Consensual simply means ‘in agreement’, but it refers essentially to a process of agreement reached by an effort to find deep underlying compatibility between different viewpoints, rather than pragmatic and possibly temporary coincidence of separate ends. In claiming that there is a consensus in a society or group about something there are really two points being asserted. Firstly, the agreement is not merely a practical decision by groups or individuals who do not really agree at all, but who see a tactical necessity to vote in the same way. Rather the issues have been debated, the sources of initial disagreement explored, and a solution that everyone can accept, indeed believe in, has been reached. Secondly, it is being suggested that this agreement is both deep-rooted and long-term; the issues will not become controversial again, at least for a reasonable period. This is, obviously, an optimistic, even idealistic, definition, but it adequately explains the hopes expressed by those who seek consensus in situations of political conflict.
An example in the United Kingdom is the political consensus on the value of the National Health Service (NHS), where there is overwhelming support for the free provision of basic services to the entire population. However, this sort of definition has shortcomings, because consensus is not merely a matter of head counting. There are issues where an overwhelming majority agree with a policy, but where the minority opposition is so intense and deep-rooted that it would be absurd to claim that a consensus existed. In the UK two examples would be the use of capital punishment and the retention of nuclear weapons. In both cases there are strong, and long-term, majorities on one side of the argument, but absolutely no consensus across the nation as a whole. In the case of the NHS outright abolition would be seen by nearly everyone as a totally unacceptable proposal, whereas with capital punishment and nuclear weapons it is ultimately impossible to compromise. Therefore pure consensus may rarely exist, but there are objective examples which serve as useful political benchmarks.
This is the complete article, containing 342 words
(approx. 1 page at 300 words per page).
