Elections in the US are regular affairs. In democracies (‘the many’) like the UK, Israel, Germany, Japan, and India, elections can happen quite frequently, based on established rules. However, elections in oligarchies (‘the few’) and autocracies (‘the one’) occur based on rules that the governments themselves change.
Elections and negotiations are complicated affairs, despite being common human activities. In elections, candidates use the Language of Speech, and specifically visualized Thoughts, to transmit complex information.
Both activities utilize all the tools of Culture to understand information. Negotiation’s objective is a solution, while an election’s target is deceptively simple - who gets to lead problem-solving. Which begs the question, are elections a negotiation?
A Plethora of Human Tools
Some forms of democracy are probably 2500 years old, and various forms of oligarchy and autocracy likely predate recorded history. For context, the US system of governance has been in operation for 244 years, the UK’s for 119 years, and India’s for 70 years. Humans constructed societies, and societies implement processes like elections to grant governance to others for solving their problems.
Elections and negotiation are unique human activities employing universally common tools. Negotiation started long before we became Homo sapiens. The skills needed are both traceable to and unique from our predecessors.
We invented societies and elections after advancing negotiation to an exceptional level. Elections employ the same tools as negotiation. The framework of negotiation decrypts many human endeavors, including elections.
Winning versus Common Solutions
Stark polarization in the US (and many other countries) offers little opportunity to address visible ills. The binary yes-no referendum of Brexit continues to plague the UK, as parliament passed a common law entirely in conflict with their transition agreement (a binding international treaty). Rapid-fire elections in Israel temporarily settled who would govern but provided no solution for peace with Palestine.
The immediate goal of an election is wholly different from that of negotiation, to create something more than possible alone (a win-win). The vote itself, aside from ranked-choice voting, is a classic example of win-lose.
Generally absent from elections are analyses of causes and debates of solutions. Elections decided on simplistic frameworks lead to turmoil. Negotiations based on information and discussion create success and lasting value.
Partnership and Implementation
The 2016 US elections brought about a dramatic change in the ‘who’ and ‘how’ of governing, but implementation was much more challenging than winning an election. The UK’s set of three elections in a little over four years finally resolved the ‘who’ but achieved only halting steps toward answering what Brexit really meant. Oligarchies and autocracies fare no better. Neither a plebiscite in Russia nor a delay in China’s Hong Kong helps clarify what their societies need.
Elections are about the ‘who’ more than the solutions. Many campaigns deploy misdirection, if not deception, impairing common solutions. Campaigning focuses on the vote but governing is our agreed path to solving problems.
Elections have winners but also losers, and losers generally try to level the playing field. The more intentional ambiguity deployed, the more trust becomes an either-or proposition. Implementing partnership requires trust.
Voting, No … Everything Else, Yes
The US has conducted elections for 244 years, through pandemics and a civil war. The UK has conducted them for less time, and other democracies even less than that. Elections are a staple for democracies as much as they are for authoritarian regimes, which often cycle between oligarchy and autocracy. Elections are part of our system for trying to address society’s issues. They are points in time.
Elections are how we find leaders to guide solutions. We negotiated to have elections, how to govern, how to address societal needs. Elections are about the ‘who’ and not a negotiation, yet everything but the vote itself reflects our omnipresent negotiation for partnership. Another complex mystery decrypted.