Thanks for your response Brian. I asked this as i was sharing about holacracy to a group of studtents from school of social enterpreneurship and some one was constantly comparing holacracy to democracy and was seeing it either as a control and command system or was expecting it to be a 'democaracy'. for me holacracy is neither of those and i had to tell him that holacracy is not democracy, which was disappointing for him to hear and in some ways difficult for me also to say it as i sounded like i am saying 'we are not as good as 'democracy'. Thought the word democracy itself is a big interpretation and it means different to different people, but thats another conversation . I say its not democracy as the lead link does have the power to assign roles and in my understanding even if some one wishes to be in a role and act and if the lead link doesnot think that role needs to be energised they may either not have the person wanting to go there in it to take the role or even if some one has the rile the lead link could say that dont do actions in that role as its not a strategy to work on that or act in that role in that moment given the purpose or the lead link may not see the person wanting the role to even be fit to take it. So there is power to act and some how people see democracy more as consensus than even consent.
At the same time i was thinking that the person is in the circle and can object to a policy in the circle they are part of, while as brian points out that too is not a kind of 'consent' as if its not impacting their role they dont have a say. so its a nuanced thing. i see it as a self organised way to deliver or actualise the purpose of any organisation/business/group. Its like heart cant tell the stomach to do some thing, it can only share its feedback. However if there is cholestrol getting deposited because of the kind of food some one is eating, the heart is impacted to function by the choices of the stomach or the mind which makes it eat that but heart doesnot have the power to stop it and the person can go on eating food which is harmful to the heart and the whole organism. i would say holacracy has more feedback mechanism or power to object when the role is impacted.
some how it will be better to not give people a sense that its about 'equivalence' as mentioned in sociocracy or a better democracy, its rather a whole system which is self organised with feedback and response. Often we want to see the world in duality so its comfortable to be democratic or dictatorship while i sense holacracy is neither and it does not make sense to compare with the two.
I would say so called occupy movements are like consesnus, sociocracy is consent where any one in the circlee can object to a decision even at policy level and the org will not move on till every one is satisfied or at least there is no objection, while holacracy is distributed authority where there is authority and clear domains and people work in them to meet the purpose and make sure when one persons role impacts other they engage to resolve it.