On compromise in majority vs consensual systems of democracy

Compromise and deliberation are perhaps more important in majority systems of democracy than they are in proportional or consensual models. This is because the large parties that emerge from winner-takes-it-all models need to somehow represent huge segments of the population with vastly different interests. The only way to effectively do this (as in the case of British or US parties) is through internal factions. The debates, compromises, and negotiations that are typically seen in Parliament or between parties in continental Europe are still present in the majority systems but they are carried out within the parties, between competing factions. This ensures some representation for all groups of voters but the process is carried out through informal channels rather than institutionally (in Parliament for example), meaning there is less oversight and fewer limitations on what and how can be negotiated. Whether this is desirable or not is up for discussion, although I personally prefer the consensual model, as it allows non-partisan actors such as NGOs or mass media to get more involved in the debate without having to pay the entry fee backstage where talks are held.

How do you empower those who do not wish to be empowered?

Power is the capacity to make decisions for or on behalf of others. Authority is doing so without having your right to do so questioned. But to be ‘empowered’ is to have the capacity to decide for one’s self. It is a type of freedom to act in accordance with one’s own beliefs, goals, aims, and passions, but one that is not limited to principle. Rather, empowerment extends to the material realm. To be empowered is not only to have “the right of doing” but also “the ability to do”. A cripple who has the right to travel wherever they wish but has not the means to do so (for lack of access ramps let’s say) is no more empowered than an able-bodied person who’s barred access. The ability to exercise one’s rights is an integral part of empowerment. Does this mean that all persons should be provided the material means to fully exercise each of their rights? If so, to what degree should these be provided, and who should provide them: the state, society at large, their immediate family or kin?

To empower another is to surrender some power to them, since one cannot empower without having the capacity to decide for or on behalf of those being empowered. One cannot allow women to vote if one does not themselves vote, and a slave cannot free another slave, nor can a master free the slaves they do not own, simply because they do not have the power or the authority to do so.

So why would a person or group who holds power over others choose to surrender part of that power? More puzzling still is why a person or group would reject being empowered.

To be free implies the possibility to voluntarily surrender your freedom.

If not empowerment, then what? What could these people be satisfied with? Can we conceive of social relations and human interactions in way that excludes power? Do we even have the vocabulary to describe such a situation? Can liberty exist without power?