Better Bend than Break

What is better?  To bend and survive or to break and fail?  This question is central to the concept of compromise.

No one can expect to get everything they want.  Winning feels good, but is not always possible.  In all aspects of life, finding the middle ground is often the most sensible and pragmatic way forward. Compromise makes marriages happy and nations great.

Family life is a partnership.  What shall we watch?  The football, the soap opera or the cartoons? Maybe we can let the children catch the cartoons now, see the repeat of the soap this evening and watch the football on YouTube later.

In our social life, shall we go to a film or a restaurant?  Maybe we’ll go to the cinema tonight and take in a restaurant next week.

And in the office, the boss demands a report by tonight, one of the clients hasn’t paid the bill and HQ is demanding a spreadsheet that isn’t nearly ready.  Something has to give way.  Someone will have to compromise.

The same is true in political life, whether domestic or international.  It is said that politics is the art of compromise, or even that the art of negotiation is letting someone else get your way.  But anyone who adopts a zero-sum mentality to negotiation risks being left with nothing.

Kill or be killed is not a mature way to do business.  Sharing, partnership and conciliation is a better way to get results.  If you’ve been demanding the whole loaf but risk ending up with no loaf, maybe half a loaf will do for now.

Compromise is not a dirty word.  Nor is it a sign of weakness, indeed it can often be a sign of courage.  It should not mean surrendering personal convictions or fundamental national interests.  As long as a person preserves their core values, give-and-take can often be the best way to make progress on a thorny issue.

Take the troubles in Northern Ireland.  One side wanted to remain in the United Kingdom; the other wanted a united Ireland.  Over 30 years 3,500 people were killed and 47,000 injured in sectarian violence.  Eventually leaders realised that they were not going to get their way and reached a deal Peace has brought security, stability and huge economic benefits.

The statesmen who negotiated the deal stuck to their principles but found a way to work together for the greater good of their citizens.

Is this relevant to Libya today?  Certainly.  Those who want to preserve their hold on power should see that their citizens are suffering: the economy is a mess, prices are rising and the country is going bankrupt.  Meanwhile Daesh have shown that they can spread their criminal, murderous activity and threaten lives.

The greater good of Libya lies in compromise: a government of national unity that can mend the divisions of the country, bring security to citizens, regenerate oil production and tackle Daesh.

Most people simply want to have the dignity of feeding their families but are unable to do so in the current crisis.  Libyans deserve better after overthrowing Qadhafi.  They will only achieve security and stability if their leaders are prepared to compromise.

Some people might lose out in the short-term.  But the Presidency Council, now in place in Tripoli, and the Government of National Accord can only be in place for 1 maybe 2 years. Those not in power can gather their strengths and prepare for the next elections.

Libyans have a choice: back the Government of National Accord or face more terrorism and economic meltdown.  In these circumstances, the choice between compromise and continuing chaos is clear.  It is up to the Libyan people to decide.

In these circumstances, it is surely better to bend than to break.