In the stubborn refusal of the Opposition Leader to initiate discussions with President Ali, advice by political scientaists Amy Gutman and Dennis Thompson from their “The Spirit of Compromise: Why Governing Demands It and Campaigning Undermines It” is salutary. “If politics is the art of the possible, then compromise is the artistry of democracy. Unless one partisan ideology holds sway over all branches of government, compromise is necessary to govern for the benefit of all citizens. A rejection of compromise biases politics in favour of the status quo, even when the rejection risks a crisis.
In an era characterised by the permanent campaign, the balance in democratic governing needs to shift more toward the compromising mindset and the promotion of political compromises that it makes possible. Our defence of compromise in democratic governance is consistent with – indeed requires – a vigorous and often contentious politics in which citizens press strongly-held principles and mobilise in support of boldly-proclaimed causes; social movements, political demonstrations, and activist organisations are among the significant sites of this kind of politics. The citizens who participate in these activities play important roles in democracy.
But their efforts would be in vain if the democratic process of governance did not produce the public benefits that citizens seek, and protect the rights that they cherish. The success of democratic politics ultimately depends on how our elected leaders govern – and, therefore, inevitably on their attitudes toward compromise.
In general, compromise is an agreement in which all sides sacrifice something in order to improve the status quo from their perspective, and in which the sacrifices are at least partly determined by the other side’s will. The sacrifice involves not merely getting less than you want, but also, thanks to your opponents, getting less than you think you deserve. The sacrifice typically involves trimming your principles. We call these defining characteristics of compromise “mutual sacrifice and wilful opposition”.
Although many kinds of compromise share these characteristics, legislative compromises –agreements that produce laws – do not always function in the same way as the kinds that are more commonly discussed, such as compromises to avert a war or create peace in international politics or compromises to conclude deals in commercial transactions.
Unlike major international compromises, legislative bargains are not negotiated with an ultimate threat of force in the background (though sometimes legislators…act as if electoral death is the end of the world). Unlike common commercial deals, the bargains struck by legislators are not primarily financial. Legislative compromises usually implicate principles as well as material interests.
The character of legislative compromise is shaped by its distinctive democratic and institutional context. It takes place in an ongoing institution in which the members have responsibilities to constituents and their political parties, maintain continuing relationships with one another, and deal concurrently with a wide range of issues that have multiple parts and long-range effects. the dynamics of negotiation in these circumstances differ from the patterns found in the two-agent, one-time interactions that are more common in most discussions of compromise.
Within the arena of legislative compromises, we need to distinguish between what may be called classic compromises and other consensual agreements. Classic compromises express an underlying and continuing conflict of values: the disagreements among the parties are embodied in the compromise itself. Other consensual compromises are based on an underlying convergence of values or what is often called “common ground”. These agreements set aside the original disagreement and conclude in a complete consensus.
Some advocates of consensus see it as a way to promote the value of community. Still, others believe that it is more likely to produce the best laws and policies. All in effect urge politicians to base legislation on common ground shared not only between ideologically-opposed parties but also among most citizens who do not have highly developed political ideologies. All citizens want a better life for themselves and their children; all want security, decent health care, a good education, and the like. The hope seems to be that a consensus would form on this common ground.
But the common ground is more barren than the possibilities for basing legislation on might suggest.
