9.6   Overcoming a Refusal to Negotiate 

 (This section was renumbered in Edition 2; readers of that edition of Patterns of Power can find the latest version of this section at https://www.patternsofpower.org/patterns/renegotiating/refusal/.  Readers of the Rough Guide should refer to https://www.patternsofpower.org/edition01/96.htm for the original contents of the section on Meeting Governance Requirements and to https://www.patternsofpower.org/patterns/renegotiating/checklist/ for the latest version.)

Governance can only respond to people€™s needs if everybody is prepared to negotiate.  Although much of the emphasis in this book has been on inclusiveness and the attempt to accommodate multiple shades of opinion, there are people who fail to see the need to make compromises with others €“ either as individuals or in groups.

Some people will not accept pluralism.  If someone is a religious absolutist €“ believing that their viewpoint is the only one that can be permitted €“ this does not per se present a problem for society.  But if that same person tries to force everybody else to adopt these views (4.4.6.2), perhaps under the misapprehension that converting others is a duty and will save their souls, it would be a breach of the others€™ rights.  Absolutism in some people takes the form of believing that God would want them to be His agents in converting everybody else, no matter what violence would be required.  There are examples of this type of violent extremism in all three Abrahamic religions[1] and in Hinduism.[2]

Any attempt to negotiate with violent religious extremists is likely to be unsuccessful.  It is possible, though, to explain to most people that there are serious weaknesses in an extremist€™s arguments:

·     There will never be a time where everybody believes the same thing.  Any attempt to impose a single set of religious beliefs by force would turn into a world war with an apocalyptic outcome €“ and some extremists want this: to bring on the €˜Second Coming€™, the €˜Last Days€™, and the end of the world as we know it.[3]

·     Violence conflicts with the teaching (in all religions) that the Golden Rule is the most important commandment (4.2.2.2).

·     People who have been formally appointed as religious leaders, but who are preaching conflict, are almost certainly pursuing a political agenda (4.4.5.2).

·     If someone asserts that their role as a religious leader makes them infallible they are exhibiting hubris and blasphemy.  Scholarship might increase a person€™s understanding of a religion, but no human can claim to know €˜the mind of God€™.  Claims to omniscience are absurd.

·     Anyone listening to a call for violence should have a strong suspicion that such a leader is attracted by the image of being God's warrior and the sense of exhilaration and power that goes with that role.

Most people can be persuaded to distrust extremists who want to bring about the end of the world, if another point of view is expressed with equal conviction.  Religious extremists would be deprived of support if other charismatic leaders, belonging to the same religion, were giving the originally-intended priority to the Golden Rule.  A policy of inclusivity, to foster peaceful pluralism (9.3), is the most satisfactory long-term approach for avoiding ethnic conflict.

There are other types of group whose refusal to negotiate can create large-scale disruption:

·     Racial supremacists, of whom Hitler was perhaps the prime example, may try to remove racial groups which they regard as inferior.

·     Active anarchists or political dissidents, like the Baader-Meinhof gang in 1970€™s Germany,[4] may try to overthrow governance which is acceptable to everybody else in that society. 

·     Nationalists, whose leaders have convinced them that their identity is threatened (6.7.4.2), might feel justified in using violence in what they feel to be a battle for survival.  ETA, in Spain€™s Basque region, was an example €“ although that struggle has now officially ended.[5]

Negotiation might be impossible with any such group.  And they represent a wider danger if they try to overturn agreements reached by others. 

If a society's stability is threatened by a few intransigent people, and negotiations have broken down, it can try to impose coercion.  This is best carried out by using the Legal Dimension of governance, which is designed for that purpose but which depends upon a degree of acceptability for it to be effective (5.4.3).  It is more likely to be able to retain control if there are relatively few intransigent individuals. 

It is possible to reduce the level of support for groups which want to overthrow society, by persuading most people that they have a better chance of achieving their objectives by negotiation €“ working within the existing framework of governance (6.8.4).  And, in an inclusive political system, nobody should be able to say with good reason that they have been unjustly treated.

There is a potentially greater risk to an authoritarian government which has refused to negotiate meaningfully.  In the absence of a democratic system's safety valve, which is that the population will be able to dismiss the government at the next election, a popular uprising is the only possible alternative to negotiation.

© PatternsofPower.org, 2014