A lesson in politics: Understanding Interests-Based and Rights-Based Negotiations

Politics, at its core, is all about negotiation. When it comes down to it, politics is essentially a series of negotiations between different parties to reach an agreement on the best course of action. However, not all negotiations are created equal. In the political world, there are two distinct types of negotiations: interests-based and rights-based. Let’s take a look at the differences and how each type of negotiation can be used in politics.

‍

Interests Based Negotiations

‍

Interests-based negotiations are all about concessions that both parties can make in order to reach an agreement. These concessions could be tangible items like money or goods and services or intangible items such as support or reputation. The main idea behind interests based negotiations is that both sides can give something valuable in exchange for something else just as valuable—even if those things are not directly related to each other. This allows for a more balanced trade-off between the negotiating parties and ensures that everyone involved gets something out of the deal.

‍

Rights Based Negotiations

Rights-based negotiations are a bit more complicated than interests-based ones because they involve beliefs and opinions rather than tangible items or services. How do you quantify and trade someone's right to an abortion? Or healthcare? Or religious beliefs? It's nearly impossible to trade someone's belief of their rights; it's either one side is right or wrong, with no room for compromise. That's why these types of negotiations are so difficult—because they require both sides to come up with creative solutions that don't involve trading away fundamental beliefs and rights in order to reach an agreement.

How you can shift the conversation

Here's an example we can unpack: legalizing the use of marijuana

An interests-based negotiation would have both parties discuss the following terms (not an exhausted list).

• Legal age of consumption
• Taxes (federal, state, local)
• What to do with previous convictions
• Operating motor vehicles (threshold of DUI)
• Testing for a DUI
• etc.

All of these items can be considered, weighed, and traded. Each can be sliced into smaller pieces and agreed to by each party. But what if someone starts the conversation with this?

"It's my right to consume a plant created by the earth."

What would you trade them to allow the conversation to progress forward? It's challenging to be in a rights-based negotiation because it does not allow for any concessions to be made.

Once someone starts to talk about a term being "their right" then you need to be very careful. You may be slipping into a rights-based discussion. Do your best to bring the conversation back to interests.

When it comes down to it, politics is all about negotiation—and there are two distinct types of negotiation when it comes to political issues: interests-based and rights-based. Interests-based negotiations involve concessions that both parties can make in order to reach an agreement, while rights based negotiations require creative solutions without trading away fundamental beliefs or rights.

Understanding the differences between these two types of negotiation is key when trying to understand politics today—and finding ways to effectively negotiate within them will help ensure success for everyone involved!

‍