In New Caledonia, an oceanian culture of consensus opposes the French majority rule: governing without the agreement of all political forces is considered illegitimate, regardless of the electoral margin obtained.
Facing the FLNKS deadlock, some propose a “non-consensual consensualism” – a very broad but not unanimous agreement – which does not satisfy the majority principle or the consensual principle. The constant oscillation between majority rule and consensual demand on institutional future and electoral body for provincial elections makes New Caledonian politics unmanageable and prone to chaos.
In France, the majority rule predominates in politics. To impose its will, winning elections is enough (which in some cases can be done with less than 50% of the votes). There is almost no culture of compromise or consensus in the country.
Mass mobilization to challenge a government no longer holds true. While Mitterrand understood that imposing a reform against widespread opposition was not feasible, Macron used force, deploying unprecedented state violence against opponents.
In contrast, Oceania is dominated by a culture of consensus. In New Caledonia, governance and reforms are thought to be possible only through consensus. This is evident in the existence of a “collegial government” where all political parties represented in the Congress participate, a concept unthinkable in mainland France.
The concept of “consensualism” in decision-making is complex, involving the requirement of broad agreement among all politically relevant groups. The idea of a consensus that operates without unanimity is challenging to understand and implement.
In recent years, amidst political deadlock, there is a debate between consensualism and majority rule in New Caledonia, particularly regarding the institutional future and composition of the electoral body for provincial elections. The debate whether consensus or majority should prevail remains unresolved, contributing to political instability in the region.
