Unity in consultation

Unity is really one of the central pillars of the Baha'i teachings, and its importance in this day and age is highly emphasized in many of the writings. Unity of course manifests itself in many situations in different ways - but there is one specific instance that has always puzzled me a little. These words of Abdu'l Baha's are with respect to the process of decision-making when multiple parties are involved in a consultation (such as might occur in the meetings of any organization, company, or institution):

"If they agree on a subject, even though it be wrong, it is better than to disagree and be in the right, for this difference will produce the demolition of the divine foundation. Though one of the parties may be in the right and they disagree that will be the cause of a thousand wrongs, but if they agree and both parties are in the wrong, as it is in unity the truth will be revealed and the wrong made right. "

This statement always seemed a little counter-intuitive to me - for what Abdu'l Baha is saying here is that if ultimately the majority in a group supports a particular decision, even if a minority believes that decision is not for the best, they should go along with it. So does that mean there is no place for dissent? And what does he mean when he says that "in unity the truth will be revealed and the wrong made right"?

I've mulled over this at a various points, but something O said yesterday made me see light on this finally. He pointed out that what Abdu'l Baha probably means is this - during the process of discussion, one should of course express one's opinion, and different (even conflicting) views should be fully heard out. Ultimately things should be put to a vote, and then the majority decision should be implemented. But this implementation should be done in the spirit of unity - those who disagree with it should put their egos aside and wholeheartedly commit themselves to the majority decision. And the reason one should do this is because, if in the future, the decision or project fails, then one can be sure that the problem lies in the idea itself, and not in lack of support from the community or the obstinate actions of opponents. It would then be easy for the group to realize this, and correct the decision, thereby righting the wrong. However when there is disunity, and a portion of the group refuses to act according to the wishes of the majority or stands in opposition, one can never be sure if the project failed because the idea itself was flawed, or whether it was due to everyone not working towards it with full commitment.

Seen in this light, the quote makes much more sense - and also provides a blueprint for our dealings with others in any sort of consultative situation. There are, however (I think), caveats. For example, I believe this principle applies when the decision made by the majority is not unethical or illegal. And so if a group of people decide to go rob a bank, it is incumbent on you, I believe, as a part of the group, to refuse to be party to those actions, for a higher principle is being violated. Any such violation of ethical principles, or of human rights is something people should stand up against. But in all other situations, when it comes to making decisions about the direction an organization should move in, or the particular actions a community should take - and these situations are far more common in our daily lives than those that put us in an ethical dilemma - the group should implement the majority idea in full unanimity.

This expectation of unity in implementation of course comes within the context of an open consultative process of deliberation, as well as conscious and objective evaluation of future outcomes. It would therefore be unfair to have a consultative process where many people's voices are suppressed, and then expect them to follow mutely once the majority vote has been established. The entire process of deliberation should be carried out respectfully, in reverence, with complete absence of prejudice and preconceived ideas, and with an openness to whatever the final decision might be. Likewise, once the decision is made, even though it is implemented unanimously, it is not done so blindly - rather, there should be a constant evaluation of the results over time, and at any stage if a majority of people believe that these results are not for the best, the group should be open to making changes as needed. Unanimity therefore does not imply that people adhere to the decision till the end of all time, come what may.

In some situations, of course, it might not be possible to rectify an error, or change a decision. But even in these cases, I believe Abdu'l Baha's dictum applies - just because one might not be able to correct a decision, one should not stand in opposition to the majority. It is still better to act in unity, for if a group sticks to that principle, the laws of God will ensure that the result will be for the best, and assuredly better than the results if the people instead stood in disunity. This, of course, can be very challenging - but then, that's what spiritual growth is all about, isn't it? :)