In one day, two politicians - Bolsonaro in Brazil and Vucic in Serbia - with ties to Trump have lost surprise elections thanks to high turnout. The rise of the international far-right is not inevitable.
The election in Serbia is a win for democracy. The students' list very intentionally ran on one message: against the Vučić government, against corruption, for accountability. They tried to avoid having a commitment on any other issue: no commitment for or against the EU, for or against Russia, for or against Lithium exports. They defied having a leader, very intentionally.
They stand for basic values: for democracy, for the freedoms of speech, of press, of research and education, for a separation of powers. This was enough to carry an election, fortunately, but is it enough to form a government and lead a country?
Vučić was the minister of information in the Serbia of Milošević. I wouldn't be surprised if Vučić conceded quickly to position himself to run for president before the year is over. This isn't over.
The hard part is starting. Rebuilding democratic structures, reinstating press freedom, gaining agreements on what to do, not just on what to be against. All the best!
One place I've seen unanimity come up is one when a subgroup puts together a plan and the larger group needs to approve it. Often this is treated as a technicality, or a nuisance, rather than taking the responsibility of oversight seriously. These decisions are a backstop for poor choices or even misbehaviour, and it's important to engage fully.
Unanimity can also mean that the members are incredibly aligned; they share a common mission and they have similarly good skills in understanding information they have been presented. Even in this case, it's probably not great. Groupthink can set in, and the body can go off course unanimously.
Personally, if I am in a decision-making body that is having unanimous rubber-stamped votes, I'll raise objections and start discussions on principle. Sometimes this is to force myself to take my decision-making responsibility seriously. Other times, it's to give others in the group social permission to voice other objections, some of which might be more material than my own.
Sometimes unanimity is required to show how important the conclusion is. Those kinds of decisions are rare though. I'm less concerned about occasional shows of solidarity, and more concerned about groups that agree 100% for vote after vote.
I'd say it's more bad than good, but not exclusively bad. It's possible that the body has wrestled through their disputes in some sort of discussion already. The question under vote is already a compromise. I think that's rare, though. Few compromises are perfect, and they usually leave a residue of a few holdout votes.
It can also mean that the real decisions are being made somewhere else. If they are, then whatever that decision-making process is, it should become canonical, instead of hiding behind what seems to be a meaningless voting process.
It shows that the questions don't have significant stakes. If people don't care enough to take decisions for AND against, maybe the frontier is somewhere else. The body is not engaging on that frontier.
It's a sign that participants aren't paying attention or engaging meaningfully with the decisions. This can happen either because the question is too trivial and they can't see why they're being asked (like approving the minutes of the last meeting) or too big and daunting so they don't even know where to start in the discussion (like the nuclear reactor in Parkinson's Law of Triviality example).
Thanks everyone who replied. I think more bad than good. Here are my thoughts.
@desertbus is happening now! #DesertBusForHope #DesertBus
World Happiness Report 2026: what income can't explain
https://www.randalolson.com/2026/05/07/whr-2026-happiness-beyond-income/
SANDWICH ASSEMBLED. Scrambled eggs, Uruguayan mayonnaise (it has a hint of lemon), and ketchup potato chips on butter toasted multigrain bread. #crispsandwichday
The hard questions...
Sofa OR Couch?
@card I need a card
Is unanimity in a decision-making body good or bad?
I had a sandwich. I had crisps (“chips” in my local dialect). Nest one in the other and you get a #CrispSandwichDay sandwich.
For #crispsandwichday I had a go to make crisps. Pretty successful. I do love a double carb dinner