For us, sociocracy is a powerful vehicle for bringing our conviction that work needs to make greater sense than ever before into the world of organizations. 

Can sociocracy do something similar for society and the transformation of democratic structures? 

Nele Stuke and Johannes Sattler tested and discussed this exciting question with Innocracy participants.

How representative are majority decisions?
How goal-oriented do we conduct debates?
How much co-determination as a population do we really have?
Issues addressed by sociocracy.

In order to let participants experience the benefits of sociocratic decision-making, we "founded" four parties (Lefties, Frogs, Economists, Traditionalists) in a small decision-making experiment and assigned them to design a Berlin building gap with the most attractive building project for the local residents. 

With 4 to 3 to 5 to 7 votes, the Frogs won with their proposal. But what about the ideas, wishes and needs of the 12 outvoters, as so often happens in everyday (political) life?

A subsequent sociocratic consent moderation should show how decisions are made in such a way that the objections of all participants are heard and integrated into the proposal to be decided, so that all can give their consent, i.e. there are no more serious objections.  

Our core insight from our 75-minute session: party-political interests torpedo a common goal (even with artificially created affiliation!) and make consent decision-making difficult. 

Within the party, sociocracy and consent decision-making can certainly work well. But what can be done to overcome party-political interests in order to make decisions collectively and sustainably in the interest of a common goal?  A question for Innocracy 2019? In any case, it's clear: transformation must be more fundamental than simply adjusting the mode of decision-making. We need to start thinking about shared goals and focus less on differentiation from other parties or groups.