Fifth UU Principle:
"Do We Really Practice Freedom of Conscience and Democracy in Our Congregation?"

Margo McKenna- November 18, 2001

The continuing series of the 7 Principles of UUism moves to the 5th principle which states: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large. I will be looking briefly at the ways in which we practice the democratic process in our society, and examining more deeply our congregational forms of democracy. I also would like to find out which form of democracy is most faithful to honoring the right of conscience for those of us here at Chalice.

The word for democracy comes to us from two Greek words, "demos," meaning "the people" and "kratos" meaning "rule." Thus, a 101 class in governance would define "democracy" as "rule by the people," or "rule for the people," depending on which source you quote. Either meaning implies that the ruled have a say in how they are ruled. The popular meaning, which most American use when speaking of democracy, is that all people in America have a say, or vote, in how they are governed. However, after that introduction, I would like to ruffle our feathers and say, I believe that America is closer to a republic than it is to a democracy. This is a very new concept to me, introduced just this week by a couple of articles sent to me by James Usher.Thank you James.

I would like to refer to an article entitled "The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles," written by William Huff in 1998. It was amazing to me to realize that as much as we believe in the principle of democracy, both as a nation, and as UU's, we are probably closer to a republic, and I would like to share that this appears to have been the intent of our "founding fathers."

In Huff's article, he speaks of the fear with which Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison, feared a tyranny of the majority, which would be no better than the tyranny of a monarch. Jefferson denounced the "elective despotism" of the Virginia Legislature when he wrote:

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, revert to the legislative body. The concentrating of these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by the plurality of hands rather than by a single one. 173 despots can surely be as oppressive as one." (Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson, 1781-1782).

The chief characteristic of a democracy, whether a direct democracy or a representative democracy, is rule by majority. In a strict democracy there are no laws to protect the minority, and the majority's power is absolute and unlimited. It appears to be this concept to which the framers of the Constitution were referring when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" at the Federal Convention in 1787. The framers were not opposed to a popular type of government, rather it appears that their desire for a Constitution which would guarantee the rights of minorities and the right of individual conscience was what pushed them toward a republic form of government rather than a genuine democracy.

The definition of a republic is "A constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written constitution, adopted by the people, and changeable by them only with an amendment, and having its powers divided between 3 separate branches of government. These branches being: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. And 'the people' are made up of the electorate." The framers felt that a sense of self-restraint by the majority was a rather limited protection to individuals, thus the framing of three different branches of government to balance the rights of citizens. These rights continue to be protected by law, which can be changed only by a Constitutional Convention. To quote Huff, "The Constitutional Convention remains one of America's greatest contributions to the concept of a republic form of democracy, in fact, to the very mechanics of government; that is, self-government through constitutionally limited government." It is this system of establishing a constitutionally limited government that was designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their government and grant that government only "just" and "limited" powers, in order to secure for all citizens their God-given, and unalienable rights. The republic model of democracy thus bars the "snob-rule" of a governing elite, and the "mob-rule" of an immovable majority.

Thus, for the purposes of our discussion this afternoon, I would say we practice a republic form of governance as a society. I believe we are one of the most fair and free countries in comparison to other forms of government, in other countries. Our founding fathers were firm believers in the right of those being ruled having the say in how they would be ruled. They worked hard to make our Constitution and our government a fair and just form of rule. It is this republic form of government that guarantees the rights of minorities and individuals in our country. And when we stray from republic practice to strict majority rule we trample on the rights of conscience for many Americans. Now, there are many who believe that we do practice strict democracy at the expense of minorities in our country. I believe there are many abuses against the minority and against individual rights in the U.S. We continue that struggle today, as we work to honor the right of conscience in our own country.

Now, I would like to move into the arena of democracy in our Unitarian Universalist congregations. As the previous discussion reveals, strict democracy may not, in fact, be what we would like to practice as our 5th principle. But, I do believe we all support the intent of this principle, which is the more popular understanding of democracy, those being ruled choosing how they will be ruled. Now, many UU congregations function under "majority rule" by-laws, and do so because they believe they will act in the best interest of the whole - especially in light of the previous 4 principles. But, this rule of democracy is predicated upon the benevolence of the majority toward the minority. And, as Thomas Jefferson pointed out, the form of governance that depends upon the goodwill of the majority is a very poor way to care for the minority or individual rights of a group.

