Negotiations in South Africa

Abstract

No abstract provided. The following is taken from the author's introduction:

But it is precisely at this point that a certain amount of differences emerge ie on the issue of whether to negotiate or not, the process and the outcome of negotiations in SA. This paper is intended as a commentary on the process of negotiations. It will therefore look at the structure, strategies, intentions, models and outcome of negotiated settlements. In this regard I will be looking at conflict theories (game theory and how wars end) as well as do an analysis of the documents and agreements constituting negotiations in Namibia and Zimbabwe as way of understanding the political positioning and preferences of political actors

It however is not solely intended as commentary but would hopefully become a contribution in the debate, as well as the popularising of projections as prospects within the framework of the peoples democratic structures

This paper recognises the value of other models or historical processes that led to negotiated settlements of conflict. As such the paper becomes a comparative study of the Lancaster House Agreement in the case of Zimbabwe and the Resolution 435 in the case of Namibia. Said agreements reflects a legal base in ending unjust rule and setting in motion a political process leading to democratic governments. This approach allows us to draw on the experiences of Zimbabwe and Namibia. Lessons in this regard are determined by: (i) recognizing the similarities, parallels and divergences in the political and historic contexts (ii) the analysis of the degree to which the SA governments behaviour in negotiations can be extrapolated from bargaining or power behaviour in Zimbabwe and Namibia. 3 Reference to Lancaster House Agreement and Resolution 435 are purely popular references indicating a point in time, within the political process of change or negotiations for the settlement of conflict. Although these agreements are referred to by title, this paper takes into account a certain evolution in their development as well as the degree to which other documents, agreements or political historical processes contribute thereto. This paper also recognise that the process of. change or liberation takes place in specific historical context. It cannot be viewed in abstract or as clinical academic object of study. In so recognizing we remain dependant on the relevant historical and political events that contributed to liberation. The paper is subdivided into four sections namely (i) theories informing or governing the process of conflict resolution, models and mechanisms of resolution and structures and mechanisms for war ending; (ii) the negotiate settlement in Zimbabwe; (iii) the negotiated settlement in Namibia; (iv) the prospects of negotiations in SA

This paper recognises the value of other models or historical processes that led to negotiated settlements of conflict. As such the paper becomes a comparative study of the Lancaster House Agreement in the case of Zimbabwe and the Resolution 435 in the case of Namibia. Said agreements reflects a legal base in ending unjust rule and setting in motion a political process leading to democratic governments. This approach allows us to draw on the experiences of Zimbabwe and Namibia. Lessons in this regard are determined by: (i) recognizing the similarities, parallels and divergences in the political and historic contexts (ii) the analysis of the degree to which the SA governments behaviour in negotiations can be extrapolated from bargaining or power behaviour in Zimbabwe and Namibia. 3 Reference to Lancaster House Agreement and Resolution 435 are purely popular references indicating a point in time, within the political process of change or negotiations for the settlement of conflict. Although these agreements are referred to by title, this paper takes into account a certain evolution in their development as well as the degree to which other documents, agreements or political historical processes contribute thereto. This paper also recognise that the process of. change or liberation takes place in specific historical context. It cannot be viewed in abstract or as clinical academic object of study. In so recognizing we remain dependant on the relevant historical and political events that contributed to liberation. The paper is subdivided into four sections namely (i) theories informing or governing the process of conflict resolution, models and mechanisms of resolution and structures and mechanisms for war ending; (ii) the negotiate settlement in Zimbabwe; (iii) the negotiated settlement in Namibia; (iv) the prospects of negotiations in SA