“Compromise is not a mediocre way to do politics; it is an adventure, the only way to do democratic politics.” Jean Bethke Elshtain
I
Sadat goes to Jerusalem
On November 19th 1977 Egyptian President Anwar Sadat flew to Jerusalem and addressed the Israeli Knesset promising “no more war”. He was the first Arab leader ever to set foot in a land that many in the Arab World did not want to exist let alone recognise. While a surprise, his appearance that day was the culmination of secret talks promoted by a somewhat unlikely leader – Romanian President Nicolae Ceausescu. Two months earlier Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin had visited Bucharest and during a walk in the garden Ceausescu had privately related that Sadat had agreed to a direct meeting between Israeli and Egyptian representatives. This was only four years since the two countries had gone to war over the Sinai Peninsula with the loss of several thousand lives.
The Jerusalem visit was a moment of such powerful political symbolism it would generate the momentum that would result in the Camp David Accords, brokered by President Carter, resulting in a peace between the two countries that has endured for the past three decades. It was a moment of extreme political risk for the two leaders. Sadat would eventually pay for it personally with his assassination in 1981.
II
King John and the Barons
There’s a spot along the River Thames in southern England called Runnymede where a document was signed in 1215 that would go on to act as the principle foundation of Western political and legal systems as we know them today. British Lord Denning described it as “the greatest constitutional document of all times—the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”.
But at the time the Magna Carta was a document designed to hastily end decades of conflict between successive Kings of England and the barons who were tired of being taxed to pay for various wars. Drawn up by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Magna Carta preserved the feudal system to the benefit of the King but also bestowed rights on the barons including their representation in a council. While the agreement collapsed soon after, it was an early example of seeking a peaceful and long lasting solution to a political conflict.
III
The Colorado River Compact
The Hoover Dam built on the Colorado River in the early 1930s is a testament to human imagination and engineering. Standing 700 ft tall it still provides 1500 MW of hydro-electricity as well as reliable irrigation and household water to several western states that previously had suffered from devastating floods caused by the notoriously untameable river.
However none of this would have been possible without a political solution as to who would share the water that the proposed dam would store and release. Talks had been going on for decades and were fractious and technically very complicated. In 1922 the Colorado River Compact was finally signed among the seven Colorado River Basin states after then Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover proposed the solution, (the Hoover Compromise) of simply categorising Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico as Upper Basin states and California, Arizona and Nevada as Lower Basin states. It was agreed the water would be shared equally and that the division of resources among the separate upper and lower states would be agreed to in the future. The outcome left everyone grumbling and unsatisfied but it was enough to create a legal basis for the construction of the dam ushering in the massive economic expansion of the West that continues to this day.
IV
Nelson Mandela and FW de Klerk
On February 11 1990 Nelson Mandela emerged from prison a free man after 27 years incarcerated under the apartheid regime of South Africa. It was an iconic moment equal to the 1989 demolishing of the Berlin Wall – the symbolic end to the USSR and its satellite countries. This had changed the geopolitical equations for South Africa’s white rulers and they realised they needed to negotiate with the ageing freedom fighter for a peaceful transition to majority rule. In fact even prior to his release Mandela had been invited by de Klerk to discuss a political solution even though many in de Klerk’s party were dead set against it.
It is a testament to Mandela’s character that he did not seek justifiable revenge against his former captors but after his release continued to collaborate with de Klerk to arrive at a peaceful transition. The ensuing constitution which included a coalition government was far from perfect and has failed to deliver the economic benefits to black South Africans. However for thirty years it has staved off the extreme instability and violence many on both sides had feared.
V
Martin McGuinness and the MI6 Agent
Back channels are often essential for delicate political negotiations between sworn enemies. In 1993 Martin McGuinness, a former leader within the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) and a senior Sinn Fein politician began meeting secretly with an MI6 agent (and authorised representative of the UK government), Michael Oatley to discuss how to end the conflict in Northern Ireland. Neither side would dare admit to speaking with the enemy. In 1994 the IRA announced the complete cessation of its violent campaign to unite Ireland. This declaration would provide the space for the all-party negotiations lasting four years and facilitated by United States Senator George Mitchell. This would lead to the signing of the Good Friday Agreement and a negotiated settlement to a 30-year civil war that had seen the deaths of over 3000 people.
These Acts of Compromise share various characteristics. First the need for secrecy. This is often because extreme elements in society and rival political parties are invariably the most opposed to political settlement so look to derail talks.
Secondly these acts often involve a dramatic moment, a public gesture with powerful political symbolism – Sadat popping up in Jerusalem, Mandela’s release – the impact of which upsets the status quo. They also often involve a facilitator or a trusted individual willing to act as a go-between – Ceausescu for example or one more hands on when talks develop further such as Carter at Camp David – who can nudge the sides at times when talks might be breaking down.
But the overarching characteristic is that the individual leaders involved chose to follow a path of creative politics that seeks solutions based on compromise – the only solutions that really endure, unlike the politics of imposition and opposition.These leaders took that chance because they believed it was in their long term interests and that of their countries.
So the question is: If Mandela could drink tea with de Klerk, and King John agree to share power with his barons, why can’t President Irfaan Ali and Opposition Leader Joseph Harmon sit down and talk? Exactly what is the Grand Impediment? An explicit acknowledgment of who won last year’s election could not be equivalent to the pre-condition which Sadat abandoned: that talks could only proceed once Israel agreed to withdraw from all territories it had occupied since 1967.
And even if these two leaders might soon meet to consult (or just consult) on various constitutional appointments, that is the bare minimum they are duty bound to do and would be zero cause for celebration. It is time for both of them to act as leaders, not followers of the extreme wings of their parties. They must address and deliver the deep constitutional reforms both sides have been paying lip service to for decades and move the country away from the politics of power to one of compromise and cooperation.
The other commonality of these Acts of Compro-mise is they came at times of change – the end of the Cold War, the expansion of the American West. Fortunately Guyana does not face some external peril or economic meltdown at the moment. It is quite the opposite- the sudden prospect of oil revenues and their ability to fund the rapid development of this country and its people. This makes an enduring political accord even more urgent. Seizing that opportunity is what defines statesmen and it is the wish of the majority of right minded Guyanese.
