Political decision-making processes follow different logics – depending on whether they are geared towards competition or cooperation. Election campaigns and systemic consensus are almost diametrically opposed.

While the election campaign promotes confrontation and competition, SK relies on cooperation and consensus. Where the election campaign is aimed at clear winners and losers, SK is looking for solutions with the broadest possible acceptance. This is why systemic consensus does not go well with election campaigns – because the mechanisms that promise success in the election campaign would only generate resistance and rejection within an SK process. Conversely, this means that political negotiation processes that rely on systemic consensus are difficult as long as the primary goal of the participants is to position themselves advantageously for the next election.

It is important to me to emphasize that I do not want to place the responsibility for these challenges primarily on politicians. Rather, it is the majority voting system as a system that shapes patterns of behavior and creates incentive structures that often leave little room for real cooperation. Systems influence people far more than we sometimes want to admit to ourselves. So it is less about personal motives than about the structural framework conditions that shape political action.

As long as political success depends on distancing oneself from others and being perceived as a clear alternative, genuine cooperation – even with those who are politically closer – typically remains secondary. In an environment in which looking better than the competition is more important than finding sustainable solutions together, the basis for consensus-oriented work is missing.

And even if there are four years between the classic election campaign periods, there is little room for a real culture of joint decision-making. Because let's be honest: After the election is before the election. There is hardly a moment when the next vote is not already being considered. Only when political success is no longer measured only by victory over others could SK be a serious alternative in politics.

Putting the world back on its feet: How would the common good benefit if it was not the consensus that failed because of the mechanisms of the election campaign – but the election campaign because of a culture of consensus?

Where systemic consensus can already be used sensibly in politics Even if systemic consensus is difficult to use in the field of political campaigning, this does not mean that it is impossible. Citizen participation in Munderfing, Austria, is an encouraging example of the fact that the interest in good, citizen-oriented politics was more important than party profiling. In addition, there are quite sensible and more easily accessible areas of application within parties. Within the party, in most cases, the focus is on joint strength and the ability to work – often more so than individual interests or internal power struggles.

Possible areas of application are:

• Development of position papers and party programmes : Since they meet with broad approval in terms of content, even the often necessary prioritization could now find great support.

• Development of political motions and initiatives : The members would have a simple and transparent structure to design proposals in such a way that they have great support within the party.

• Response to requests from other parties: From the many possible reactions, the one common position can quickly be crystallized, which is supported by the party as a whole. Even the points where there is no united attitude can be quickly explored, which leaves time to find a common approach to these points.

• Coalition negotiations and alliance decisions: Here, too, in the case of time-sensitive decisions, the commissioners could explore the possible strategic options that they bring to the negotiating table.

• Strategic orientation and election campaign priorities: SK is ideal for defining overarching topics that are supported by everyone.

• Candidate line-up and list placement: The application of SK in the candidate line-up is particularly exciting, as classic power struggles often dominate here. If a party were to get involved in this, it could avoid intra-party trench warfare weakening unity. In addition, they would have a better representation of what the members want.

So while SK is reaching its limits in public political competition, it could contribute to a culture within the party that not only strengthens unity, but also leads to better, more sustainable decisions.