Negotiation Skill More Effective than Legalistic Power

The recent standoff between Ghana’s legislature and judiciary highlights a critical lesson: negotiation is often more effective than relying solely on legal power in conflict resolution. This episode was sparked by a dispute involving Hon. Alexander Afenyo-Markin and Speaker of Parliament Rt. Hon. Alban Bagbin underscores the limits of a legalistic approach when trying to resolve disputes within governmental institutions.

Background of the Conflict

The controversy began when Speaker Bagbin declared four parliamentary seats vacant, based on parliamentary standing orders, after certain MPs filed to contest elections as independent candidates or under different party banners. Afenyo-Markin, serving as the leader of government business in Parliament, contested this move by appealing to the Supreme Court, seeking an injunction against the Speaker’s decision.

The Supreme Court, in a rapid response criticized by some observers, granted Afenyo-Markin’s ex-parte application and eventually ruled by a 5-2 majority that the Speaker’s declaration was unconstitutional. Despite this apparent legal victory, Afenyo-Markin’s objective of advancing government business was thwarted. The Speaker subsequently suspended Parliament, further stalling legislative activities despite pressure to reconvene.

Lessons on the Limits of Legal Power

The fallout from this clash reveals that legal victories do not always translate into practical gains. While Afenyo-Markin may have won in court, the ensuing power struggle between the judiciary and Parliament only intensified the deadlock. As the saying goes, “When two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.” In this case, it is the Ghanaian people who are left bearing the consequences of stalled governmental functions, especially with critical bills, loan agreements pending and elections on the horizon.

The reliance on legal measures instead of dialogue has escalated tensions rather than resolving them. Ghana now faces a critical juncture, with the legislature asserting its authority and the judiciary attempting to exert its influence as the final arbiter. However, this legalistic approach has proven counterproductive, resulting in a standstill that has disrupted the country’s governance and created uncertainty.

Turning to Negotiation for Conflict Resolution

Recognizing the limitations of a purely legal strategy, Afenyo-Markin has recently shifted his stance, advocating for consensus-building and negotiation to resolve the impasse. This pivot underscores the enduring power of negotiation over legalistic authority in resolving conflicts. In many cases, especially those involving the delicate balance of power among government branches, dialogue and compromise are far more effective than legal battles.

Former Chief of Staff under President John Agyekum Kuffour, Mr. Kwadwo Mpiani, echoed this sentiment, urging Parliament to adopt a culture of resolving issues internally and independently. He emphasized that such an approach would preserve the integrity of Parliament and strengthen democratic governance in the country.

Conclusion

The situation in Ghana serves as a poignant reminder that legal victories alone do not always achieve desired outcomes, especially in conflicts involving multiple stakeholders with entrenched positions. Effective conflict resolution often requires the softer skills of negotiation, dialogue, and consensus-building. As Ghana navigates these uncharted waters, the ability of its leaders to prioritize negotiation over legal confrontation may determine the stability of its democratic institutions in the months leading up to the December elections.