Panocracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
'Panocracy' means "Rule by all" (pan-). It is based on the principle that everyone has the right to participate in the making of decisions that affect them and no one has the right to assume someone else's authority for the decisions they make. Panocracy accepts that each person may have a different view that deserves equal respect. Panocratic processes encourage problem solving particularly since they present the problem of taking into account a number of different points of view. They also both encourage co-operative action and support possibilities for alternative, including competing, solutions to be pursued simultaneously.
Contents |
[edit] Practice
Central to panocratic methods is the gathering and sharing of information including, in particular, individuals' needs and opinions. This means that the methods tend to focus on the problems and lead to effective problem analysis. This contrasts with democratic and consensus models which tend to focus on solutions with the result that understanding the problem is sidelined. Panocracy also tends to avoid the problem of people being too busy trying to get their point of view across to pay attention to other people's views or solving problems.
The information gathering provides a good basis for problem solving. This often involves discussion and more information gathering. When any individual or group considers that there is some action that it would be appropriate for them to take then panocracy acknowledges that they are able act accordingly. They act, however, on their own authority and in the light of the information that has been gathered. In other words, they will have information about how their actions may affect others and how others may respond.
In this way, panocracy supports individual initiative and opens up possibilities for multiple and possibly competing approaches to problems. It also allows action in the face of dissent. A majority cannot prevent a minority from acting, though each will have information about how the other may be affected and respond to any action. A minority cannot block action, as they can in some consensus models. Since people act on their own authority dissenters can maintain their position, they do not need to assent to decisions made by others.
In small meetings techniques such as go-rounds and gathering enable information to be gathered from all participants. In such situations it is often possible to reach decisions that satisfy most, if not all, of the needs and opinions of participants. The decisions, however, are the decisions of the individuals. A decision is only a decision of a whole group if it is unanimous, otherwise it is a decision of the people who so decide. In small meetings, when it is not practical to reach unanimity, for there is no pressure from panocracy to do so, decisions will tend to be marked by individuals or groups indicating what they have decided.
The larger the group or organisation the less practical it is for many people to be actively involved in most decisions. Individuals, for example managers, or groups, for example committees, councils or parliaments, are given responsibilities for making decisions. Everyone, though, has an ongoing right to be involved. This means, in particular, that each person will make their own decisions as to how they respond to the decisions made by others. Hence, decisions that affect others rely on consent and decision makers foster and rely on the information gathering that is central to panocracy.
[edit] Responsibility
Since panocracy acknowledges that no one has the right to assume someone else's authority for the decisions they make it acknowledges the converse, that everyone is responsible for their own decisions and actions, including inaction. This applies equally to people who are appointed to carry out decision making functions, managers, councillors, members of parliament etc.
Panocracy implies an attitude to government and decision making rather than suggesting particular systems. Decision makers make decisions for others but not on their behalf. The decisions are the responsibility of those who make them. The decision makers are not representing others or acting on their behalf in the sense in which representatives in democratic systems will claim to be carrying out “the will of the people”. Panocracy recognises the reality that decision makers make the best decisions they can based on the information they have and they are responsible for the decisions they make.
Panocracy also acknowledges that these rights and responsibilities are ongoing. There is not a point at which “you had your opportunity to have a say and now you must abide by the decision”. If people do not like a decision they can act accordingly. In practice this is neither a recipe for chaos or stagnation. Decision makers make decisions in the light of how they will affect people and how they may respond. People will make personal decisions as to how they respond to decisions of others in that same light and hence the bases for decisions. Inaction is also a decision and if people are not happy with it they can do something about it.[
[edit] Empowerment
Panocracy both supports and functions with people being empowered. Empowered is in the sense of being self-empowered, in other words knowing about options that are available in any situation, being able to act on a number of those options and deciding on the basis of the person's own self interest.
A challenge for panocracy is to make progress in a world in which people are generally disempowered. In other words, people feel helpless, they feel that they cannot make a difference and they give up their power to governments and other decision makers.
[edit] Examples
Unsurprisingly, panocratic methods tend to be used in organisations which focus on self development. An example of this is Co-Counselling International which is an international peer network with no overall fixed structure. Internationally as well as in a number of geographical areas the network functions panocratically.
The free software movement functions on largely panocratic lines. In general, anyone can get involved in whatever way they want. Considerable effort goes into gathering information from users and developers of open source products, for example through forums and issues. People who make decisions are responsible for their decisions and if others do not like those decisions they may say so, or they ignore them, for instance by using something else.
In the same sense, social movements (see also: list of social movements) are a result of collective behavior. Though the most well known have traditionally been led by distinctive figures such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, and vary greatly by scope, range, the type of change, target audience, and methods of work, movements which base themselves on social change obligate themselves to panocractic authority - what the involved people really want. Recent examples include two movements whose driving forces are panocratic: the intentional living movement and it's religious arm, the missional living movement.
