Perhaps the most amazing development in US history occurred when George Washington refused to become king, and peacefully handed over power to John Adams. The concept that power will be voluntarily (or at least peacefully) handed over to someone who believes in completely different values and ideals than the current political leader is still so revolutionary that numerous countries face violence and repression at the mere thought. Let’s not take our democracy for granted. And, while there are plenty of sophisticated methods out there to resolve disputes, voting is a great one. So…get out there and vote tomorrow!
This post reminds me of the techniques we have learned in ADR regarding cooperation and defection. By refusing to become King, George Washington set a precedent and tone for all future American leaders. Similarly, lawyers can choose to set the tone of their disputes with opposing parties by beginning any conflict with a cooperative attitude and style. Why not? It might surprise your adversarial opponent, or the opposing party may even be relieved that finally there is a lawyer out there who is willing to get along with the other side, making the legal process a little less painful for everyone involved.
As lawyers, we are also becoming leaders — maybe not as influential as George Washington, but we will become leaders in our community, which can be just as important to our clients. Because we will be leaders, what we do, even at the beginning of our careers, will determine our reputation. We can learn from George Washington’s approach to politics that leaders are not always the loudest ones in the rooms, they understand they cannot always be the big-shot, and they know when it is important to stand up and advocate and when it is important to sit down and listen. He was strong yet he understood his role, and I think this is an important lesson for lawyers to internalize when representing their clients.
There’s a particular saying by Scott Adams in The Dilbert Future, which while undeniably cynical, still offers a positive frame that speaks favorably of voting as the best dispute resolution process:
“Democracy and capitalism will continue to give the shaft to lazy and stupid people. Neither will group will complain.”
Well, that last sentence isn’t entirely true, but there’s still a resonnance of truth with that particular statement.
If nothing else, voting, while it has an all or nothing element to it, is the best system for channeling political thoughts and energy into a safe and adaptable outlet. It requires thought, effort, and hard work to support yourself as a canidate, and the system itself favors those in blocks who take the initiative to vote.
It is contentious, but that is part of a winnowing process of stripping away ideas that will and will not work, challenging grounds and platforms, and trying to pitch your best offer to the public. I view it as a process where both parties are trying to negotiate with a third to accept their terms, trying to outbid and out do the other, and I think a lot of the same strategies (and pitfalls) apply. Like negotiations, it’s up to the parties, and candiates to actively go out and defend their interests and get the best deal they can for the next X years.
Voting and election sounds like a great resolution of conflicts. However, it seems to cause more conflicts recently, at least right before and after each selection. Part of the reason probably is that this process is not exactly fair. (?)
Unfairness in the structure – people who are too young to vote apparently are nevertheless affected heavily by the outcome of an election, if not more. Issues received a lot of attention in an election very often are not the issues that really should be discussed. In most cases, there are only two choices, unless you count not voting as one alternative.
Unfairness in the process – ennn, parties do not seem to treat each other very nice. People who supported Hillary are struggling for a way to be heard. By not voting? Then no one will hear you. By voting for the opponent? So to endorse a leadership even further away from what she advocates? That does not feel right.
Unfairness in the procedure – I have to say I don’t understand the electoral college system. But that is probably because I’m a foreigner. Is it really fair? Is only counting absentee votes in certain situation fair?
Outcome fairness is an even harder topic. There is certainly no win-win possibility here. The underlying interests of voters, or non-voters for that matter, are so complicated and often so far removed from the real issues. “Settling” the dispute in a certain way may or may not bring the parties satisfaction.
On the other hand, this method of resolving dispute provides a very good illustration about errors and mistakes in dispute resolution processes. There is misunderstanding, unearthed interests, information barrier, too much emotion, unrealistic BATNA, and everything else.