Compromise -The Essence of Canadian Political Philosophy

[August1991]

"The word 'compromise' in Arabic—mosawama—is a dirty word," says Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, who served for many years as Iraq's national--security adviser and is running for Parliament. "You don't compromise on your concept, your ideology, your religion—or if you do," he flicked his hand dismissively, "then you're a traitor." Rubaie leans in close to make his point. "But we learned this trick of compromise. So the Kurds are with the Shia on one piece of legislation. The Shia are with the Sunnis on another piece of legislation, and the Sunnis are with the Kurds on still another."

Newsweek

I don't know if Iraq will turn into a functioning democracy but this paragraph struck me.

IMV, the essential criteria of democracy is whether power changes hands between opponents without death or violence. But a fundamental feature of a functioning civilized society is surely the ability to compromise.

In Canada, we have been doing this for centuries. It is part of our second nature and while various sides quibble, we eventually accept the compromise. Moreover, we accept compromises across religious, racial, cultural, regional and linguistic divides.

Compromise is not always good and sometimes it is better to stand on principle and reject a compromise. I can't say that our politicians have always managed this aspect of compromise well.

[eyeball]

I think the ability to compromise while maintaining their principles is a characteristic feature common to ordinary Canadians, but not Canadian politicians, their parties or dedicated sycophants.

[Bonam]

Two parties can compromise when they agree at least on basic goals or principles and can negotiate towards a solution that is mutually acceptable. If two parties hold as core principles things that are completely incompatible, then there is no real room for compromise.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Bonam

[eyeball]

Two parties can compromise when they agree at least on basic goals or principles and can negotiate towards a solution that is mutually acceptable. If two parties hold as core principles things that are completely incompatible, then there is no real room for compromise.

That doesn't preclude developing new principles on which to build. You'd have to deliberately not want to compromise otherwise.

[charter.rights]

That doesn't preclude developing new principles on which to build. You'd have to deliberately not want to compromise otherwise.

That is why consensus is a much more valuable process. Compromise is only required when people take partisan stances. Rather if you listen to Canadian discourse on almost every national subject it is more consensus building than it is compromise. And in a partisan political arena both compromise and consensus get left behind, unless the reigning party is threatened in some way to bend their views.

[eyeball]

That is why consensus is a much more valuable process.

Absolutely. It's a lot harder to stab someone in the back when they're sitting across the table from you. Lobbying from a distance has far less effect when decisions are directly tied to a consensus-based process which is why regional or area-based natural resource management is so important. Lets call this what it really is though, a form of self-government.

Revolution often coalesces around indigenous aspirations and given the more modern nature of treaties starting to come into effect here on the west coast DFO for one has had little choice but to move towards co-management with everybody.

The real trick is getting the government to simply act as the referee and in a position where it can't subvert or be lobbied to subvert local management/governing processes. The strength and the authority of native treaties, in a regional context, is something non-native Canadians should be looking at in terms of adapting the relationship that exists between us and our senior governments.

[August1991]

I think the ability to compromise while maintaining their principles is a characteristic feature common to ordinary Canadians, but not Canadian politicians, their parties or dedicated sycophants.

On the contrary, I tend to think that our politicians have managed better than individuals.

Fortunately, Canada is a big country - like the US. Most individual Canadians don't have to compromise too much with other Canadians. Historically, it is our federal politicians that have had to make the compromises.

[Prior to 1970, most WASP Canadians had WASP Canadians as neighbours, and most French Catholic Canadians had French Catholic Canadians as neighbours - and then there were those other people from the West who also lived together. Their elected representatives met in Ottawa.]

Two parties can compromise when they agree at least on basic goals or principles and can negotiate towards a solution that is mutually acceptable. If two parties hold as core principles things that are completely incompatible, then there is no real room for compromise.

Bonam, I don't agree but I think that you touch on a good point.

The essence of compromise is: "We both gain more if we co-operate."I

Now then, compare this with the decision of Tiger Woods' wife. Should she compromise and co-operate? Or should she move on? Sometimes principle matters.

... Rather if you listen to Canadian discourse on almost every national subject it is more consensus building than it is compromise....

