How to Make Negotiations Productive?
 |
How to Make Negotiations Productive? |
Creating a conducive environment for dialogue requires refraining from accusations, letting go of ego, and compromising. Negotiations succeed when both parties are not just adamant about winning but are also willing to concede. Flexibility ensures the success of any dialogue. However, if military courts continue issuing sentences on one side and Imran Khan insists on pursuing campaigns to block remittances even during negotiations, there seems to be little hope for success.
While everyone desires a working relationship, political stability, and an end to sit-ins and chaos in assemblies, these desires will remain unfulfilled without mutual flexibility.
While everyone desires a working relationship, political stability, and an end to sit-ins and chaos in assemblies, these desires will remain unfulfilled without mutual flexibility.
Negotiations between opposing political parties to resolve the political crisis are a highly welcome step and resonate with the aspirations of the entire nation. However, these talks are currently being conducted half-heartedly. Neither side wants to lose anything at the table; both aim to leave as victors, making any immediate outcome appear unlikely.
The first sign of seriousness in negotiations would be a ceasefire. Worldwide, peace talks and negotiations begin after a truce.
If, on one hand, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)’s so-called “abuse brigade” continues its verbal assaults, and on the other hand, the establishment and the government remain unwilling to offer any concessions, how can the negotiations yield results?
While everyone desires a working relationship, political stability, and an end to sit-ins and chaos in assemblies, these desires will remain unfulfilled without mutual flexibility.
While everyone desires a working relationship, political stability, and an end to sit-ins and chaos in assemblies, these desires will remain unfulfilled without mutual flexibility.
While everyone desires a working relationship, political stability, and an end to sit-ins and chaos in assemblies, these desires will remain unfulfilled without mutual flexibility. According to Jamaat-e-Islami’s Liaquat Baloch, PTI’s willingness to negotiate with the government indicates its tacit acceptance of the new system and the February 8 elections. Even if this acceptance is temporary or compelled by circumstances, it reflects significant flexibility. If this flexibility stems from Imran Khan’s approval, it could pave the way for political reconciliation.
On the other hand, sitting at the table with PTI is risky for the government. The establishment has already labeled the accused of May 9 and November 26 incidents as disruptive elements. Since the government owes its position to the establishment, its hands are tied. It cannot pardon the crimes committed against the establishment nor can it grant PTI the political space it currently occupies. The government has little to offer PTI beyond good wishes.
PTI might secure limited concessions like house arrest for Imran Khan in Bani Gala or the formation of an election fraud commission. However, this would likely come with significant conditions, such as Imran Khan accepting the system and maintaining silence. The success of these negotiations depends on how much flexibility both sides are willing to demonstrate. A positive step by the establishment, like releasing those who sought forgiveness for the events of May 9, could improve the atmosphere.
It’s true that Imran Khan has consistently adopted a combative stance. His past politics have been rooted in protests, aggression, and resistance. However, in the last two years, he has failed to achieve his objectives, and his strategies have backfired. From May 9 to February 8 or November 26, nothing turned out as he planned. Despite his popularity, he first faced dismissal and then rejection. In such circumstances, a more pragmatic approach would have been prudent.
Imran Khan should have followed the examples of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, remaining a part of the system as an opposition leader. Had he taken this route, his relations with the establishment would have improved by now, positioning him as an alternative to Shehbaz Sharif, winning over both the public and the establishment. However, his decision to confront power and challenge the establishment was a strategic misstep. A solitary political leader and an unarmed, disorganized party cannot compete with a disciplined and constitutionally empowered military.
The late Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan often remarked that when democracy is in crisis, the solution is not dictatorship or war but more democracy. Wherever negotiations face hurdles, the solution is further dialogue. Continued discussions will eventually lead to a resolution. Negotiating teams from both sides must remember that the era of glorifying warriors and conquerors as heroes is long gone. Today, those who facilitate peace and transform the world into a haven of harmony are the true heroes.
The eastern world can also have idolized leaders like Gaddafi, Saddam, and Hafez al-Assad, however the West praised peace advocates like Anwar Sadat. Having persisted centuries of wars and warfare, the world of the 21st century has come to recognize that reconciliation, compromise, and agreements are the excellent solutions. For Pakistan to integrate into the modern world, progress in technology, and achieve prosperity, it must resolve its internal conflicts. Political non-cooperation is the biggest obstacle to Pakistan’s economic and social advancement, and it can be overcome through flexibility and compromise.
While the likelihood of successful negotiations seems slim at present, with no significant relief expected for either side and potential deadlocks, negotiations remain the only viable solution. History will not remember the instigators of conflict but those who foster reconciliation.
The heroes of the 21st century are not Hitler or Stalin but Bertrand Russell, who advocated for ceasefires, campaigned against war, and endured exile for his commitment to peace.
Ibn Battuta II Returns Once Again!
