Such a process alone will enable the defusing of the innate tension between the concerns of the individual and the concerns of the community. Unanimity The Society of Friends, called the Quakers, follow the practice of unanimity in their decision-making, not wishing that any member should be overridden. But it is clear that this, as a rigid practice, would effectively overturn the principle of majority rule, and thus be quite untenable for the purpose of politics, with the few holding the many to ransom. A balance, or compromise, is essential in weighing the needs and interests of all because, in this arena, decisions cannot be avoided until complete unanimity is reached. But a question remains about the acceptability of decisions made on a bare majority.
War is a case in point.
Since retreat may well be quite impractical and unacceptable, very substantial agreement must exist at the outset. There is nothing to suggest that such a process could not accelerate whenever the need for decision is urgent. With a system of representation by Members freed from the party system by the ballot principle, changes public opinion could be quickly and accurately manifested in the debate and voting in parliament. Such a situation would suggest the desirability of preliminary and progressive parliamentary voting, during the course of the debate, including any necessary adjournments where there is controversy - a process of time which would need a much more dynamic political system than we have, to enable decisions to still mature rapidly as occasion may require. This is all possible.