WHEN FACED WITH THE SEVERE PROBLEMS of confronting a dictatorship, some people may lapse back into passive submission. Others, seeing no prospect of achieving democracy, may conclude they must come to terms with the apparently permanent dictatorship, hoping that through “conciliation,” “compromise,” and “negotiations” they might be able to salvage some positive elements and to end the brutalities. On the surface, lacking realistic options, there is appeal in that line of thinking.

Serious struggle against brutal dictatorships is not a pleasant prospect. Why is it necessary to go that route? Can’t everyone just be reasonable and find ways to talk, to negotiate the way to a gradual end to the dictatorship? Can’t the democrats appeal to the dictators’ sense of common humanity and convince them to reduce their domination bit by bit, and perhaps finally to give way completely to the establishment of a democracy?

It is sometimes argued that the truth is not all on one side. Perhaps the democrats have misunderstood the dictators, who may have acted from good motives in difficult circumstances? Or perhaps, some may think, the dictators would gladly remove themselves from the difficult situation facing the country if only given some encouragement and enticements. It may be argued that the dictators could be offered a “win-win” solution, in which everyone gains something. The risks and pain of further struggle could be unnecessary, it may be

argued, if the democratic opposition is only willing to settle the conflict peacefully by negotiations (which may even perhaps be assisted by some skilled individuals or even another government). Would that not be preferable to a difficult struggle, even if it is one conducted by nonviolent struggle rather than by military war?

Merits and limitations of negotiations

Negotiations are a very useful tool in resolving certain types of issues in conflicts and should not be neglected or rejected when they are appropriate. In some situations where no fundamental issues are at stake, and therefore a compromise is acceptable, negotiations can be an important means to settle a conflict.

A labor strike for higher wages is a good example of the appropriate role of negotiations in a conflict: a negotiated settlement may provide an increase somewhere between the sums originally proposed by each of the contending sides. Labor conflicts with legal trade unions are, however, quite different than the conflicts in which the continued existence of a cruel dictatorship or the establishment of political freedom are at stake.

When the issues at stake are fundamental, affecting religious principles, issues of human freedom, or the whole future development of the society, negotiations do not provide a way of reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. On some basic issues there should be no compromise.

Only a shift in power relations in favor of the democrats can adequately safeguard the basic issues at stake. Such a shift will occur through struggle, not negotiations.

This is not to say that negotiations ought never to be used. The point here is that negotiations are not a realistic way to remove a strong dictatorship in the absence of a powerful democratic opposition.

Negotiations, of course, may not be an option at all. Firmly entrenched dictators who feel secure in their position may refuse to negotiate with their democratic opponents. Or, when negotiations have been initiated, the democratic negotiators may disappear and never be heard from again.

Negotiated surrender?

Individuals and groups who oppose dictatorship and favor negotiations will often

have good motives. Especially when a military struggle has continued for years

against a brutal dictatorship without final victory, it is understandable that all the

people of whatever political persuasion would want peace. Negotiations are

especially likely to become an issue among democrats where the dictators have

clear military superiority and the destruction and casualties among one’s own

people are no longer bearable. There will then be a strong temptation to explore

any other route that might salvage some of the democrats’ objectives while

bringing an end to the cycle of violence and counter-violence.

The offer by a dictatorship of “peace” through negotiations with the

democratic opposition is, of course, rather disingenuous. The violence could be

ended immediately by the dictators themselves, if only they would stop waging

war on their own people. They could at their own initiative without any

bargaining restore respect for human dignity and rights, free political prisoners,

end torture, halt military operations, withdraw from the government, and apologize to the people.

When the dictatorship is strong but an irritating resistance exists, the dictators

may wish to negotiate the opposition into surrender under the guise of making

“peace.” The call to negotiate can sound appealing, but grave dangers can be

lurking within the negotiating room.

On the other hand, when the opposition is exceptionally strong and the

dictatorship is genuinely threatened, the dictators may seek negotiations in order

to salvage as much of their control or wealth as possible. In neither case should

the democrats help the dictators achieve their goals.

Democrats should be wary of the traps that may be deliberately built into a

negotiation process by the dictators. The call for negotiations when basic issues

of political liberties are involved may be an effort by the dictators to induce the

democrats to surrender peacefully while the violence of the dictatorship

continues. In those types of conflicts the only proper role of negotiations may

occur at the end of a decisive struggle in which the power of the dictators has

been effectively destroyed and they seek personal safe passage to an

international airport.

Power and justice in negotiations

If this judgment sounds too harsh a commentary on negotiations, perhaps some

of the romanticism associated with them needs to be moderated. Clear thinking

is required as to how negotiations operate.

“Negotiation” does not mean that the two sides sit down together on a basis of

equality and talk through and resolve the differences that produced the conflict

between them. Two facts must be remembered. First, in negotiations it is not the

relative justice of the conflicting views and objectives that determines the

content of a negotiated agreement. Second, the content of a negotiated

agreement is largely determined by the power capacity of each side.

Several difficult questions must be considered. What can each side do at a

later date to gain its objectives if the other side fails to come to an agreement at

the negotiating table? What can each side do after an agreement is reached if the

other side breaks its word and uses its available forces to seize its objectives

despite the agreement?

