Well, first of all, what`s not? Consensus does not mean the approval of all or unanimity. Instead, the dictionary defines it as “an opinion or position obtained by a group as a whole or by a majority will. General approval or agreement.” Therefore, there is no scale as to what percentage of the group needs to agree before you can declare that a consensus has been reached. However, most political groups claim that it is consensual, such as unanimous consent, that is, no one can object to it. But that is not the case. Consensus is better understood as if there were no strong or disruptive differences on this issue. A decision-making process that aims at broad consensus among members of political groups. We can distinguish at least four types of consensus in the sessions. “Agreement between experimental observations and theory” French sociologist Philippe Urfalino has done pioneering work to clarify the difference between unanimity and consensus (Urfalino 2007, 2010, 2014). He stresses, among other things, that it is necessary, in order to see the unanimity, that everyone forms his individual preference in this matter and that he expresses it by a vote. Unanimity will be achieved if everyone votes in favour of the same option. On the other hand, consensus allows some (or even a majority) not to choose and to remain silent.
Margaret Gilbert (1987: 194) speaks of allowing something “that is the view [of the group] “. Both Urfalino and Gilbert emphasize the non-summary nature of the consensus (Gilbert`s term is “collective faith”), which means that collective decisions are not necessarily the sum of individual decisions. Consent has a precise definition. There are many opinions on what consensus is. If we`re talking about differences, you might think, “But I don`t make consensus like that.” We are now talking in general about our experience with different groups and the assumptions that people often make about consensus. Having studied decision-making among democratic and often very egalitarian activists (Haug 2010), I am aware that some supporters of the consensus decision will say that if many (or even a few) oppose the decision, but still let it pass instead of vetoing it, it is not a genuine consensual decision. However, I have the impression that such an insistence on a narrow definition of consensus as the only “true” consensus is not very helpful in actually reaching consensus. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of 1569-1795 used consensual decisions in its sejms (legislative assemblies) in the form of a liberum veto. A kind of unanimous approval, liberum veto originally allowed each member of a Sejm to veto a single law by calling Sisto activitatem! (Latin: “I`m going to stop the activity!”) Or Never pozwalam! (Polish: “I won`t allow it!”).  Over time, it has evolved into a much more extreme form, in which each member of the Sejm could unilaterally and immediately force the end of the current session and annihilate all the laws previously adopted in that session.  Due to the excessive use and deliberate sabotage by neighbouring powers bribing sejm members, the legislation became very difficult and weakened the Commonwealth. Shortly after banning the veto liberum as part of its Constitution of 3 May 1791, the Commonwealth dissolved under pressure from neighbouring powers.
 Many people view a consensus as an expanded voting method in which everyone must vote in the same way. Because unanimous unanimity of this type is rarely present in groups with more than one member, groups that attempt to use this type of process are generally either extremely frustrated or forced. Either decisions are never made (which leads to the fall of the group, its transformation into a social group that does not perform tasks), or they are made undercover, or a group or individual dominates the rest.