By Joshua N. Weiss, Ph.D.
In 1992 then candidate Bill Clinton’s chief political strategist James Carville was asked about the key to Clinton winning the Presidential election. His famous reply, “It’s the economy, stupid!”?Of course, what he was clearly explaining to all involved was that if the economy was going well that was the issue most voters cared about. All the focus and attention should be on that issue in order to achieve success. Plain and simple.? ??
Similarly, when it comes to public sector negotiations there is one essential ingredient that by far trumps all the rest…and you guessed it – it is political will.? But what exactly is political will and why does it matter so much?
Many people throw the concept around because it is broad and vague. In fact, the notion is so elusive that David Roberts from Vox wrote an article back in 2017 entitled “What is Political Will Anyway: Scholars take a whack at defining it.”[1] ?After a useful discussion of the concept he explains that a paper called “Defining Political Will” published in Politics and Policy by author’s Post, Raile and Raile offered an answer…but it is not at all simple.? Essentially there are three elements of political will.? As he explained, “There’s ‘distribution of preferences’ which has to do with who wants what. There’s ‘the authority, capacity, and legitimacy of key decision-makers or reformers,’ which has to do with whether those who want an outcome have the power and means to achieve it. And there ‘commitment to preferences,’ which is the fuzzy-but-crucial metric of how strongly held the preferences of the key decision makers are.”?
So, what do we do this concept and how is it relevant to negotiation?? Let’s focus our gaze on the last piece of the definition above because it is particularly important for this conversation. When we look out at the landscape of negotiation challenges currently confronting the world three critical processes come to mind – each of which has decision makers with strongly held preferences that run counter to a negotiated agreement. The first is the US Border Negotiations, the second is the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, and the third is the war between Russia and Ukraine.?
To be very clear, these are all exceedingly vexing problems to say the least and pose massive negotiation challenges, but each process is being stymied by the political will of at least one of the decision makers (AKA negotiators) involved. Put differently, there is a clear lack of willingness to invest their political capital to reach an agreement. In these three cases, and if you do a very hard and honest negotiation analysis, a number of the decision makers interests clearly seem to run counter to reaching an agreement.?Of course that is why they have not happened yet. The political willingness – in the form of their interests as they define them -- lies elsewhere.?So, what can be done about this???
The sad fact is that unless these leaders are willing to reprioritize their goals and objectives the answer is that a shift is very hard to bring about. They may continue to negotiate – or at least engage in talks – but they are not really trying to find a solution. The only real thing that will change their calculus is if the reality on the ground changes along with their objectives. Yes, there are things that can be done by citizens in these societies and around the world. A change can come about through pressure from inside a party or country or from outside pressure from other actors in the global community. It can also come from changing dynamics and calculations that leaders make on a regular basis.
Political will is the holy grail of these kinds of negotiations. Do leaders change?? Of course they do. In places where peace agreements were reached after many years of struggle, leaders such as Anwar Sadat (Egypt), F.W. De Klerk (in South Africa), Gerry Adams (in Northern Ireland), and Yitzhak Rabin (in Israel) all came to view their political will differently. This ultimately was the dynamic that pushed them to make a change and reach a negotiated solution.
But let’s not kid ourselves about these negotiations. In the end it is political will, stupid. So, let’s not take our eyes off that ball if we ultimately want any negotiation in this realm to succeed.? ????????
领英推荐
??
?
?
?
?
Bringing structure to Strategic Planning and Negotiation
3 个月Insightful post Joshua Weiss and point on re the reality of political will determining the commitment and approach to Negotiation. The challenge is to first profile the underlying interests, thinking and factors (alternatives, power etc.) influencing the political that will inform options available to you and your approach in a way that may influence a revaluation of interests that drives the will!.
Fractional Executive| Helping CROs and Sales Leaders Boost Revenue and Team Efficiency with Innovative Sales Enablement Solutions| Podcast Host | Driving Success through Learning & Leadership Development
3 个月What a clear, yet depressing, picture you've painted. I can think of quite a few other important issues here at home that need a negotiated agreement to create or reinstate a better quality of life for many Americans, but as you've just explained it's political will that is getting in the way. What can be done in the areas of equality and equity across genders, religions, races and sexual orientation? While I consider these all to be human rights issues, it's the politics that seem to reinforce the barriers keeping things in status quo. How or who can break those down?