The normative theory of democratic negotiation and compromise is in its infancy, in part because democratic theory has undervalued the collective capacity to act. Without the capacity to act, a people cannot rule itself. For this reason, negotiation belongs at the center of democratic theory and practice. Building on democratic theory with the central role of negotiation in view, we develop the concept ofdeliberative negotiation. Neither pure deliberation nor pure bargaining, deliberative negotiation calls for continuing interactions, through which parties share information, link issues, engage in joint problem-solving, and reach compromises that are relatively fair to both sides. When parties engage in deliberative negotiation, they can often discover or create possibilities of which they had no idea before beginning the process. They can craft compromises that leave the least residue of bitterness behind. Of the institutional practices that favor deliberative negotiation, many of which are analyzed in other chapters, we focus on three—closed-door meetings, long incumbencies, and side-payments. These practices can make political negotiation more effective, thereby enabling democracies to act, but they also in various ways may contravene democratic principles. We identify the criteria by which the practices should be evaluated in order to be consistent with democratic norms.
Warren, Mark, Jane Mansbridge, André Bächtiger, Maxwell A. Cameron, Simone Chambers, John Ferejohn, Alan Jacobs, Jack Knight, Daniel Naurin, Melissa Schwartzberg, Yael Tamir, Dennis Thompson, and Melissa Williams. "Deliberative Negotiation." Political Negotiation: A Handbook. Ed. Jane Mansbridge and Cathie Jo Martin. Brookings Institution Press, 2016, 92-98.