So, let's talk about our own ideal governance here at Chalice. I would like to start by talking about what governance is. Dr. David Johnson, a sociologist who specializes in governance, uses this definition, "How people make decisions in order to function as a group." He goes on to share that there usually 7 recognized forms of governance. They are:

1. Decision-making by authority person(s) without input or discussion by those governed.

2. Decision-making by an expert(s). Once again, without input or discussion by those governed.

3. Decision-making by averaging the opinions of those governed; similar to majority rule, but does not need at least 50% to institute a decision.

4. Decision-making by authority person(s) after input and discussion from those governed. Final decision in hands of person(s) in authority.

5. Decision-making by minority of those governed. Either an elite, or a specialty group.

6. Decision-making by a majority of those governed. May take place either with or without discussion.

7. Decision-making by consensus of those governed.

(Joining Together: Group Theory, pp. 103-106)

After reading Johnson's 7 models of governing, I took a look at our practices of governance here at Chalice. I know that we do desire to follow the intent of our 5th principle, that is, allowing those governed to decide how they will be governed and in a manner that also respects the individual's right to freedom of conscience. It is out of this desire that we have chosen to use "consensus" as our ideal form of governance to achieve our goals as a congregation.

Since consensus is the most time-consuming of all forms of governance, due to the need to create enough time for each person to state their views, and to listen to the views of each of the others, consensus is a difficult form of governance. Yet, it is also the best governance model to provide an innovative, creative, and high-quality environment for human development. But, in order for consensus to work there are some guidelines for those who choose this form of governance. According to studies done by Dr. Johnson, in order for there to be laws that genuinely reflect the will of those governed, consensus should follow these guidelines:

• Avoid arguing blindly for your own opinions. Present your position as clearly and logically as possible, but listen to the reactions of others and consider them carefully before you press your own viewpoint.

• Avoid changing your mind only to reach agreement and to avoid conflict. Support only solutions with which you are at least somewhat agreeable.

• Avoid conflict-reducing procedures such as majority voting, tossing a coin, averaging answers, and bargaining.

• Seek out those who have difference of opinion. These are natural and to be expected. Try to involve everyone in the decision process. Disagreements can improve range of information and solutions, allowing the governed to have a better chance to respect the individual right of conscience.

• Do not assume someone must win and someone must lose. Look instead for an alternative decision that is "next most acceptable" for all those who are being governed by this decision.

• Discuss underlying assumptions, listen carefully to one another, and encourage participation of all those impacted by any decision.

We here at Chalice use consensus as our favored model of governance, but we need to look at its limits as well. It is time consuming, it depends upon the integrity of all involved, and a group cannot make a decision until every person has agreed to the decision. There is also a great deal of room for abuse in this system of governance, unless all participants are committed to the above 6 guidelines.

As I read the by-laws governing our congregation, I noticed that though consensus is listed as the favored form of governing, we also use majority rule on major decisions. Reading Article V, paragraph 7, our by-laws state, "Calling a minister shall require a 4/5 majority of votes cast. Buying and selling real property.and making a statement in the name of the congregation shall require a 2/3 majority. All other voting shall be made by a simple majority of those present." So even though paragraph 4 of that section says "Decisions at Congregational business meetings may be made by consensus," that is not always the model of governance we use in this congregation.

So, do we honor the right of conscience and the right of each member in this congregation to feel they have had a say in any decision that impacts them? I believe that is a hard question to answer. Consensus is the best way to achieve that goal; however, we do not always have time to come to consensus for all our decisions. And for those of you who have ever sat through a 3 or 4 hour church board meeting, you do get to the point where you just want a decision to be made whether you like that decision or not. Also, since our by-laws allow for a majority vote on several major issues, there will probably always be people who feel as if they have not been heard. Those who feel as if they are governed by laws or rules in which they have had little say or input. And last of all, there are people who will never feel heard unless it is their opinion that is chosen as the option for governance. All of these factors make it hard to answer the question as to whether we are truly democratic or republic in our forms of governing ourselves.

It seems to me that if we are to govern here at Chalice in a manner that honors the right of conscience for each member, we will continue to struggle for a balance between necessity of speed and allowing each person to speak their peace. I would challenge each member this afternoon to practice the guidelines for consensus so we can implement that form of governance in all our decision-making. I would like to challenge each member to be willing to work with the majority, if it is deemed a necessity and does not violate the right of conscience. And, I would like to challenge us to be a congregation that works to guarantee the right of conscience for every person who comes through our doors.