Negotiating in weakness

A government that wishes to be accepted as an “honest broker” or an objective negotiator between two belligerents requires power.

Power, as an instrument of state, can be classified as hard, soft, smart and sharp.

The judicious use of the state’s diplomatic, intelligence, military and economic instruments gives a government the accepted view of being powerful.

To solidify the view of power, the state must be able to harness and project its instruments when necessary.

However, when a state has none of these instruments, or they have been diminished or it misunderstand their value, it is weakened.

The citizenry notice this weakness, leading to apathy, loss of respect, support and trust, and the government no longer enjoys legitimacy.

Fractured

A lack of credible power, furthermore, results in disconnected policies that, if implemented, disadvantage the nation.

Often this is purposely done to enable further control and abuse of the populace or without considering the negative consequences.

When a government is unable or unwilling to fulfil its duty or project good governance across its entire territory, it erodes its ability to positively influence the electorate. It loses the trust and respect of its citizens and reduces its standing on the international stage.

It becomes a nonentity state.

As the international community becomes increasingly fractured and polarised because new East versus West power blocs are taking shape, domestic and international relevance become increasingly important.

The ability to possess and project power becomes increasingly important. As the geopolitical shifts occur, it is inevitable some African states will be obliged to choose sides so they do not find themselves totally irrelevant or isolated – or to protect their interests.

But choosing to side with a belligerent comes with advantages and disadvantages. Some states will, therefore, opt to remain neutral, hoping to protect their own interests or gain benefits from all sides. Such states understand that they lack credible instruments of power to conduct effective negotiations and therefore do not attempt to position themselves as “negotiators”.

Power, along with credible neutrality, is a prerequisite for opting to intervene and end hostilities between belligerents through negotiations.

READ MORE: SA’s ability to function as a democracy is increasingly questionable

Weak state

A weak state that wants to partake in negotiations to gain diplomatic points serves no value apart from wasting time and money while people are dying – and of course, posing for the obligatory photo opportunities.

Besides, objective negotiation can never take place as long as the negotiator is biased, has little to no integrity and lacks credible power. Being a negotiator also requires several critical traits. These include objectivity, trust and respect.

It also requires that the government views all citizens as equal and does not develop policies aimed at serving a few.

Integrity, national trust and respect, along with political astuteness, are by-products of national power. The warring parties need to view the negotiators as credible, sincere and trustworthy.

But credible negotiations cannot take place when a wannabe negotiator is unable or unwilling to keep his/her own house in order.

When a government is viewed as a kakistocracy by its own people, it cannot expect anyone to take them seriously, not their own citizens nor the international community.

Some political events, such as disconnected domestic and foreign policies, can affect a nation so profoundly that they result in seismic shifts in how voters perceive a government and can result in political realignment.

Dramatic effect

These events have a dramatic effect on how regional, continental and foreign governments view that government’s human rights record – and if it can be trusted and respected.

A government that conducts itself as a criminal enterprise will be viewed as negotiating solely to acquire personal benefits.

When such a state presents itself as a negotiator in an EastWest conflict, the results can almost be predicted.

Before attempting to negotiate between two warring parties, a government must consider its own standing with its citizens, the rest of the continent and the international community. Or its attempts will end in failure.

ALSO READ: People paying price for govt’s failures

-Barlow is the founder and chair of Executive Outcomes