On Traditional<scp>A</scp>frican Consensual Rationality

Ani, Emmanuel Ifeanyi

doi:10.1111/jopp.12013

Cited by 33 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The proposition "I don't want a waste disposal site in my neighborhood" can, for example, be supported by the propositions "I don't want to be exposed to a health risk," "Everyone has the right not to have his/her health damaged by the public at large," and "Waste disposal sites are a danger to health" (Holzinger 2004: 216). Thus, the discourse breaks free from old patterns, and even people with divergent ideologies (on religion, politics, or morality) can potentially agree on particular principles of justice (Rawls 1987) or find unanimity about what is to be done, if not about what ought to be done (Ani 2014).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Context and Content toward Consensus in Public Mediation

Itten¹

2017

Negotiation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mediation of public conflicts is a complex interactive, social‐psychological, and often politicized process. Because of their complexity, the literature on how to effectively mediate these conflicts remains imprecise. In this study, I have focused on the sequencing of the overall mediation process and the interplay between initial conditions, mediation styles, and process dynamics to explore predictable patterns from early stage to deadline negotiations. By undertaking a two‐step qualitative comparison of twenty‐three public mediation cases, I have attempted to identify “equifinal” pathways — that is, a variety of different ways in which the same outcome can be achieved — that can lead to mediation success (or failure). My analysis reveals that both inclusivity (i.e., including all relevant participants in the process) and mediation institutionalization (i.e., the mediation process is sufficiently embedded in the political and administrative system) correlate to greater mediation effectiveness. Furthermore, this study also suggests that such key elements of deliberative negotiations as recognition and argumentation are essential for reaching a consensual agreement.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Context and Content toward Consensus in Public Mediation

Itten¹

2017

Negotiation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 A third role in which consensus features in democratic theory is as evidence-given the appropriate conditions-of the epistemic reliability of democratic decisions (Nino, 1996; for an updated discussion, see Landemore & Page, 2015). Finally, consensus has been recently theorized as motivated by aversion towards the destructive effects of untamed political conflict (Ani, 2014).…”

Section: Democratic Self-determination and The Intentional Building Omentioning

confidence: 99%

Democratic Self-Determination and the Intentional Building of Consensus

Ottonelli

2019

Regular Issue

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper defends two fundamental but under-theorized insights coming from the theory of deliberative democracy. The first is that consensus is valuable as a precondition of democratic collective self-determination, since it ensures that democratic decisions display an adequate degree of integrity and consistency and therefore that the polity can act as a unified agent. The second is that consensus in this integrity-building role is essential if citizens need to act as decision-makers; it ensures that the decisions that issue from the exercise of their political rights are meaningful, and that they are so as the intended result of their joint agency. Aggregative approaches, which do not acknowledge this role of consensus, offer an atomistic account of voting and other political rights, and model the outcomes of democratic decision-making as unintended aggregative consequences of individual votes. In these models, democratic political agency and the decision-making power of citizens are curtailed, because citizens do not exert any intentional control on the final outcome of the decision-making process in which they participate. Although the insight on these shortcomings comes from the deliberative camp, I show that the most prominent accounts of how deliberation is supposed to further consensus in its integrity-building role can be subject to the same criticisms. In fact, in these models consensus is achieved as a by-product of people's engaging in deliberation. Although interactive, these approaches are still atomistic and unintentional. As an alternative, I propose a model of democratic decision-making that acknowledges the role played by the citizens' intentional consensus-building through the strategic use of their political rights.

show abstract

“…Finally, I anticipate a few objections and discuss them. I will discuss how African philosophical commentary on Wiredu's theory seeks to show that his claims about common interests are flawed (Ani, 2014;Eze, 1997;Matolino, 2013); that his characterisation of the nature of deliberation in the consensual setting is untenable (Ani, 2014;Eze, 1997;Matolino, 2013); that his conception of democracy (Eze, 1997) and party politics (Matolino, 2013) are unsound; that his theory is intolerant of opposition (Matolino, 2013), and that his claim that consensus is an immanent feature of the approach to political deliberation in Africa is philosophically perilous (Ani, 2014). Matolino (2013) advances at least three objections to Wiredu's theory.…”

Section: Objections To Wiredumentioning

confidence: 99%

Kwasi Wiredu’s consensual democracy: Prospects for practice in Africa

Ajei

2016

European Journal of Political Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A political challenge facing constitutional democracies in Africa is the lack of adequate representation and participation of citizens in democratic processes and institutions. This challenge is manifest in the vesting of power solely in, and the exercise of this power by, a sectional group – the majority party – to the exclusion of others; as evinced in the liberal democratic systems extensively practised on the continent. Wiredu proposes as a solution to these challenges the adoption of consensual democracy; an indigenous, non-party democratic system rooted in the traditional African humanist and communitarian conceptions of the individual and the community, in which political decisions are characteristically reached by consensus. In this article, I present a critical exposition of Wiredu’s consensual democracy and defend it against liberal democracy on the one hand, and criticisms levelled against it on the other hand. I also offer some modifications to Wiredu’s theory in a bid to render it more suitable for practice in Africa.

show abstract

On TraditionalAfrican Consensual Rationality

Cited by 33 publications

References 26 publications

Context and Content toward Consensus in Public Mediation

Context and Content toward Consensus in Public Mediation

Democratic Self-Determination and the Intentional Building of Consensus

Kwasi Wiredu’s consensual democracy: Prospects for practice in Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About