Competition and conflict have existed since the dawn of human history. A study of the progress of human civilisation reveals that socialisation started with negotiations to maintain peace and harmony in society as people realised that conflict and violence were harmful. Negotiation thus entered the lexicon of diplomacy as early as the period of Kautilya in ancient India (4th century BCE) and the Roman Empire (27BCE-395 AD) and the Byzantine Empire (330-1453 AD) in Europe. Thus, international diplomacy was rooted in the strategies of negotiations instead of threat, intimidation and violence in pursuit of harmony and peaceful coexistence between countries. 

Zero sum game

Conflict is multi-dimensional and inevitable. In the form of business competition, conflict helps to generate welfare and reduces prices for consumers. In this sense, the world requires constructive conflict and competition.The goal should be not to eliminate conflict but to manage it by separating it from violence and transforming it into smart problem-solving means. In the contemporary world, addressing the issues of inequity and injustice remain challenges of negotiations, but the question is how to change the basic game of conflict.

Negotiation in conventional terms used to be looked at from a win-lose or lose-win perspective. The common question in people’s minds used to be who is going to win and who is going to lose. To reach an agreement, someone has to give in—a zero sum game. One party used to benefit at the cost of the other. This notion is being challenged with the advent of new approaches and developments in the inter-play of international relations.

Negotiation has become a ubiquitous phenomenon as countries are coming closer in pursuit of economic and social integration for shared prosperity. Distances between countries have shrunk due to technological innovations and digital connectivity. The world is heading towards a larger global community due to increasing inter-dependency and connectivity among peoples and societies. Literature on negotiations postulate various approaches and methods while making a dent in the interests of competing and conflicting parties. Making each party happy and satisfied through negotiations is the best practice suggested in such literature. The ultimate degree of success is determined by how much the outcome was able to promote mutual benefit and build lasting relationships between the negotiating parties.

People bargain during negotiations. Hard bargaining, though successful, does not produce a wise result as people become adversaries and victory becomes their goal: One party feels that it has won and the other feels that it has lost, which does not help to enhance relationships. Soft bargaining may not be fair as the negotiating party adopting such an approach will always be at the losing end. Hence, the concept of principled negotiations is the best approach advocated by pundits of negotiations.

Principled negotiation falls somewhere between soft and hard bargaining. It is based on some fair standards independent of the will of either side. There are three parameters of successful negotiations: One, producing a wise agreement, two, improving efficiency and three, improving relationships between the negotiating parties.

Principled negotiation is also a joint search for mutual gain which advances the legitimate interests of the negotiating parties. Negotiations based on interest instead of position lead to wise agreements as the latter always produces winners and losers. A quest for the underlying interest as to what leads a party to occupy a specific position is preeminent in satisfying the interests of the negotiating parties.

Fundamental strategies

In any case, finding common solutions to a problem requires adopting some fundamental strategies. One, people should be disentangled from the problem. It is said that a negotiator should be soft on the people but hard on the problems. In a thick jungle of people problems, it is useful to think in terms of three basic categories—perception, emotion and way of communication. A negotiator should always appreciate the value system, behaviour and outlook of the other party. Entangling these with the problems will complicate the whole negotiation process. 

Two, a negotiator should focus on interest and not position. Such interests between parties may be common, complementary or contradictory. The conversion of contradictory interests into a complementary interest requires a great deal of effort. It also means enlarging the size of the pie in order to meet the expectations of the parties. Three, a negotiator should invent various options to fulfil the interests of the negotiating parties. Four, such options and results should be judged in an objective manner and be tangible in nature. 

An ability to invent options is one of the most useful assets a negotiator can have. In most negotiations, there are four major obstacles that inhibit inventing multiple options. One, it is premature judgement that provides the impulse to take a certain position without considering other options. Two, people often look for a single answer to a certain problem. Three, there is a false assumption that the size of the pie is fixed and cannot be enlarged. Four, there is a perception that solving the other side’s problem is not their problem. It is important to understand negotiations to overcome these fallacies.

Negotiation is the basic means to achieve what one party wants from another. It is a back and forth communication designed to reach an agreement when both parties have shared opposing interests. In a dynamic social, economic and cultural framework, and the changing scenario of international relations, the Nepali state mechanism including the bureaucracy should be well geared to uphold the national interest through effective negotiations, both at home and abroad.  

Ojha is a former commerce secretary