In defence of compromise
People can stomach a great deal of horse-trading when they know what was traded, why, and what they gain. What they punish, rightly, is the sense that a deal was struck in the dark.
In Dr. Helmy Haja Mydin's perspective, the essence of leadership lies not in unyielding conviction, but in the art of compromise. Abraham Lincoln, upon assuming office in 1861, surrounded himself with individuals who believed they were more qualified for the role, yet they all found themselves working under him. His administration, often celebrated for its magnanimity, was more accurately a testament to effective execution.
The notion that a politician who refuses to compromise is admired while the one who strikes a deal is labeled a "sell-out" is a misperception. Such terms have become synonymous with discrediting those who seek to find common ground. However, such a strategy is frequently more fiction than fact. The true nature of governance demands assembling various stakeholders, from parliament to central banks, and understanding the diverse perspectives of the populace.
Power, in a properly functioning state, is the ability to influence others, and such influence is not easily achieved when every disagreement is treated as heresy.
Moreover, the belief that there is a single correct answer to every issue, leading to an assumption that those who hold differing views are wrong, reflects a hubris dressed as conviction. This narrow view ignores the vast plurality of reasonable opinions on matters such as taxation, migration, liberty versus security, and the pace of the energy transition.
The truth is, what is sensible to one group may be entirely different for another. A political approach that cannot accommodate this diversity tends to be blind and brittle.
Compromise is not a foreign concept to everyday life. Parents, colleagues, and even successful marriages require the ability to find middle ground. To claim that politics cannot benefit from what every household relies upon is to display a level of naivety, or worse, a deliberate misrepresentation.
Otto von Bismarck, despite being a formidable leader, recognized the importance of compromise when he said, "Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best." This idea underpins the construction of the German empire, the post-war European coalition, the negotiated transition in South Africa, and even the formation of Malaysia’s current government, which includes political opponents. Half a loaf, secured and consumed, has nourished more individuals than any full loaf that was never baked.
However, the case for compromise does not advocate for compromising everything. It is crucial to distinguish between principles that cannot be sacrificed, known as red lines, and other issues. A leader must clearly communicate these red lines to maintain the integrity of their mission. The failure to do so often stems from a lack of transparency around the concessions made, leaving supporters uncertain and unwilling to forgive the compromises without understanding the rationale behind them.
Ultimately, the art of compromise lies in the leader's ability to balance firmness on essential principles with flexibility on less critical matters, all while being candid about the choices made. This balance is what Bismarck referred to as "the art of the possible": the steady work of achieving goals in a world where not everyone agrees with your viewpoint.
Written by urgent.news from Free Malaysia Today's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
