WebClick Tracer

POSITIVE REVOLUTION: Escape the clutches of the negotiations to obtain peace

“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” – Albert Einstein

PASIG CITY (MindaNews/07 August) —  After the meeting of Philippine President Aquino and MILF Chairman Murad in Tokyo, the real work for peace begins. The work now consists of looking for new, fresh and effective ideas to consider and build an agreement.

But how can the parties get new ideas? A place to start is to be aware that the current setup is not designed for agreement. In fact, it is a setup for deadlock and non-agreement. If they are aware that a deadlock or non-movement is due to the mechanism and design of the peace process (and not because of each other) then they might be able to escape the clutches of the current setup and achieve a peace agreement.

Let me explain. The Philippine Government has its own frames, ideas and proposals that it will bring to the negotiating table by August 22. The MILF has already submitted its frames, ideas and proposals.  Right now, it can be presumed that both parties are so convinced of the practicality, justness and rationality of their respective positions that as far as they are concerned their proposals are the right proposals and the purpose of the sessions in Kuala Lumpur is make the other party see the “truth” of their positions. So everyone’s grand strategy is to convince the other guy. All the preparations that the parties are doing this very minute revolves around explaining and defending their positions. All of them are tense.

The theory in traditional negotiations (and the GPH-MILF negotiations is in one) is that when the parties negotiate (trying to change each other’s mind), the parties will find “common ground” and achieve a  “compromise” agreement. The results of this kind of setup have not been encouraging – whether in the Philippines or elsewhere.


This type of negotiations is severely limited. Why?

Because the traditional negotiation process does not allow for a joint exploration by the parties of a wider area of thinking, of other possibilities other than those they have already thought of, other than those already present in their minds.

Both parties have to play the game of negotiations: defend your positions and evaluate and oppose the other guy’s position. The parties are like horses on a race track – with blinders not of their own making.

Again, this is not the fault of the parties. It does not show lack of good will, intention or desire to agree. It is just that the structure of negotiations does not give the parties an opportunity to relax their positions. The negotiations have no feature for the parties to put their respective hard positions in a safe corner and say: “dyan ka muna” and then explore jointly a wider area of thinking to look at other possibilities – options they haven’t thought of but might attain the same ends, give the same benefit with the least hurdles or impediments in implementation. The negotiation does not have a feature that assures the parties that they can always go back to their initial positions but not after exploring a wider area of possibilities. In a sense, the parties need a design feature that says: “OK, you have chosen a tree to dance around but you still have time to go and explore the forest and look at the other trees. Malay mo may mapupusuan kang iba na mas maganda. In any case, you can always go back to this tree and say: “I have seen all the trees in the forest and frankly my dear you are the best of all that I have seen.”

If one party says: “Plan ‘Blue’ is the answer to peace in Mindanao and the other party says: “No, it is Plan ‘Green’”, they are severely limiting themselves to their current level of thinking and there will be no end to the debates. At best, the parties will sign a compromise agreement to implement “Plan Cyan” – which is what you get if you mix the colors green and blue – leaving both parties not happy and the conflict unresolved and untransformed.  But there may be Plans ‘Red’, ‘Magenta’, ‘Purple’ and a host of other possibilities which they miss to look at because their thinking have been transfixed on their current proposals. Sadly this what negotiation is all about – defend, debate and argue rather than a joint exploration of new ideas and possibilities. The parties miss out on the other possibilities because their minds are not “relaxed”. All their energies are focused on defending their plans and arguing how the other’s plan would not work.

When we contemplate solely at one color, we miss out on the rainbow of possibilities. And when we miss out on the rainbow, we also miss our chance at finding that proverbial pot of gold.

(MindaViews is the opinion section of MindaNews. Lawyer  Camilo “Bong” Montesa is the  Executive Director of the The Art of Peace Group which is dedicated to the search for innovative ideas for peace and conflict transformation).

Your perspective matters! Leave a comment below and let us know what you think. We welcome diverse viewpoints and encourage respectful discussions. Don't hesitate to share your ideas or engage with others.

Search MindaNews

Share this MindaNews story
Send us Feedback