Rethinking 'compound elections' from an interest-based negotiation approach
| Autor | David Mauricio Guinard Hernández |
| Cargo | Candidato a Máster en Derecho ?LLM? por la Universidad de Melbourne (Australia), Máster en Economía, Regulación y Competencia en los Servicios Públicos por la Universidad de Barcelona (España), Abogado de la Universidad Externado de Colombia. Consultor en temas de derecho público, administrativo, económico, infraestructura, comercial, minero y... |
| Páginas | 187-203 |
P
e
n
s
a
m
i
e
n
t
o
J
u
r
í
d
i
c
o
nº
49
187
PENSAMIENTO JURÍDICO, No. 49, ISSN 0122-1108, ENERO-JUNIO, BOGOTÁ, 2018, PP. 187-203
Rethinking “compound elections” from an
interest-based negotiation approach
David Mauricio Guinard Hernández*
Fecha de recepción: 20 de e nero 2019
Fecha de aceptación: 25 de m ayo de 2019
ABSTRACT
indirect elections that h ave a two- stage
process (nomination and election), are
the incumbent parties, and are character -
-
tics by partie s to endorse their interests.
An interest-based negot iation approach
-
ent and objective compound election s.
Compound elections usua lly do not have
a determined process to c onduct negotia-
tions betwee n all the incumbent parties . A
process that allows all par ties to contrib-
ute to the design of a frame work of criteria
applicable to the nomination and electi on
stages may help to get a bet ter outcome of
the compound election in term s of time,
expenditure and qu ality of the decision .
Having a strong communication bet ween
parties may enc ourage the formation of
value-creati ve options that can help to
improve compound elections.
Keyword s: Compound Elections; Nego-
tiation Ski lls; Interest-based ne gotiation;
Value creation; Nominat ion and election
criteria
RESUMEN
Se Dene a las elecciones compues tas
como elecciones indir ectas complejas
que tienen un proces o de dos etapas
(nominación y elección), está n determi-
nadas por la inuencia y e l poder de las
partes involucrad as, y se carac terizan
por el uso de táct icas de negociación
difícile s de las partes para respa ldar sus
intereses. Un en foque de negociación
basado en interes es puede ayudar a tener
elecciones compuestas más ec ientes,
transpa rentes y objetivas. La s elecciones
compuestas genera lmente no tienen un
proceso predeterm inado para llev ar a
cabo negociaciones ent re todas las par tes
interesadas. Un pro ceso que permit a a
todas las par tes contribuir a l diseño de un
marco de criter ios aplicables a las etapas
de nominación y elecc ión puede ayudar a
obtener un mejor resu ltado de la elección
compuesta en térm inos de tiempo, gasto
y calidad de la dec isión. Tener una fuerte
comunicación entre los partidos puede
alentar la for mación de opciones creat i-
vas de valor que pueden ay udar a mejorar
las elecciones compues tas.
Palabras clave: Elecc iones compuestas;
Habilidades de negoci ación; Negociación
basada en inter eses; Creación de va lor;
Nominación y cr iterios de elección
1
* Candidato a Má ster en Derech o –LLM– por la Unive rsidad de Melbour ne (Australia), Mást er en Economía ,
Regulación y Comp etencia en los Ser vicios Público s por la Universidad de Barcelona (España), Abogado de
la Universidad Exter nado de Colombia. C onsultor en te mas de derecho públ ico, admini strativo, econó mico,
infrae structura , comercial, miner o y energético. Email: gu inarddavid@gm ail.com
P
e
n
s
a
m
i
e
n
t
o
J
u
r
í
d
i
c
o
nº
49
188
RETHINKING “C OMPOUND ELECTIONS” F ROM AN INTEREST-BASED NEGOT IATION APPROACH
1. IntroductIon
Election1 processes involve negotiations. Following the definit ion of
negotiation as “any interaction or communication –spoken, written,
electronic or nonverbal– bet ween two or more parties, wit h an intention
to persuade or inuence” (Darwin, 2016), we observe that most election processes
(from presidential and congressional elections to local councils or board of
directors) entail a n interface between several pa rties (e.g., candidates, electors,
and interests groups) with the purpose to inuence a decision in a certai n way.
Parties involved in ele ction processes may have various intere sts and will inter-
relate with each other tryi ng to nd the best way to satisfy them. Negotiations
inherent to election proce sses usually represent the t rading between votes and
future decis ions: one candidate negotiates the favourable vote of a community
by oering the development of future projects , investments, and the c reation
of jobs.
The density of the negotiations embedded in election processes may be dened
by the a mount of p ower, the range and scope of the position or oce subject
to election, the number of parties involved, time, interests at stake, public
attention and med ia coverage.
Alongside wel l-known presidenti al and congress e lection processes, some other
kinds of indirec t elections do not depend direct ly on people’s vote and are instead
dete rmi ned by th e inu ence an d powe r of the in cumbe nt par tie s. For th is pap er,
we will call those kinds of elections “compound elections”, characterised by
having a two- stage process (nomination and election).
The involvement of various parties in the composition of the outcome (e.g.,
one party de nes a short-list of candidates and another p arty elects from th at
short-list) is a characteristic of compound elections. T he contribution of each
party is necessary for reaching an outcome, so they are mutually dependent
and responsible for the success of the ele ction.
The purpose of th is short paper is to disc uss the interests embedded i n compound
elections, the negotiation issues that arise along with this kind of elections,
dicult negotiat ion techniques u sed by parties to uphold their positions, a nd
how an interest-based ana lysis may help to deal with those issues.
1 “More and more occasions require negot iation; conict is a growth indus try. Everyone wants to participate
in decisions th at affect them; fe wer and fewer people wi ll accept decisio ns dictated by so mebody else. People
differ, and they u se negotiation to ha ndle their diffe rences. Whethe r in business, gover nment or the fam ily,
people reach most d ecisions through negot iation.”(Fisher & Ury, 2012, p. 60).
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba