We can't shout at each other and call that negotiating
What you need to know:
- For all we know, these rows over training could be linked to the self-interested imperative of limiting the number of new entrants into their professions.
- Are we culturally incapable of negotiating amicable solutions to our problems?
- I have seen tough men called dogs by women they are courting, but they control their emotions until they get to ‘yes’ without breaking any bones.
- It doesn’t matter if one pursues conservative or liberal ideals, but it helps especially when you negotiate with someone, if you know their points of resistance.
In this blog, I have always been harsh on Members of County Assembly (MCAs), owing to their scandalous behaviour at several forums.
I have tended to attribute this negative conduct to their average low level of education and general lack of suavity.
I want to withdraw my criticism and opine that their uncouth behaviour may be more attributable to a cultural problem.
I arrived at this conclusion after watching the conduct of lawyers during their Law Society of Kenya (LSK) Annual General Meeting (AGM) last week. What transpired at the event was both unfortunate and deplorable.
The legal profession is like no other. In fact, lawyers are first among equals compared to other professionals. Their role is not just confined to the courts and advising their business clients on contractual issues. They are an integral part of our justice system.
Individually, and through the Law Society, they have in the past played a role in agitating for the social, economic and political rights of our people. They literally created our Constitution.
Lawyers are the majority in Parliament, and are well represented among governors, constitutional commissioners and in boards of various organisations. They arbitrate in virtually all differences in society.
These are people we hold in high esteem and their failure in leadership reflects badly on not just their profession, but the entire Kenyan society.
At the LSK event, some members were shown on national television behaving worse than five-year old kindergarten kids fighting over a toy.
They failed to bury their differences and apologise to Kenyans for their disgraceful display of lack of decorum.
To avoid a repeat performance of such disgrace, they must create the mechanisms for dealing professionally with whatever differences they have.
The lawyers’ lack of closed-door consultation is also playing out in public through the Council for Legal Education (CLE). Just like the Engineers Registration Board (ERB), they have sent thousands of law students home.
Instead of negotiating with the government and the universities towards an amicable understanding, they decide to throw their irritabilities at innocent students.
What these professional organisations fail to see is the fact that our country is going through momentous change that requires inputs from all stakeholders.
Reform is not something that only some institutions must undergo; it is for every institution, including the institution of lawyering.
What is emerging from all these shenanigans by professional bodies is that Parliament may have erred in empowering professional bodies with inordinate powers over the accreditation of training.
In most parts of the world, accrediting agencies are independent of professional organisations, simply to avoid an obvious conflict of interest.
TIGHT-LIPPED EMPLOYERS
Professional societies are what is known in legal terms as interested parties. For all we know, these rows over training could be linked to the self-interested imperative of limiting the number of new entrants into their professions.
Universities too have failed to assert their legal mandate to approve courses. This mandate is in the Universities Act, in their Charter and Statutes, as well as in numerous government policy pronouncements.
Let’s remember that if universities and colleges don’t train, there will be no professionals to regulate or lead.
Universities must create the necessary crisis to make the Ministry of Education and Parliament wake up and stop punishing very bright, innocent students, whose crime is their desire to train in professions of their choice. How do we solve the problems without sitting at a negotiating table?
The clergy too exhibit serious differences. They cannot muster enough trust to pray together and seek God’s intervention in solving their own disputes.
They have serious doctrinal issues even when they practice the same religion. Some denominations will not recognise clergy trained in colleges they don’t approve of.
The situations is not any different in other professions. Doctors, teachers and nurses have for the past several months been dancing to the solidarity tune.
In fact, some of the most vibrant and acrobatic dancers I have seen on TV are teachers and doctors. Employers on the other hand are, as a Gikuyu proverb says, as tight-lipped as a certain of the goat’s anatomy. It all boils down to a contest between amplified noise and deafening silence.
Are we culturally incapable of negotiating amicable solutions to our problems? Can we stop talking at each other and talk to each other?
It would be less costly if, culturally, we were to find ways of dealing with our differences without resorting to public displays of displeasure.
INBORN CAPABILITIES
Unless the lawyers always want us to settle differences in courts, there is reason for resolving issues without going to courts. In fact, a maxim in law says that a good settlement is better than a good judgement.
