What is concurrence?
Concurrence means to agree with something or someone. You can also use the word concur instead of concurrence. Concurrence often happens in a couple of different ways.
Coming to the same conclusion
Sometimes, concurrence means different people think carefully about something and agree with each other. They make up their minds but still come to the same conclusion. This kind of concurrence is common in things like:
- Scientific research, where different scientists do experiments and end up with similar results
- Business decisions, where executives study a problem and concur on the best solution
- Politics, when various politicians look at the facts and agree on what to do
- Law, where judges see cases the same way and concur on the verdict
In these cases, concurrence happens when people independently examine information and form the same opinion. They evaluate the situation independently but still see eye-to-eye in the end.
Approving of something
Another meaning of concurrence is formally approving something, like a plan or decision. This typically occurs in an official capacity within organizations or the government.
For example, imagine a committee deciding whether to approve a new project. Some members of the committee study the project proposal carefully. If they think it’s a good idea, they will concur with the project, which means they officially agree that the project should proceed.
The opposite of concurrence is dissent. If committee members dissent, that means they disagree with approving the project. They think it’s a bad idea for some reason. Dissent is disagreement.
Concurrence can also involve multiple parties, not just individuals. For instance, different branches of government might need to agree on certain actions. In some cases, this is known as “advice and consent.”
As a hypothetical, let’s say the President of a country wants to sign an important treaty with another nation. The Senate may need to concur with this decision. They would debate the pros and cons of the treaty. If most Senators agree it’s a good idea, their concurrence allows the President to sign the treaty.
Why is concurrence essential?
Concurrence is crucial because it means an idea or action has broad support. When many people concur, it shows that something is widely seen as correct or beneficial, lending weight to a decision.
This is especially true for big, impactful decisions that affect many people. The more important something is, the more valuable it is to concur with decision-makers. Lack of concurrence can lead to controversy and conflict.
Additionally, concurrence can act as a “check” on power in some political systems. The requirement for different branches of government to concur prevents any single person or group from making unilateral decisions. Consensus becomes necessary.
Concurrence also implies that a decision wasn’t reached hastily. If something has concurrence, it usually means the people involved discussed it at length. They looked at the issue from multiple angles before agreeing in the end.
So, in many ways, concurrence signals that a choice is well thought-out and legitimate. It’s not arbitrary or misguided. Careful consideration by multiple parties led them to see the issue similarly.
Examples of concurrence
To better understand concurrence, it helps to look at real-world examples. Here are a few:
Supreme Court decisions
In countries like the United States, the Supreme Court often makes major legal decisions. For a case to be decided, a majority of the nine justices must concur.
Let’s say the court is considering a case about free speech. The justices hear arguments from both sides and study the relevant law. They discuss and deliberate privately.
Ultimately, six of the nine justices concur that the law does not violate free speech. Three justices dissented, meaning they disagreed. But because a clear majority concurred, their decision becomes binding.
The justices who concurred may write a single majority opinion explaining their reasoning. The dissenting justices often write a dissenting opinion detailing why they disagreed. But the majority concurrence is what ultimately matters.
Scientific consensus
Concurrence is also essential in science. Researchers around the world investigate questions and publish their findings. Over time, the scientific community evaluates the evidence and reaches a consensus.
Take climate change as an example. Thousands of scientists have studied this issue for decades, examining temperature records, greenhouse gas levels, and computer models.
While a small number of scientists may dissent, the overwhelming majority agree that human-caused climate change is happening. They reached this consensus by carefully examining data from many sources. Even though they worked independently, they came to the same conclusion.
This kind of scientific concurrence is powerful. When experts worldwide evaluate evidence and concur, something is likely to be true. The consensus acts as a strong signal of the underlying reality.
Legislative votes
Concurrence is also a routine part of lawmaking. Like the House of Representatives, legislative members must concur to pass bills.
Suppose a Representative introduces a bill to fund a new highway. The bill is sent to a committee, where members debate the proposal. They might make changes or add amendments.
When the committee is done, it votes on whether to send the bill to the full House. If a majority concurs, the bill advances out of committee. If they dissent, the bill “dies” without a total vote.
In the full House, the Representatives debate the bill again. When the debate concludes, they vote on whether to pass it. Once more, concurrence by a majority is required. If fewer than half the Representatives concur, the bill fails.
This process can be repeated between two legislative chambers, like the House and Senate. Both bodies must concur on an identical bill before it becomes law, and concurrence is required at every step.
The importance of concurrence
As these examples show, concurrence plays a crucial role in decision-making. It ensures that important choices have support from multiple people or groups, helping prevent reckless or ill-advised decisions.
Concurrence promotes stability and legitimacy. When decisions are made with the concurrence of many stakeholders, they’re more likely to be seen as fair and appropriate. People are more apt to accept the outcome, even if they don’t love it.
This contrasts with choices made unilaterally, without concurrence. A single leader or small group dictating a significant decision can breed resentment. People may see the choice as an abuse of power or detached from their concerns.
But when concurrence is reached through discussion and deliberation, it confers a degree of democratic legitimacy. People can see that multiple voices were heard, and different views were considered. Even those who don’t get their way can appreciate the process.
Of course, concurrence isn’t always easy. Getting many people to agree can be challenging, especially on contentious issues. It requires listening, compromising, and seeing things from others’ perspectives. These aren’t always easy or fun.
Sometimes, concurrence is impossible, no matter how much good-faith debate occurs. People may simply have clashing values or beliefs that preclude agreement. In these cases, a decision ultimately may be made without complete consensus.
But in general, concurrence is something to strive for. It signals that a decision was made thoughtfully and enjoys broad support. It also helps create a sense of shared ownership and investment in essential choices.
Concurrence takes time
Another critical aspect of concurrence is that it often takes time. People rarely immediately agree on complex issues, and reaching a consensus can require extensive research, discussion, and negotiation.
This can be frustrating when decisions are urgent. In a crisis, the desire for swift action may clash with the need for concurrence. Leaders can feel pressure to act unilaterally for the sake of expediency.
But this is often a mistake. Rushed choices made without concurrence can prove to be misguided or even disastrous. They may not fully account for risks or unintended consequences.
So, even when time is short, it’s wise to build in some process for reaching consensus. It may not be as robust as in non-crisis situations, but simply allowing key stakeholders to weigh in can improve decisions considerably.
Concurrence doesn’t mean unanimity.
It’s also crucial to understand that concurrence doesn’t require unanimity. It doesn’t mean everyone agrees or gets precisely what they want. Indeed, holding out for total consensus can lead to gridlock and dysfunction.
Concurrence usually means a clear majority is on board, even if some dissent remains. It involves a good-faith effort to incorporate many perspectives and reach the best possible decision. However, it acknowledges that some disagreements are normal and acceptable.
This is a crucial feature of democracy. No outcome will please everyone every time. The goal is to make decisions with broad support and serve the common good as much as possible. Concurrence helps achieve this, even if it’s rarely perfect.
