I am afraid (of consensus)

[Mr Carcer]

True [democracy] can exist only where it is created, not by diligent and trustworthy functionaries [or compromisers], but by madmen, hermits, heretics, dreamers, rebels, and skeptics.*

I'm a fan of dissension. When people talk of politician getting along, putting aside their differences, and reaching a consensus it makes me worry. I worry that these politicians are compromising their principles and betraying the promises they made to the people who voted them in. I worry that consensus is a tyrant that often moves people to act against their better judgment. I worry that consensus blind us to possibility that some of the best courses of action might be discovered by the madmen, hermits, dreamers, rebels, and skeptics outside of the central majority.

I want my politicians to disagree. I want them to argue and debate and fight. I want them to toil in the political arena. I don't want them to be agreeable and lazy.

*With apologies to Zamyatin

[Mark]

I agree to a point. Consensus can lead to compromise of principles this is true. The British system pretty much relies on adversarial politics, as the Opposition acts as a Government-in-waiting and informs the public of flaws in Government legislation.

However it can also go the other way; adversarial politics for the sake of it, disagreeing with the Government and knocking down proposed legislation because it's not yours. I'm reading a little at the moment on the latter days of Thatcher and there was a Bill going through Parliament loosening immigration restrictions on Hong Kong immigrants. Despite it going against the grain of the Conservative Party Thatcher brought it to Parliament, and despite having an electoral promise of their own to bring in a near identical Bill, the Labour Party here attempted to defeat it. It got through with the help of minority parties.

But then I suppose it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose.

[Bonniedundee]

I'm an anarchist I can't compromise with most people on politics, even if I try.

As for what I want "my" politicians to do, well, I'm sure you can guess.

[Preno]

Yes, I think consensus in groups without direct social ties is a patently non-sensical system. I mean, people can't really believe that no decision should be made unless every single one of the several million citizens of a state agree on it (or, in case they are parlamentarians, every single one of their representatives)? And if they don't, then why don't they just call the system it's correct name, democracy?