Our greatest weakness appears to be that we have discarded the African culture of mazungumzo, as Ali Mazrui once called it, whereby Africans would sit under a tree and talk until a solution emerged.
We don’t have to persevere under trees anymore since we have five-star hotels and conference venues, but their rise appears to be directly proportional to the decline of negotiation as a preferred method for settling disputes.
We also do not take courses in negotiation and listening skills, and if we do, we don’t practice what we are taught. Our behaviour during negotiations is wanting.
We seem to think that if we speak loudes, frothing at the corners of our mouths, we can defeat our opponents seated across the table.
When we shout at each other, we miss powerful influencing strategies and bargaining tactics, especially in dealing with resistance points or quickly taking advantage of bargaining zones in order to integrate BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement).
We are all born with these capabilities and we often use them during courtship, but we forget they are the same tactics we need to apply in arbitrating normal differences.
I have seen tough men called dogs by women they are courting, but they control their emotions until they get to ‘yes’ without breaking any bones.
We need similar tolerances leading to ‘yes’ in any arbitration as the overriding goal that leads to a sustainable solution.
LEADERSHIP EMERGES
Virtually all fights within professional organisations, be it the Law Society of Kenya or the Church, are as a result of leadership. Most of us assume that anybody elected can lead. This is not true.
Leadership, in its truest sense, emerges. Martin Luther King was not elected to lead the Civil Rights Movement. He emerged because people believed in what he said. This is what is known as the Situational Theory of Leadership.
His personal conduct may not have been exemplary (and it is clear from several of his biographers that he had serious weaknesses of the flesh), but people wanted him to advance the cause he believed in and articulated so well.
This is where most of our leaders miss the point, thinking you can make decisions as you go, without believing in anything. Without msimamo (lack of any position on issues), you open up gaps that those who actually believe in something want to close.
Our founding fathers had firm positions on liberation of our people from the yoke of the colonialists. Mzee Jomo Kenyatta, among the early leaders that believed in ending colonialism, was elected in absentia to lead Kenya African Union (KAU) while he was in prison.
The point I am trying to make is that our behaviour should be predictable, based on what we believe in. It doesn’t matter if one pursues conservative or liberal ideals, but it helps especially when you negotiate with someone, if you know their points of resistance.
Lack of such understanding is what throws us into confusion and frustration, leading us to shout at each other. If, for example, the church leaders had faith in God, they would never embarrass their congregations in public.
We must go back to the basics and begin to build a new generation of Kenyans. This will start with comprehensive reform in education, where ethics and responsibility are taught from primary level through high school and university, and even in continuing education.
JOHN BOEHNER'S EXAMPLE
Those who watched John Boehner, Ohio Republican and US House Speaker make his resignation speech in Washington will understand what 'responsibility to the people' means.
According to CNN, he said "I got plenty of people following me but this turmoil that's been churning now for a couple of months, it's not good for the members and it's not good for the institution. If I was not planning on leaving here soon, I can tell you I would not have done it."
He did a respectable thing for the sake of the institution and its members, which perhaps should be the guiding principle for our leaders here.
President Obama, with whom Mr Boehner has had disagreements, had this to say:
"We have obviously had a lot of disagreements and politically we're at different ends of the spectrum," Obama said. "He has always conducted himself with courtesy and civility with me. He has kept his word when he made a commitment. He is somebody who has been gracious. Most importantly he's somebody who understands that in government and in governance you don't get 100 percent of what you want."
I cannot compare this with the epithets hurled by opposing leaders in our part of the world.
Our future depends on stronger institutions that will outlive us. We need selfless leadership that would put the institutions and its membership ahead of their own interests.
This may not necessarily mean those who put themselves out for elections. If there are good women and men out there, let us always nominate them for leadership positions even if they don’t have money or a publicly expressed desire to lead. When we fail to do so, we fail the systems.
Nelson Mandela once said:
“It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory when nice things occur. You take the front line when there is danger. Then people will appreciate your leadership.”
We will never be great leaders if all we want is glory at the expense of those whom we lead.
