Committees can lead to stronger consensus

Many times, especially in more modern and more progressive protest movements, committees have arisen to replace the strong leader. Hoping to reduce the influence of the bully pulpit, organizations have grown to be directed by a board or a committee. An example of this was the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). SNCC was an integral part of the Civil Rights movement, coordinating and mobilizing the freedom riders. These were racially mixed groups of people who would ride through areas demanding racial segregation.

SNCC was one of the few organizations that mandated consensus, calling it participatory democracy, Just like a jury must be unanimous, SNCC leadership demanded all participants at a meeting be in agreement. This was done for two reasons. The first is that Ella Baker, original organizer of SNCC, did not want the top down structure that organizations like the SCLC (Dr. King’s organization) employed. The other was that many of the activities SNCC engaged in would result in imprisonment or death and Baker wanted to ensure there would be no resentment or hesitancy. If people ended in those situations without being convinced, it would’ve diluted what they were trying to achieve.

Another, more recent movement was the Occupy Movement, starting with Occupy Wall Street in September, 2011. In protest against the power of the 1%, Wall Street was filled with protestors camping out for nearly two months. This was a largely leaderless movement, which ended up being a strength. It allowed minorities, both racial and gender, to express their concerns with the movement and speak their mind. While there would be discussion facilitators, just like with SNCC, nothing would happen without consensus. Hand signals were used for efficiency, but still, all members of the Occupy Movement were afforded that chance. Allowing everyone to communicate ultimately meant everyone felt like it was their movement and their fight against the 1%.