On debates and negotiations

Modern democracies are said to be negotiation-based. This is a concept that unfortunately does not have an equivalent in today’s Turkish. We have two terms. There is conversation and discussion. However, we know that there are at least three distinctions in old Turkish: dialogue, negotiation, and debate. We lump them all together as discussion. For example, discussions on television, where everyone is perfectly sure of their own theses, where no one listens to anyone, and where mutual outbursts and shouting matches are commonplace, do not carry the spirit of either dialogue or negotiation. (Some channels thrive on such programs. We watch scenes resembling the duels of Roman gladiators every night. Some channels exclude a certain view completely and propagate a single view, such as goals scored against empty goals). In fact, what is done here is outright arguing. In other words, this is a primitive dynamic that is not based on any rule and is done in public. Unfortunately, some academics can also jump on the bandwagon. In these programs, once in a while, the humorous “I listened to you; now you will listen to me” style outputs are witnessed. In fact, this is an outlet that wants to turn the debate into a dialogue. Debating means disciplining the argument relatively, making it a norm. Here theses and antitheses are introduced in sequence, with equal timing. I do not know if it is still practiced, but there were debating classes in middle and high schools. Teams were formed around the subjects determined by the Ministry and included in the curriculum, and a fierce struggle was experienced. In the end, either voting was done or the winner was declared by the teacher.

It was not seen that any result came out of the discussions. Almost every argument, when it is over, makes one wish that it had not been done. Because after the argument, both parties get a little more familiar with the other and become a little more introverted. In debates, theses and antitheses emerge very clearly. At least, it can be considered functional and useful in terms of identifying theses and antitheses. However, it is not seen that a satisfactory result is obtained from the debates.

Difficulty and skill lie in turning arguments and debates into debates. Every dispute and its first-hand-turned version, the debates, do not seek any solution. In these, imposition is essential. The parties are based on absolute deduction of the other. In negotiations, the aim is to resolve an issue. That is, of course, gradual, but it is difficult to find goodwill in this way in both debate and negotiation. In negotiations, this has to happen. Here, the parties take the risk of mutual reduction. The transition from debates without a lathe to debates with a rough lathe, and from there to negotiations that require a large number of fine lathes, requires maturation. This is also a civilized pattern.

There can be no imposition in negotiations. The parties put the issue before them. That is, they do not talk about the issue hot-tempered, but rather from a distance. They are not content with just putting forward their thesis and listening to the other side, they make an effort to solve the issue with a joint effort.

The maturity to negotiate is not a purely ethical issue. The ethical dimension is at best complementary. Arguing and debating will not solve the problem; In cases where the continuation of the negotiations creates a common perception and awareness that it will bring social destruction to the parties, the doors of the negotiations can be opened. Here we see that a material background with two columns comes into play. For one thing, the power of the parties should be close to each other. Secondly, the problem solver that will bring the parties in line should not be a power of higher quality and caliber. It is a necessity, not a sublime spirit, that puts negotiations into effect as a historical possibility. That the parties that are close to each other cannot achieve any result other than destroying each other by clashing as in feuds; As soon as they realize the absence of an intermediary or superior power, we may think that they can enter the negotiation path.

At this point, we see that feudalism historically constitutes an advantage that needs to be considered, while prependalism constitutes a disadvantage. The tradition of negotiation arose from the bosom of feudalism, which was a high-intensity fragmentation and separation of power and was based mostly on bloody reckonings. First of all, the feudal elites operated this mechanism among themselves. This was later included in the bourgeoisie and after the industrial revolution the working classes. In order to secure the negotiations, they introduced the convention tradition. Societalization became a function of these agreements, not of a random gathering. This was accompanied by parliaments and democracies that raised the idea and caliber of the founding law through equally distributed rights. The process also has a dimension that is reflected in the relations between states in the diplomacy plan. But this dimension is unfortunately not as successful as the first one.

The entities called supranational organizations are establishing direct tutelage. The imposition of force is still very dominant in interstate relations.