, cooperative function is crucial. Sociocracy is a valid path to make that happen.