The Two Faces of Compromise

• Author: Marvin Rintala
• Published date: 01 June 1969
• Date: 01 June 1969
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/106591296902200206
• Subject Matter: Articles

THE TWO FACES OF COMPROMISE
MARVIN RINTALA
Boston College
VERY
political system is characterized by a prevalent attitude towards
r~ important political concepts. The sum total of these prevalent attitudes
-*―-~ may be seen as the national character of politics in these systems. One such
fundamental concept is compromise. It could be argued that every political system
can be classified by students of comparative politics on the basis of its prevalent
attitude towards compromise.1 In these remarks dealing with what can be called
the two faces of compromise, attention will be centered on the widely divergent
attitudes toward compromise prevalent in British and German politics. Like all
use of ideal types in the social sciences, this discussion aims at clarifying reality
rather than merely simplifying it. It is hoped, however, that the contrast of British
and German attitudes toward compromise will help to explain and evaluate signifi-
cant differences in the behavior of these nations in both domestic and international
politics.
The distinguished British political theorist, Sir Ernest Barker, argued 2 that
in a compromise all ideas are reconciled. The compromise can be accepted by all
because it bears the imprint of all. Discussion has as its purpose compromise, and
therefore the achievement of compromise is the justification for discussion in a
democracy. If there has been no compromise, discussion has been useless. Barker,
furthermore, sees law-making as the process of the grand dialectic of public debate,
in which thought clashes with thought until a reconciling compromise is found.
If a majority engages in discussion with a minority, and if that discussion is con-
ducted in a spirit of give-and-take the result will be that the ideas of the majority
are widened to include some of the ideas of the minority which have established
their truth in the give-and-take of debate. Edmund Burke formulated it: &dquo;All
government ... is founded on compromise and barter. We balance inconveniences;
we give and take; -
we
remit some rights, that we may enjoy others.&dquo; It is in this
sense that discussion produces, if not unanimity, at any rate something so close to
unanimity that we may speak of common consent. This common consent, if it is
broad and fundamental enough, becomes consensus about both the form of the
decision-making process and the content of the decisions that actually are made.
Barker’s conception of compromise is typically British, representing a wide
variety of political views. Harold Laski, for instance, argued in his classic study of
Parliamentary Government in England that successful representative government
presupposes a nation fundamentally at one upon all the major objects of govern-
mental activity -
so fundamentally at one that the thought of violence as an instru-
ment of political change is incapable of entering the minds of more than an insig-
nificant portion of the nation. Along the same lines, Earl Balfour stressed that
1
The American attitude toward compromise is described with perfect clarity by Edwin
O’Connor, The Last Hurrah (Boston: Little, Brown, 1956), pp. 269-70.
2

Reflections on Government (New York: Oxford U. Press, 1958).
326

---

327
the entire institutional framework of the British political system assumes a people
so united that they can safely afford to bicker, and so sure of their own - and
their opponents’ -
moderation that they are not dangerously disturbed by the
never-ending din of political conflict.3 The irony is that an intensely political people
takes politics seriously but not passionately.
In the British political system there is consensus about how political leaders
are to be selected, laws and administrative rulings made, and the scope of these
laws and rulings limited. Furthermore, there is consensus about what it is the task
of politics -
and political leaders -
to do. For instance, the Conservative party
rapidly accepted the welfare state and most of the nationalization legislation passed
by the Labour majority immediately after World War II. This acceptance came
despite the fact that the Conservative party earlier had vigorously and tenaciously
opposed such legislation. When consensus exists, the will of a majority can become
something of the nature of the will of all. In this process, the opposition has not
only the privilege of making its voice (or, more likely, its voices) heard, but also
the obligation to accept the decision once it is made. Her Majesty’s Opposition
always exists, but it is always loyal to the decisions of the majority as well as to the
person of Her Majesty. The majority, in the form of the Cabinet, is committed to
a constant duel of discussion with a constant rival. Every Cabinet in esse is con-
fronted and criticized by, and will tend to seek a compromise with, a Cabinet in
posse. If this is true of relations...