← Back to context

Comment by ghywertelling

16 hours ago

I have a Naive question, "why aren't the discussions related to public matters be telecasted live like a football match to the whole world? why isn't the public privy to the discussions about its own future?"

6 comments

ghywertelling

Reply
throw0101c  15 hours ago

> "why aren't the discussions related to public matters be telecasted live like a football match to the whole world? why isn't the public privy to the discussions about its own future?"

It gives the parties more room to manoeuvre with regards to the give and take that is often/usually necessary when it comes to negotiating. If you demand X at one point, but revert so you can get Y, then the absolutists will be outraged (either actually or performatively) that you are being "soft" and "weak", etc.

There are a lot of people who think in zero-sum, winner-take-all ways, which is generally not how the world of foreign relations works. And modern-day outrage machine will create more difficult situations if you give here and take there (ignoring the fact that the other side gives there and takes here in return) even though it may be necessary to get a result (even it it's not perfect).

  • ghywertelling  2 hours ago

    There is flip side to it. If one party has pre-determined not to negotiate, but is just following the script to show offical reachout and due process, then people don't know the real reason why the talks failed?

giantg2  16 hours ago

Because most world leaders are actors. They put on a show to get elected or retain power. They don't want to look weak and want to spin the final outcome to their favor. That can include one side allowing the other to take credit for an idea that wasn't their's.

majani  3 hours ago

There are ego maniacs and people from shame cultures who would be animalistically obstinate in the face of globally televised embarrassment