What is the difference between "consensus" and "compromise"? I ask 2000$ for my used car. You offer 1500$. We negotiate and arrive at 1650$. Is that consensus, compromise, co-operation or a deal?

[charter.rights]

On the contrary, I tend to think that our politicians have managed better than individuals.

Fortunately, Canada is a big country - like the US. Most individual Canadians don't have to compromise too much with other Canadians. Historically, it is our federal politicians that have had to make the compromises.

[Prior to 1970, most WASP Canadians had WASP Canadians as neighbours, and most French Catholic Canadians had French Catholic Canadians as neighbours - and then there were those other people from the West who also lived together. Their elected representatives met in Ottawa.]

Bonam, I don't agree but I think that you touch on a good point.

The essence of compromise is: "We both gain more if we co-operate."I

Now then, compare this with the decision of Tiger Woods' wife. Should she compromise and co-operate? Or should she move on? Sometimes principle matters.

What is the difference between "consensus" and "compromise"? I ask 2000$ for my used car. You offer 1500$. We negotiate and arrive at 1650$. Is that consensus, compromise, co-operation or a deal?

True consensus is a state where no party wins or loses and both receive what they ask for. The hardest part of a process of consensus is getting to the part where the parties needs are clearly defined. Most people who go into a negotiation are so bent on winning that they do not even understand what they are asking for or the outcome of receiving satisfaction. So even if a "compromise" is achieved they are not fulfilled or satisfied with the outcome.

On the other hand consensus will lead people to a place where they fully support the outcome and understand and can reasonably predict the outcome. Compromise (and winning/losing) is agenda based where consensus is not. Consensus identifies the problems without providing pre-conceived solutions and a moderator listens and reflects and does not lead the discussion in a pre-set direction. Consensus has the ability to last, where compromise and winning/losing negotiation only lasts as long as someone wants to change it to a new direction.

[Bonam]

Bonam, I don't agree but I think that you touch on a good point.

What is there not to agree with? I thought my statement was about as obvious as they come.

[August1991]

True consensus is a state where no party wins or loses and both receive what they ask for. The hardest part of a process of consensus is getting to the part where the parties needs are clearly defined.....

On the other hand consensus will lead people to a place where they fully support the outcome and understand and can reasonably predict the outcome. Compromise (and winning/losing) ....

Blah, blah, blah....

So, what is the difference between consensus and co-operation?

BTW - charter.rights, do you even understand how (price) competition can lead to co-operation?

What is there not to agree with? I thought my statement was about as obvious as they come.

Two parties?

What happens when there are several thousand or million "parties"?

----

In the 1800s, for better or worse, Canadian politicians confronted a mix of Catholics and Protestants, English and French speaking people. These politicians created a functional, civilized society.

And they did this without a Civil War.

[charter.rights]

So, what is the difference between consensus and co-operation?

BTW - charter.rights, do you even understand how (price) competition can lead to co-operation?

Two parties?

What happens when there are several thousand or million "parties"?

----

In the 1800s, for better or worse, Canadian politicians confronted a mix of Catholics and Protestants, English and French speaking people. These politicians created a functional, civilized society.

And they did this without a Civil War.

Co-operation exists only as long as both parties agree with the outcome and can be terminated the second one disagrees. Co-operation is usually limited between relatively small parties and tries to assert a collective imperative. It also requires each party to hold their own agenda.

Consensus recognizes the thoughts and contributions of individuals and is not based on imposing a collective determination. Rather the participant may very well all care about the collective benefits and by reaching a consensus that satisfies everyone's concerns, all are supportive and the collect WILL benefit as a result. The biggest difference that real consensus last, not just for a minute or until someone's personal interests are satisfied but until all interests are satisfied (or until they are no longer relevant to the individuals)

[charter.rights]

So, what is the difference between consensus and co-operation?

BTW - charter.rights, do you even understand how (price) competition can lead to co-operation?

Two parties?

What happens when there are several thousand or million "parties"?

----

In the 1800s, for better or worse, Canadian politicians confronted a mix of Catholics and Protestants, English and French speaking people. These politicians created a functional, civilized society.

And they did this without a Civil War.

I would disagree on your last point. The English Protestants put down the French under surrender from war and in order to maintain peace, granted their petitions to maintain the Catholic dominance in Quebec. The reality is that Confederation was proposed by a number of self-interested individuals determined to protect their own financial interests in North America. It was not an altruistic event in history. Just ask Lois Reil.

