Indonesia has a rich tradition of local wisdom that guides our lives in countless ways. When it comes to solving problems or resolving conflicts, we have a special approach called “musyawarah untuk mufakat.” It’s all about getting everyone together to hash things out and find a common ground. This practice is so deeply rooted in our culture that it’s a part of everyday life from coast to coast.

As a conflict resolution approach, consensus-based decision-making offers numerous advantages. Beyond being a widely accepted cultural concept, this approach is participatory, involving all stakeholders and fostering cooperation to achieve a solution. Additionally, the process is more flexible and cost-effective compared to formal litigation. In the context of local conflicts within egalitarian communities, or when the parties involved share similar egalitarian cultural values, this approach is highly relevant. The resulting decisions tend to be more widely accepted as they emerge from a collective agreement involving all parties.

However, this approach is not without its challenges. A major drawback in practice is the lack of a systematic methodology. The deliberation process is often informal, without clear rules or structure. The imbalance of power among the parties involved is also an issue. In many situations, community leaders become dominant figures and influence the course of the deliberation for their own benefit, while other community members present in the deliberation tend to “adjust” their opinions to those of the leaders. As a result of this leader bias, the decisions reached often do not fully accommodate the interests of the silent majority. Another challenge is that efforts to reach consensus are often hindered by differences of opinion that are difficult to bridge. Even after discussions have taken place, it is not uncommon for the parties involved to fail to reach an agreement. Without a clear consensus, conflict resolution is hindered.

Additionally, consensus-based decision-making often falls short when addressing complex conflicts involving parties from outside the community with diverse backgrounds and interests. For large-scale conflicts involving corporations or other external entities, for example, traditional deliberation has limitations when confronted with intricate technical issues and broader national policies and laws that extend beyond the community’s knowledge and experience.

Nevertheless, consensus-based deliberation as a general approach holds great potential if applied with a more structured methodological framework to ensure a balanced and effective process. Deliberation can follow the general principles and stages of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), such as identifying the parties and ensuring representation; conducting an initial assessment to agree on the deliberation agenda; establishing ground rules; presenting views; developing evaluations and agreeing on solutions; and planning for the implementation of the agreement, which of course must be adapted to the context.

The excessive influence of traditional leadership figures, who often hold significant authority and influence in a deliberation, needs to be balanced by the role of a neutral and impartial mediator. This is particularly crucial in complex conflicts involving multiple parties with varying levels of power and unequal interests. A mediator can help to balance power dynamics and ensure that all parties have an equal opportunity to voice their perspectives. Additionally, it is essential that the process and outcomes of deliberations, which traditionally form part of the community’s collective memory, are now formally documented. This not only enhances accountability but also ensures the sustainability of agreed-upon solutions.

In the context of land and natural resource management conflict resolution, consensus-building through deliberation remains a relevant approach that reflects Indonesian cultural values. However, to address existing challenges, adaptation and innovation are necessary. With a more structured and inclusive approach, the philosophy and spirit of consensus-building can serve as a foundation for developing equitable, sustainable, and culturally appropriate solutions for local communities.