A settlement is not reached in negotiations through an assessment of the rights

and wrongs of the issues at stake. While those may be much discussed, the real

results in negotiations come from an assessment of the absolute and relative

power situations of the contending groups. What can the democrats do to ensure

that their minimum claims cannot be denied? What can the dictators do to stay in

control and neutralize the democrats? In other words, if an agreement comes, it

is more likely the result of each side estimating how the power capacities of the

two sides compare, and then calculating how an open struggle might end.

Attention must also be given to what each side is willing to give up in order to

reach agreement. In successful negotiations there is compromise, a splitting of

differences. Each side gets part of what it wants and gives up part of its

objectives.

In the case of extreme dictatorships what are the pro-democracy forces to give

up to the dictators? What objectives of the dictators are the pro-democracy

forces to accept? Are the democrats to give to the dictators (whether a political

party or a military cabal) a constitutionally established permanent role in the

future government? Where is the democracy in that?

Even assuming that all goes well in negotiations, it is necessary to ask: What

kind of peace will be the result? Will life then be better or worse than it would be

if the democrats began or continued to struggle?

“Agreeable” dictators

Dictators may have a variety of motives and objectives underlying their

domination: power, position, wealth, reshaping the society, and the like. One

should remember that none of these will be served if they abandon their control

positions. In the event of negotiations dictators will try to preserve their goals.

Whatever promises offered by dictators in any negotiated settlement, no one

should ever forget that the dictators may promise anything to secure submission

from their democratic opponents, and then brazenly violate those same

agreements.

If the democrats agree to halt resistance in order to gain a reprieve from

repression, they may be very disappointed. A halt to resistance rarely brings

reduced repression. Once the restraining force of internal and international

opposition has been removed, dictators may even make their oppression and

violence more brutal than before. The collapse of popular resistance often

removes the countervailing force that has limited the control and brutality of the

dictatorship. The tyrants can then move ahead against whomever they wish. “For

the tyrant has the power to inflict only that which we lack the strength to resist,”

wrote Krishnalal Shridharani

Resistance, not negotiations, is essential for change in conflicts where

fundamental issues are at stake. In nearly all cases, resistance must continue to

drive dictators out of power. Success is most often determined not by negotiating

a settlement but through the wise use of the most appropriate and powerful

means of resistance available. It is our contention, to be explored later in more

detail, that political defiance, or nonviolent struggle, is the most powerful means

available to those struggling for freedom.

What kind of peace?

If dictators and democrats are to talk about peace at all, extremely clear thinking

is needed because of the dangers involved. Not everyone who uses the word

“peace” wants peace with freedom and justice. Submission to cruel oppression

and passive acquiescence to ruthless dictators who have perpetrated atrocities on

hundreds of thousands of people is no real peace. Hitler often called for peace,

by which he meant submission to his will. A dictators’ peace is often no more

than the peace of the prison or of the grave.

There are other dangers. Well-intended negotiators sometimes confuse the

objectives of the negotiations and the negotiation process itself. Further,

democratic negotiators, or foreign negotiation specialists accepted to assist in the

negotiations, may in a single stroke provide the dictators with the domestic and

international legitimacy that they had been previously denied because of their

seizure of the state, human rights violations, and brutalities. Without that

desperately needed legitimacy, the dictators cannot continue to rule indefinitely.

Exponents of peace should not provide them legitimacy.

Reasons for hope

As stated earlier, opposition leaders may feel forced to pursue negotiations out of

a sense of hopelessness of the democratic struggle. However, that sense of

powerlessness can be changed. Dictatorships are not permanent. People living

under dictatorships need not remain weak, and dictators need not be allowed to

remain powerful indefinitely. Aristotle noted long ago, “… [O]ligarchy and

tyranny are shorter-lived than any other constitution… [A]ll round, tyrannies

have not lasted long.”Modern dictatorships are also vulnerable. Their weaknesses can be aggravated and the dictators’ power can be disintegrated.

Recent history shows the vulnerability of dictatorships, and reveals that they

can crumble in a relatively short time span: whereas ten years – 1980–1990 –

were required to bring down the Communist dictatorship in Poland, in East

Germany and Czechoslovakia in 1989 it occurred within weeks. In El Salvador

and Guatemala in 1944 the struggles against the entrenched brutal military

dictators required approximately two weeks each. The militarily powerful

regime of the Shah in Iran was undermined in a few months. The Marcos

dictatorship in the Philippines fell before people power within weeks in 1986:

the United States government quickly abandoned President Marcos when the

strength of the opposition became apparent. The attempted hard-line coup in the

Soviet Union in August 1991 was blocked in days by political defiance.

Thereafter, many of its long dominated constituent nations in only days, weeks,

and months regained their independence.

The old preconception that violent means always work quickly and nonviolent means always require vast time is clearly not valid. Although much time may be required for changes in the underlying situation and society, the actual fight against a dictatorship sometimes occurs relatively quickly by nonviolent struggle.

Negotiations are not the only alternative to a continuing war of annihilation on the one hand and capitulation on the other. The examples just cited, illustrate that another option exists for those who want both peace and freedom: political defiance.

An extract from From dictatorship to Democracy.