PANOCRACY

''Panocracy'' means "Rule by all" (''). 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. Advocates of panocracy believe that such processes encourage problem solving since they present the problem of taking into account a number of different points of view. They also encourage both cooperative action and support possibilities for alternative, including competing, solutions to be pursued simultaneously.

Contents

Comparison with other systems

Practice

Responsibility

Empowerment

Examples

See also

References

External links

Comparison with other systems

Democracy is linked to the concept of a ''demos'' or people that has a will. All forms of democracy focus on various ways of determining “the will of the people”. Panocracy acknowledges that everyone has their own needs and opinions that warrant being taken into account.
Anarchism, from αναρχία, "without rulers", springs from the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished. Panocracy can include decision making hierarchies and various forms of government.
Central to panocracy is the principal that any form of government must be by consent. This contrasts with government by coercion in which the only constraint on elected or appointed decision makers or government is their ability to control people and make them do what is required. This is the situation in most democracies. , for example, lists only the most blatant attempts at coercion yet it includes most countries.
Consent here does not mean the same as consensus in that not everyone has to agree and minorities do not have any automatic right to block decisions. Consent means that enough people have to feel that they have had sufficient opportunities to contribute to the decision making process, that any contribution they have made has been taken into account and that the decisions made were reasonable. Conversely this means that any dissent would not be strong enough in numbers or determination to make the decisions non-viable. Seeking consensus is a process that aims to find a set of opinions that have the appearance of unanimity. Seeking consent aims to find all opinions and relevant information so that the decision makers can make and be seen to make rational decisions that meet the widest needs practical.

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 action appropriate enough for them to take, panocracy acknowledges that they are able to 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 "gatherings" 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 organization 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.

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, councilors, 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 recognizes 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. Detractors call the lack of firm decisions in such a setting a recipe for chaos. 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.

Empowerment

Panocracy functions only with empowered people, and therefore in the promotion of its success it must support that empowerment. This must come from the sense of self-empowerment; 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." Because so much information must be gathered for the overall decision-making process of panocracy to succeed, technology may provide important forces leading to the type of empowerment needed for panocratic models, especially those technological tools that enable community narratives and correspond to the accretion of knowledge.
A challenge for panocracy is to make progress in a world in which people are generally dis-empowered. 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.

Examples

Unsurprisingly, panocratic methods tend to be used in organizations 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.
Some claim that the free software movement has some similarity to panocracy. While projects are often led by only a few people who decide what is added, anyone can get involved and submit ideas to those managing a project. Leaders who make decisions are responsible for them, and if others do not like those decisions they may say so, or they ignore them, for instance by using something else or forking a project.
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.

See also

★ Emergent democracy

★ Open source governance

★ Participatory democracy

References

★

External links

★ Panocracy