Submitted by Aung San U on Fri, 10/09/2020 - 15:19

This article is an excerpt from a book written by me about twenty years ago called "Pragmatic Spirituality for a Progressive and Humane Society." A book (pages 250 in English) to help third world countries to put together a politico-cultural manifesto for progressive evolution.

NEGOTIATING FOR A WIN-WIN

The "(I) WIN-(You) LOSE" is very satisfying for the winner. The winner gets one hundred percent, and the rest get zero. On the other hand, the so-called (I) WIN-(You) WIN situation equates to both parties getting less than all—this is apparently, very, very unsatisfactory, especially when each party thinks that they alone deserve everything. How do we sell a WINWIN situation in a realistic manner when no other way would cope with such a political quagmire? We need to jog the wisdom (however minimal that may be) of the contenders, that the only way out is to consider beginning some kind of a meaningful reconciliation, and that the parties involved must start building together for a WIN-WIN and a better future for all. They need to truly understand what WIN-WIN is about and how may it be implemented. The ability to think and act WIN-WIN is the power of cooperation. Without this power, the scope and scale of an organization is very limited when compared to an organization that has this power. History is full of cultures that disappeared or were relegated to a minor stature because of their inability to peacefully work out deals within themselves and with neighboring ethnic groups.

There are only a few pure types of outcomes to competitive situations. The mutually exclusive outcomes are the WIN-LOSE and the LOSE-WIN, where one party is a sole winner and the other is the loser, and vice versa. This mode of behavior is predominant in smaller and less advanced communities and societies. People of larger and more advanced communities, generally develop ways and means of finding some kind of common ground rather than amplifying the differences, to cooperate and conciliate rather than to confront. It usually pays to thoroughly explore the possibilities of a WIN-WIN situation before other choices, and whereby a sensible way can be worked out to share the rewards for the present as well as for the future. Many times, the WIN-LOSE choice is destructive and is simply an illusion, an unreal choice for the long run, and subsequent failures will show it was really a NO WIN, or even a LOSE-LOSE situation for everyone. Pervasively adopting the WIN-LOSE philosophy can in the long run lead to a great loss for a nation and its people.

One of the major factors in facilitating negotiations is the establishment of improved production capabilities and subsequent improvement of per capita assets within a reasonably foreseeable future. Negotiators can then come to some kind of acceptable agreement for the moment based upon the projected schedule of the rate of realistic improvements (based upon cooperation). Perhaps five years hence, the total, cooperative gains that can be made are capable of doubling the current wealth. Not getting one hundred percent of the current assets may not be such a burning issue after all, and the problem of not being able to share equitably may become extricable and put to bed once and for all, within a relatively short time. The numbers quoted in the above example are quite possible; there are many real-world cases of societies that have successfully modernized within the last two decades, and their per capita incomes are now five to ten times—or even more—than that of a similar society that has neglected to do so.

Within a less than modern society, some of those at the upper strata may think that they have superior KARMA2 to those they lord over. They may even try to boost their KARMA with the help of pseudo religious or “supernatural” linked rituals. Regardless, if they fail to realize that without the expertise to solve problems such as that of production; the transportation of produce to the markets; finding, establishing, and promoting local and overseas markets; distributing the wealth of the nation equitably; instituting a legislative process to establish just laws; effectively suppressing corruption; bringing out the best of the people; etc., it is only a matter of time that the whole society including themselves will be underachievers, and who subsequently will end up living in an impoverished land. If the few people at the top have divisive attitudes and fail to reverse their thinking in time, ultimately most of them will meet with their own brand of bad KARMA. KARMA is not considered a relevant factor within the normal thought processes of the advanced nations, but we will discuss its possible conceptual relevancy in Parts II and III.

Compared to advanced societies, the less developed countries' per capita incomes may be less than one percent. Unless a nation is sitting on top of huge oil fields or gold or diamond mines, or lucrative natural resources, the productivity, per capita income, and income distribution index strongly correlates with the quality of its human resources and their spirits. That equates to the nation's higher functional education programs, and its motivation and utilization of its highly educated professionals with business, organizational, and technological expertise.

Another major factor to facilitate negotiations is agreement to a political agenda and the establishment of the cultural infrastructure where ordinary people can be empowered, stage by stage, with certain rights at all levels of a nation’s political and social realms. This must begin at the local administrative levels with a clear and binding schedule for the eventual political enfranchising at all levels. Conditions should also be attached and standards set in regard to the rate of improvement of higher education and of higher economic standards (verifiable by appropriate metrics) that a society has to achieve. In other words, if the people want a voice and the sharing of political power, they shall be given the opportunities to earn for them.

If the above conditions are not met, meaningful reconciliation efforts are unlikely to be successful. Once the above requisites are realized, then laws can be established to make them binding. All parties representing different interests of various segments of the people, and the special interest groups who agreed to participate and contribute in the future growth programs, shall not then be above the law that is to be established pragmatically, and backed by all appropriate interest groups. The same laws are to be applied in the same manner for all social classes.

Hopefully, as we become older, we also may become smarter and more mature; we gain greater relevant experiences and knowledge, and consequently become better at finding the correct solutions for working with challenging projects as well as with many types of people. As our ability to understand different realities improves, our flexibility should increase, enabling us to find the right balances or compromises, without being unrealistic and avoiding wasteful events. REMARK: KARMA may be defined as the principle of causality in moral experience; as good or bad luck depending on past good or bad deeds, respectively. For some, this includes the merits from all the here-before to the here-and-now.

One of the most important measures of a civilization is how well, at all levels of a society, the people treat, care for, and help one another to excel. People with SAMADHI always promote the WIN-WIN whenever it is realistic to do so. A clear indication of uncivilized minds is the domination and oppression of one’s own kind by denying growth opportunities, rights, or meaningful political representations, regardless of what other claims are made of being civilized.