Upping the ante

Perhaps you just want to make a point. It is a risky gamble though often resulting in increased levels of distrust, which makes moving forward even harder. More seriously though, a divisive public strategy that targets particular social groups has the potential to spin way out of control, far beyond the boundaries of wage negotiations.

In peacekeeping they say talks between opposing sides has the best chance of success when the dispute is “ripe”. This means essentially that the sides - say the government and striking workersfind themselves in a mutually hurting stalemate. The concept is based on the notion that when the parties find themselves locked in a conflict from which they cannot escalate to victory and this deadlock is painful to both of them, although not necessarily in equal degree or for the same reasons, it is then that they will seek an alternative policy. One would like to believe that the parties to a dispute would seek a mediated solution when they see that reaching an agreement would be in the best interest of the constituency that they claim to be representative of; in the best interest of the country even. However, leaders who can rally both sides to rise above their self-interest to sacrifice for a greater gain are rare. Nelson Mandela was one such. Rather, leaders tend to move to resolve their conflict only when they are ready to do so; when alternative, usually unilateral, means of achieving a satisfactory result are blocked and they feel that they are in an uncomfortable and costly predicament. At that ripe moment, they are amenable to discussing proposals that offer a way out.

The difficulty of course is that by the time parties get to the negotiating table brinkmanship and public rhetoric have broken down trust between the parties to such an extent that it becomes extremely difficult for either side to see the opportunities available to them for mutual agreement. Both sides read ill-intent into every statement made by the other. Not just that, emotive public rhetoric is hard to step back from. The authors of dissent become emotionally invested in the dislike that they articulate about others, and they begin to believe that their own support is dependent on the discontent that they sew against “the enemy”. In effect, they lose faith in their own ability to lead their constituency into good times.

At the same time, injustice and impunity are equally sure to erode trust particularly in an atmosphere where the scarce availability of facts gives way to perceptions so firmly held they become hard to dispel even when facts emerge.

Furthermore, rational dialogue becomes extremely difficult when people feel powerless to improve their lives even as they perceive others as being supported to better their lives.

This it seems is where we have found ourselves: Deep lack of trust on all sides. The collapse of the National Tripartite Advisory Council several months ago represents lost opportunities to promote the interests of all sides while still acting in the national interest. All is not lost, though. There are constructive rumblings about talks between the trade union movement and the government which both sides should embrace, possibly with the help of a neutral mediator. Success will depend entirely on how much both sides want to achieve a mutually acceptable resolution.

It will not be easy, but resolving conflict never is.