[Bonam]

Two parties?

What happens when there are several thousand or million "parties"?

Let me rephrase: n parties. The point was compromise can only be reached when the parties involved have some substantial common ground. If they do not have enough in common, then no outcome exists that is acceptable to all.

Think of it like a Venn diagram, those things they made everyone learn back in elementary school. Where the circles overlap, there is compromise. If the circles are too far apart and don't overlap anywhere, then one isn't possible.

[August1991]

It was not an altruistic event in history.

I agree that it was not an altruistic event.

But Canadian politicians managed this compromise without bloodshed - while milions of Americans had just killed one another in Civil War because their "compromises" didn't work.

-----

Is Compromise a bad word?

[bush_cheney2004]

....But Canadian politicians managed this compromise without bloodshed - while milions of Americans had just killed one another in Civil War because their "compromises" didn't work.

Actually, Canadian politicians had no choice, because there would be no more compromising with the Americans. Great Britain needed America on side much more than it needed Canada.

Edited March 6, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

Actually, Canadian politicians had no choice, because there would be no more compromising with the Americans. Great Britain needed America on side much more than it needed Canada.

No, you Americans wantonly killed one another in a Civil War. You could have compromised and found a peaceful, civilized solution.

The US Civil War is a great stain on American history.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, you Americans wantonly killed one another in a Civil War. You could have compromised and found a peaceful, civilized solution.

But that is the American way. Seeing this threat, Great Britain was quick to wash its hands of Canada, and began selling Canada out...repeatedly.

The US Civil War is a great stain on American history.

No...it was a necessary stain in American History. What emerged was the dominant nation in the Western hemisphere. Meanwhile, Canadians still bicker over trivial things like languages and what color the flag should be. Canada remains unfinished....it was not forged in blood.

Edited March 6, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

But that is the American way.

To kill one another is the American way?

No...it was a necessary stain in American History.

The US Civil War was necessary?

---

Bush_Cheney, I suggest that you go back and read Lincoln. If he could have avoided the Civil War, he would have. The last thing Lincoln wanted was a civil war among the states. For Lincoln, and Americans in the 1800s, the Civil War was a disaster.

We Canadians managed differently.

-----

And BTW, we also managed differently the question of people with different coloured skin, or different language, or different religion. In Canada, we do things differently. We avoid civil wars.

[bush_cheney2004]

To kill one another is the American way?

The US Civil War was necessary?

Yes....the War Between the States was about preserving the Union, not winning civility points like Canada. Such wars were also very trendy in Europe. The USA was born of war, and thrived on more war.

Bush_Cheney, I suggest that you go back and read Lincoln. If he could have avoided the Civil War, he would have. The last thing Lincoln wanted was a civil war among the states. For Lincoln, and Americans in the 1800s, the Civil War was a disaster.

America has endured many disasters, and emerged stronger. Lincoln did not avoid the war...he prosecuted it with great vigor and malice, firing generals who would not engage the rebel "enemy".

We Canadians managed differently.

Yep...and you are still fighting the same wars...over...and over.

And BTW, we also managed differently the question of people with different coloured skin, or different language, or different religion. In Canada, we do things differently. We avoid civil wars.

Correct...instead you had racist policies for Asians, Natives, Blacks, Ukranians, Metis, Acadians, etc. Not to mention grand wars killing the locals around the world for King and Queen. That's really different.

305,000,000 vs 35,000,000.....more people...more languages.

Edited March 6, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

And, as demonstrated here, more trolls.

[bush_cheney2004]

And, as demonstrated here, more trolls.

So much for claims of multiculturalism.

[Michael Hardner]

So much for claims of multiculturalism.

Trolls are a culture ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Trolls are a culture ?

Yes....part of Norse mythology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yes....part of Norse mythology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll

They're also in World of Warcraft. What's your point?

[bush_cheney2004]

They're also in World of Warcraft. What's your point?

OK...I'll break it down for you. Another member has espoused the virtues of Canadian "multiculturalism", but discriminates against "trolls". This is inconsistent and a classic example of trollophobia. Oh the humanity!