Why We Need To Relearn the Art of Compromise

Compromise is out of fashion. Across many political arenas, credibility is gained less through mediation than through the clear assertion of positions. But if inclusive foreign policy is to be taken seriously, it has to treat compromise not as weakness, but as a demanding and ethically bounded practice that makes coexistence possible.

We live in a time of geopolitical turmoil, growing social divides, and polarization. In this environment, compromise has become a suspicious word. Today, it is often interpreted as a betrayal of principles or proof that someone lacks conviction. Political debates nowadays reward sharp lines and clear enemies. And yet, politics has never worked without concessions, and complex conflicts are not resolved through moral purity alone.

In democratic systems in particular, compromise is not a deviation from principle but a structural necessity. The real challenge today is therefore not whether it is desirable, but how it can be practiced responsibly. Where are its limits, and how can we distinguish between necessary concessions and agreements that merely postpone conflict without addressing its causes?

Compromise is often seen as nothing more than meeting in the middle. In reality, it is a far more demanding practice. As South African President Cyril Ramaphosa once put it:

“Negotiations are about compromise. About give and take. It’s also about listening very intently.”

Listening is therefore a strategic necessity. Without understanding the fears and constraints of the other side, compromise becomes blind and therefore fragile. Many negotiations fail not because parties refuse to concede, but because they fail to understand the perspective of their counterparts. Let’s not forget that listening is not only required at the negotiating table, but also within one’s own society. Agreements that are not publicly explained, debated, and defended remain vulnerable to backlash.  

Not surprisingly, women are often decisive actors in making the process of finding compromises work. This reflects a key principle of inclusive foreign policy: Agreements are more durable when they incorporate a broader range of societal perspectives. Studies by UN Women show that when women participate in peace negotiations, agreements are significantly more likely to last. Yet women remain underrepresented in formal peace processes, despite often serving as mediators and bridge-builders long before official negotiations begin.

It is also important to understand that compromises are rarely built on what actors possess, but on what they fear losing. Finding a common ground becomes particularly difficult when conflicts are no longer perceived as disagreements over interests, but as questions of identity, dignity, or survival. In such situations, positions become increasingly rigid, concessions appear illegitimate, and compromise is often framed as betrayal rather than a path toward a solution.

In today’s world, more and more political disputes are framed as zero-sum games in which one side’s gain automatically becomes the other side’s loss. The challenge is therefore not simply to defend compromise as a universal good, but to understand the conditions under which it becomes possible. Leaders often remain trapped between diplomatic necessity and domestic hostility, knowing that even carefully balanced concessions may cost them legitimacy. Yet it is precisely in such polarized environments that compromise becomes most necessary. Refusing to negotiate could protect their short-term popularity, but it condemns societies to long-term instability.

Therefore, compromise is not the abandonment of principles. It is the recognition that lasting political solutions require balancing competing interests, managing tensions, and, most importantly, accepting imperfect outcomes.

But compromise should not be idealized. Many agreements end violence without resolving underlying injustices, meaning that peace can be achieved without producing a shared sense of fairness. Yet refusing compromise carries risks as well, often even greater ones.

Relearning the art of compromise therefore requires political courage and societies willing to tolerate complexity. In a world that increasingly rewards confrontation and simplification, the art of compromise is not outdated. It is endangered - and for that very reason, indispensable.