“If you are bargaining with somebody, you need to have equal footing for someone to listen to you.” Chea Vannath [1]
What happens in a situation when one group has no way to secure an equal footing against their opponent?Consider the communities in Cambodia who today face the reality that private business, government and military interests will acquire their land and natural resources with little or no consultation or compensation. The situation seems a forgone conclusion to both the communities and many who support them, including the well connected proponents of economic development. This is what is referred to as an asymmetrical power system – one side has a disproportionate amount of 'threat power' compared to the other.
Asymmetric Power in Cambodia
Asymmetrical power systems arise for many reasons. In Cambodia a high-context [2] patron-client system strongly enforces a 'no-questions asked' culture by the masses regarding the actions of government , business, community and religious leaders. “It is the role of the leader to tell people what is the right way to do something”, “I consulted them by reading out the court verdict” and “I didn't go there to argue with them” are sentiments often held by patrons about their subjects.
It is the patron's role to provide protection from the threats of life, natural disasters, illness or military threats. It is the client's role to give unquestioning obedience to do whatever the patron asks (demands). Democratic and transparent organisational styles don't make sense and as a recent report concluded these goals are subsumed into the patron-client arsenal to further garner power, prestige and wealth. [3]
To illustrate the ineffectiveness of negotiation without equal footing, The Dey Krahorm community (or representatives of it) were given a one day training workshop in negotiation skills and went to negotiate with the 7NG Company the same evening. They went with high hopes in their new skills.
The experience was an abysmal failure. The community received a comprehensive tongue lashing by the company spokesperson and returned home with their tail between their legs. From a “Do No Harm” [4] perspective this experience could have derailed community resolve significantly by reinforcing the cultural expectations that those with no power should not attempt to question the plans of the powerful.
It may seem that what is lacking is the skill to stand up for oneself in the presence of a higher authority and training could obviously help redress this skill issue. But the core of the problem here is not skill for negotiation. Communities usually have at least one or two people quite skilled in standing up for themselves. The core issue is unequal power relations which was not addressed by the negotiation.
The Weaknesses of Negotiation in Asymmetric Power Systems
Negotiations in asymmetric power systems work well where there is an effective external source of threat power making the costs of non-negotiation outweigh negotiation, such as an independent, free and non-partisan justice system. Since institutional power in Cambodia is overwhelmingly in favour of those with wealth, power and political connections there is little or no threat power against the powerful.
Theoretically, the international community is a source of threat power (removal of donor funding, trade boycotts, publication of information – factual information of human rights abuses, international ratings scales on corruption or civil unrest), but their resolve to date has proven weak and the shifting global system gives greater influence to China where human, economic and social rights have little influence. Pressure must come from within.
A major concern for the use of negotiation by local communities is the reality of false promises and flat refusals. Flat refusals to demands and requests are easier to deal with as the answer is quite clear. False promises are much more insidious. Gene Sharp cautions us that the invitation to negotiation must be treated carefully as they are more likely designed to put the resisters into a passive mode.
Firstly, it takes a lot of courage, stamina and organisation for a Cambodian community to risk social mores in a high-context [2] environment and stand up against the powers-that-be [4]. Not only do they risk direct action against themselves, they risk sending the message that their goals are designed to damage the cultural base that all Cambodians take for granted and give deep credence to.
Secondly, if a community is finally granted a negotiation and promised compensation or “further investigation” a community may feel they have won the war, when the battle has not ever begun. These are beginning manoeuvrings that put the powerful are much more comfortable with.
“We have accepted their petition and ask the community to go back to their homes while we investigate their claims over the weekend” is not an uncommon statement to hear. What this does is put the onus of response back to the community. Culturally it is highly inappropriate to question or challenge authority. But by not doing so they prolong violence and oppression. While the authority is 'investigating' their claim, the violence continues unchecked. If a freeze to all provocative behaviours is enforced immediately that is one thing, to wait is quite another. And the community is not even at the negotiating table.
Thirdly, any action criticising or resisting the will of the powers-that-be [4] will be considered threatening and will provoke a response: from a mild tongue lashing in the media to the use of armed force as was seen in Kompong Thom this week.
Nonviolent Social Power
For all the advocacy efforts of NGO's, donor countries, and even the King, little external pressure balances the scales enough for a “true listening” in Cambodia. What can be done about it?
