The Importance of Negotiation in Transitioning to Democracy

The importance of negotiation in transitioning to democracy

According to Iran Gate’s report, negotiation has played a fundamental role in many experiences of transitioning to democracy around the world. According to Huntington’s famous classification, the transition to democracy sometimes occurs as a result of foreign intervention, sometimes due to the collapse of the opposition, sometimes through reformist actions of the power-oriented government, and sometimes through collaboration between the opposition and the government.

Negotiation usually plays a crucial role in transitioning to democracy when a balance of power is created between the government and the democratic opposition, and both sides are compelled to sit at the negotiation table to prevent the country from falling into chaos and repression. South Africa and Poland are prominent examples of such transitions.

When the government has an advantage over the opposition and for whatever reason concludes that the country must be led towards democracy, the negotiation between the opposition and the government becomes less prominent, and the transition process is mainly based on dialogues and negotiations within the government factions.

This situation occurs when the opposition has the upper hand over the government and is unwilling to sit at the negotiation table and give credit to the authoritarian rulers. In this case, the transition process will mainly rely on dialogue and negotiations among different layers of the opposition.

When an external actor brings democracy to the internal despots, there is no longer a place for government-opposition negotiations. In this case, discussions and negotiations likely take place between the external actor and the democratic opposition against the overthrown non-democratic regime.

The three processes of transformation, collapse, and foreign intervention, although not devoid of negotiation, are based on the imbalance of power between the opposition and the government. However, negotiations in these three processes are primarily aimed at consolidating democracy rather than transitioning to democracy.

To be more precise, the goal of negotiation in these three processes is not to accept the necessity of transitioning to democracy, but rather to negotiate the conditions and nuances of democracy. For example, in South Korea, the non-democratic regime collapsed in 1987, but negotiations focused on consolidating democracy continued for five years after that.

Negotiations for the realization of democracy in South Africa were sometimes overt and sometimes covert. Nelson Mandela began negotiating with government representatives in 1986, but his negotiations remained hidden and secret until the late 1980s. Similarly, in Poland, the main negotiations between the government and the Solidarity movement were conducted in secrecy, away from media coverage.

In addition, Mandela and his associates had both official and unofficial negotiations with the South African government until 1990. At times, external elements were also present in the negotiations with internal actors. Prior to the start of official negotiations in South Africa, a delegation of foreign politicians negotiated with the leaders of the South African Congress to ensure that the Western world’s support for the democratization of South Africa and the empowerment of black people would not lead to crimes against white citizens.

Furthermore, representatives from the United Nations and the European Union also monitored the progress of the negotiations between Mandela and the de Klerk government. Some believe that the transparency of the negotiation process during the transition to democracy signifies a non-violent democratization. However, concrete experiences of transition to democracy indicate that negotiations can occur alongside violence.

In Spain, in 1979, while negotiations for strengthening democracy were underway, more than 460 people lost their lives in political clashes. Among this number, 63 were protesters who were killed in clashes with the police of the government led by Juan Carlos, who himself was leading the transition to democracy.

Or in the astonishing example of South Africa, negotiations and struggles were taking place side by side for a while. Mandela and De Klerk were busy negotiating with each other while De Klerk’s police were killing defenseless and innocent black people, and Mandela’s allies in the Congress were carrying out armed operations in retaliation against the police and the government.

The prevalence of power struggles in negotiations is closely related to the negotiating parties’ strength. For example, the Brazilian military had more power and a better position compared to the military in Uruguay, and they were able to gain a larger share from the negotiation table and put an end to the military regime in their country. However, the weakness of the military’s power and position in Uruguay prevented them from obtaining significant concessions and forced them to settle for minimum gains, accepting the end of the military regime in Uruguay.

According to some experts, negotiation-based transitions often have a better chance of achieving the consolidation of democracy. Although these transitions may proceed at a slower pace and negotiations can take several years to reach a conclusion, the essence of negotiation is a form of democratic practice. Therefore, democracies that emerge from negotiations tend to have greater stability.

Negotiation for the sake of negotiation is a stage that is evident in most negotiation-based transitions. In this stage, the negotiating parties not only gain a deeper understanding of each other’s personalities and thoughts, but also experience a movement towards empathy and understanding.

Negotiation for the sake of negotiation is essentially a practice of understanding and compromise, and its realization depends on the patience of democratic proponents. One of the reasons for the successful outcomes of negotiation-based transitions is the efforts of the negotiating parties to demonstrate their ability to establish democracy in civil ways.

When representatives of social forces sit behind the negotiation table, they are well aware that the world is now watching them. The failure of both sides in reaching an agreement to establish democracy in their country not only tarnishes the credibility of the government and the opposition separately, but also indicates the incapacity of a nation to embrace democracy.

The most important guarantee for transitioning to democracy in the negotiation process is the ability of the parties to reach binding agreements. These agreements usually bind them to renounce violence and revenge in the future democratic era.

These agreements, especially when military personnel are willing to relinquish power in exchange for the realization of democracy, have strategic importance. This is because the military is always concerned about scrutiny of their performance from a human rights perspective, and obtaining necessary guarantees from democratic forces provides the necessary psychological security for the military to return from the cabinet or the political arena to the barracks.