The Importance of Negotiation in the Transition to Democracy

The Importance of Negotiation in the Transition to Democracy

The importance of negotiation in the transition to democracy, according to Iran Gate, has been fundamental in many global experiences of transitioning to democracy. According to Huntington’s famous classification, the transition to democracy sometimes occurs due to a foreign invasion or intervention, sometimes due to the dominance of the opposition leading to collapse, sometimes as a result of reformist actions of the authoritarian government leading to transformation, and sometimes due to the cooperation between the opposition and the government leading to change.

Negotiation usually plays a crucial role in the transition to democracy when a balance of power has been established between the government and the pro-democracy opposition, forcing both sides to sit at the negotiation table to save the country from falling into chaos and repression. South Africa and Poland are prominent examples of such transitions.

When the government has dominance over the opposition and for any reason decides that the country should be guided towards democracy, the negotiation between the opposition and the government diminishes, and the transition process mainly relies on dialogues and negotiations within the factions of the government.

The opposite occurs when the opposition has dominance over the government and is unwilling to negotiate and give concessions to the authoritarian rulers. In this situation, the transition process mainly relies on dialogues and negotiations among the various layers of the opposition.

When a foreign factor brings democracy to domestic opponents of tyranny, there is essentially no room left for government-opposition negotiations. In this case, discussions and negotiations likely occur between the foreign factor and the pro-democracy opposition of the undemocratic regime.

The three processes of transformation, collapse, and foreign intervention, which are based on the imbalance of power between the opposition and the government, although not devoid of negotiation, mainly focus not on the transition to democracy but on consolidating democracy.

More precisely, the goal of negotiation in these three processes is not to convince the necessity of transitioning to democracy but rather the quality and specifics of democracy that become the subject of negotiation. For example, in South Korea, the undemocratic regime collapsed in 1987, but negotiations aimed at consolidating democracy continued for five years thereafter.

Negotiations related to the realization of democracy are sometimes open and sometimes hidden. In South Africa, Nelson Mandela began negotiations with government representatives in 1986, but his negotiations remained almost hidden and secret until the years 1988-1989. In Poland, the main negotiations between the government and the Solidarity Union were conducted in secrecy, away from media coverage.

Moreover, negotiations are sometimes formal and sometimes informal. Mandela and his allies’ negotiations with the South African government were informal until 1990. Occasionally, foreign elements also participate in the negotiations of domestic players. Before the start of formal negotiations in South Africa, a delegation of foreign politicians negotiated with the leaders of the South African Congress to ensure that Western support for democratizing South Africa and bringing blacks to power would not lead to crimes against white citizens.

Additionally, during the negotiations, representatives from the United Nations and the European Union oversaw the process of Mandela and de Klerk’s negotiations. Some believe that the initiation of negotiation in the transition process signifies a non-violent democratization, whereas real experiences of transitioning to democracy indicate the possibility of negotiation alongside the occurrence of violence.

In Spain in 1979, while negotiations aimed at consolidating democracy were underway, more than 460 people lost their lives in political conflicts. Among them, 63 were protesters killed in clashes with the police of King Juan Carlos’s government, who himself led the transition to democracy.

Or in the remarkable example of South Africa, negotiations and struggles proceeded side by side for a time. Mandela and de Klerk were negotiating with each other while de Klerk’s police were killing defenseless and innocent black people, and Mandela’s allies in the Congress were conducting armed operations against the police and government in retaliation.

The common bargaining in negotiations is entirely related to the power of the negotiating parties. For instance, the Brazilian military, compared to the Uruguayan military, had more power and a better position and managed to take a bigger share from the negotiation table and end the military regime in their country. However, the weakness of power and position of the military in Uruguay meant they lacked the ability and possibility to obtain major concessions and had to settle for the minimums, agreeing to the end of the military regime in Uruguay.

According to some experts, negotiations-based transitions usually have a higher chance of reaching the stage of consolidating democracy. According to this view, although such transitions progress more slowly and achieving negotiation results may take several years, the very act of negotiating over democracy is a kind of practice in democracy, and for this reason, democracies emerging from negotiation usually have more stability.

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

Negotiation for negotiation is essentially a practice of understanding and compromise and requires the patience of a democracy advocate. Perhaps one of the reasons for the success and outcome of negotiations-based transitions is the effort of the negotiating parties to prove their ability to establish democracy in a civil manner.

When representatives of social forces sit at the negotiation table, they are well aware that the world is now watching them. The failure of the negotiating parties to agree on creating democracy in their country not only undermines the credibility of the government and opposition separately but also indicates a nation’s inability to open its arms to democracy.

The most important guarantee of transition to democracy in the negotiation process is the ability of the parties to reach transition agreements. Transition agreements usually close the door to violence and revenge in the future democratic era.

These agreements, especially when the military wants to relinquish power in exchange for the realization of democracy, have strategic importance because the military is always concerned about their performance being scrutinized from a human rights perspective. Obtaining necessary guarantees from pro-democracy social forces provides the psychological security needed for the military to return from the cabinet or the political power arena to the barracks.