Certainly this is not a new experience, and many have learned that you don't need guns to gain equal footing. Over the last century, since the dawn of the satyagraha [5] in South Africa, individuals and people movements have been experimenting with a different form of power, one that doesn't rely on position, status or the barrels of many guns. This is nonviolent social power [7] used successfully against brutality and violence in countries such as: India, Russia, Germany, Denmark, Guatemala, USA, Argentina, Poland, South Africa, Philippines, and many more. [7]
Nonviolent social power [7] rests on the understanding that power is not innately present in a person of status, but is acquired by the consent of the masses below him or her. This consent leads to unquestioning civil obedience. However, if the masses withdraw their consent the power base of the powerful is removed or severely weakened and change can occur.
It's certainly not as easy as it sounds as the consent to authority may range across an array of interest groups, communities and even countries. Nonviolent social power [7] has to engage the support of many of those who currently support the status quo. Failing to do this will lead to a failure to achieve nonviolent social change, and losing the 'equal footing' so needed simply to be heard.
In most cases that we see in Cambodia communities are eager to negotiate with companies and government officials only to find themselves being thrown out of board rooms and provincial offices and thrown into prison or 'relocation' camps. This is because there is no equal footing. No matter how legally sound and water-tight a community's case may be it simply doesn't matter in a country where it is the 'right' of the rulers to rule.
Should communities stop trying to negotiate? Currently, attempts at negotiation raises a community's plight to the national and international sphere of attention. But rarely goes further. As such communities should not see negotiation as their means to a just compensation package or court decision. The theory of nonviolent social power [7] requires local communities to find ways of withholding consent to the power they have been giving to businesses and authorities who refuse to give a fair listening to their cause.
In short, negotiation with little or no strategic thought to power asymmetries will not succeed.
How could a community ensure a negotiated agreement will be honoured?
Gene Sharp [8] counsels nonviolent activists to not enter into negotiation. However, realising that change takes time, what can communities do if they continue using negotiation? A community will need to plan to maintain nonviolent pressure before, during and following a negotiation until any and all agreements are implemented in full. This may require daily activities of nonviolent social power [7] to display ongoing commitment, such as sit-ins, media campaigns, demonstrations, peace walks and vigils, fasts and blockades (see Gene Sharp for a full discussion on tactical options).
Both the agreement and a timeline of implementation should be clearly written and witnessed by third parties, and if possible, made public in media statements. The written documentation enshrines that any agreements or time lines that are broken are cause for an immediate resumption or escalation of nonviolent social power [7].
This is the most dangerous phase of negotiation as all the hard work may yet be lost, resulting in loss of morale within the community, and a temptation to give in. It is also possible for the opponent to use a failed negotiation as a weapon: “we entered into good faith negotiations with the community yet they still complain ...”. The period from negotiated agreement to full implementation of the agreement should be as short as possible to maintain pressure and community mobilisation.
Without nonviolent social power [7] there is little reason for a powerful opponent to give into community demands, nor even to enter into negotiations. This, of course, will take time to catch on. Communities are not fully equipped in the range of tactics and strategies of nonviolent social power [7], and community leadership continue to be prey to direct sanctions and violence. The powers-that-be continue to believe that they can use direct and structural violence to ensure their plans proceed on time. They will need to see unrelenting commitment by not just one community, but by all.
End Notes:
[1] Ms Chea Vannath, political observer, Cambodia Daily October 27, 2009, p2.
[2] “high-context” refers to cultures where communication is conducted through symbolic actions and accepted assumptions rather than direct verbalised statements. The use of direct communication can often be a cause for conflict, rather than a way to resolve it.
[3] Nee, M. & McCallum, W. (2009). Roads to Development. Insights from Sre Ambel District, South West Cambodia. AFSC, Phnom Penh.
[4] “Do No Harm” is the Hypocratic Oath of peace workers. In short, be conscious that any given intervention may exacerbate, not reduce, a conflict. Anderson, M & Olsen, L. (2003). Confronting War. Critical Lessons for Peace Practitioners. Collaborative Learning Products. www.cdainc.com
[5] “powers-that-be” a common phrase to describe the individuals and institutions which maintain and enforce socially agreed behavioural, moral and economic standards. These often include politicians and government insitutions, wealthy individuals and classes, businesses, religious leaders and institutions, etc.
[6] “satyagraha” means 'truth force' and was born on September 11, 1906 at the Empire Theatre in South Africa by Mohandas K. Gandhi. It is the key power source for those who wish to make use of nonviolent power.
[7] “nonviolent social power” is also known as nonviolent direct action (NVDA), nonviolence, nonviolent action and active nonviolence.
[8] Sharp, G. (2005). Waging Nonviolent Struggle. 20th Century Practice and 21st Century Potential. Extending Horizons Books.