As soon as I heard that negotiations between the government and the opposition had finally begun in the brotherly Muslim country of Tazadistan (Land of Contradictions), I couldn’t resist and immediately booked a ticket to witness these moments of joy.
You haven’t forgotten me, have you? I had visited here four years ago when the king of this land was “Khan,” and his word reigned supreme. I am a descendant of Shams al-Din al-Tanji, known as Ibn Battuta, hence referred to as Ibn Battuta II. Sometimes, I’m also called Ibn Battuta the Second. Ibn Battuta (1304–1369) had traveled to India and the regions that now comprise Tazadistan, documenting the events and conditions of this area in his travelogue Rihla (The Wonders of Travels).
Tughlaq founded many cities, took measures to lower the prices of goods, and was a harsh and cruel ruler. He was, however, well-informed about the farthest corners of his empire.
When I, Ibn Battuta II, visited four years ago, “Khan” had silenced the media. The establishment backed him, and he was venerated as a demigod. Now, upon my return, everything has changed. Shahbaz has replaced Khan, and today’s establishment opposes him. In just four years, the world here has turned upside down. During my last visit, I wrote letters to my wife back in Morocco, detailing the conditions in Tazadistan. Those letters gained much fame there. Now, I am writing again to preserve these observations for history. I have categorized my findings by topics and am sending them to my wife.
Negotiations in Tazadistan
Currently, negotiations are ongoing in Tazadistan. It is being said that the enmities and animosities fueled for years must end. However, the truth is that the hearts remain tainted, and weapons of accusations and insults are ready for use. Supporters of Khan’s social media brigade do not wish for these negotiations to succeed; they prefer the conflict to continue so their dollar income remains uninterrupted. Whether Khan stays in jail or not, their business must go on.
Speaker Ayaz Sadiq appears to be the most suitable mediator. He is extremely polite, democratic, and even a former classmate and political companion of Khan. However, he later joined the Noon League and became a favorite there. Despite the seasoned negotiators at the table, it seems unlikely they will achieve any major success because they lack authority and a mandate.
My ancestor Ibn Battuta noted in Rihla that Muhammad bin Tughlaq was generous, rewarding and favoring his nobles, but showed no mercy when angry. When pleased with Sheikh Hood Multani, he made him the successor to Sheikh Rukn-e-Alam in Multan. But when displeased, he had him killed. Similarly, Sheikh Shahabuddin was granted an estate in Delhi and shown much respect, but upon falling out of favor, he was forced to eat dung before being executed. Even today, I observe that the state of Tazadistan showers its favor on some, elevating them to thrones, but shows no forgiveness when displeased. While negotiations are happening, reconciliation still seems unlikely.
Social Conditions in Tazadistan
As Ibn Battuta II, I am deeply impressed by the hospitality of the people of Tazadistan. However, the inhabitants are a bundle of contradictions. They say one thing and do another. Everyone desires wealth but despises the wealthy. Everyone worships power but criticizes those in power. Everyone dreams of visas to the US or Europe but speaks against them. The people curse politics but spend most of their time in political debates. They love music and dance but criticize anyone who indulges in it. Everyone claims that others are responsible for the country’s destruction, but when given power, they cause the most harm.
They lament the oppression in Gaza, Palestine, and Kashmir but are unwilling to take practical steps. They excel in giving charity but evade paying obligatory taxes. They benefit from state resources like roads, electricity, and parks but complain that the state does nothing for them. The people of Tazadistan are highly ungrateful. Over the past 10–15 years, living standards have improved significantly; they eat well, wear fine clothes, and live in spacious homes. Yet, they claim the economy is in ruins and the country is sinking. Is this not ingratitude?
State of Scholars and Clerics
During the reign of Muhammad bin Tughlaq (originally named Juna Khan), scholars and clerics were highly respected. Ibn Battuta especially noted the state’s generosity toward them. Similarly, I, Ibn Battuta II, observe today that scholars still dominate the state. The state fears neither politicians nor merchants but is wary of religious and trade communities. These groups are fully aware of their power and use it to blackmail the state into fulfilling their demands. Just as the Ottoman Empire declined by rejecting science and technology, Tazadistan is following suit by imposing internet restrictions, with the full support of prominent clerics. This will only keep the state backward.
State of Politics and Journalism
Politicians in Tazadistan are utterly powerless, and both politics and journalism are ideologically divided. Even their heroes and ideals differ. Instead of uniting for freedom of speech and expression, they remain each other’s enemies. Neither freedom for politics nor journalism seems likely in the near future, given the dominance of the insult brigade and the power brigade.
Final Conclusion
Seven hundred years ago, my ancestor Ibn Battuta visited this region and observed that its people were incapable of resolving their disputes. Today, I, Ibn Battuta II, have reached the same conclusion. There seems to be some inherent flaw that prevents them from ending their conflicts.