60. Integrity does not exclude compromise, but compromise compromises integrity
Compromise does not have to damage personal integrity. After all, it can help achieve ideals and standpoints. At the same time, compromises are a threat to SPs’ integrity because (1) they raise the risk that SPs will be unable to explain what they stand for, (2) they create the impression that SPs are prepared to offer up their values and standards at any price, and (3) SPs may find it increasingly easy to compromise, eventually doing so for the wrong reasons. For this reason SPs should take care not to (1) defend compromises as they do ideals and standpoints, (2) agree vocally when they cannot be sure they can fulfill their promises, (3) allow their own beliefs and commitments to be damaged, and (4) become satisfied with less and less progress.
It is often thought that integrity is at odds with compromise. It is true that compromise puts integrity under pressure and can threaten it, but integrity does not exclude the possibility of compromise.
Compromise is an indispensible part of government and politics.360 In fact, according to British politician Paddy Ashdown politics is compromise.361 In a pluralistic society people have different values and norms. Since people with the same values and norms tend not to form a majority, in a democracy we must be willing to compromise with others. If we are not willing to do this, we cut ourselves off. Those who want everything end up with nothing. It is a matter of give and take.362 In the view of a former parliamentary chairperson, the willingness to compromise is the test of a democracy.363 “If politics is the art of the possible, then compromise is the artistry of democracy,” said American political scientists Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson in their book The Spirit of Compromise.364
Compromise does not have to damage personal integrity. According to political philosopher Martin Benjamin, integrity even demands compromise to some extent.365 Integrity may be holding onto certain values, norms, and ideals, but at the same time it does not mean fanaticism, or always holding onto all of them.366 Holding onto something means very little if you cannot let it go. Integrity sometimes means taking what you can get, without necessarily infringing what you stand for.367 In fact, you may compromise because you stand for something, because this allows you to achieve part of what you want to achieve, bringing you closer to your goal, which would not otherwise have been possible. In this respect compromise can underline integrity. A choice in favor of one value is not necessarily a choice against the value passed over or breached.
At the same time compromise does compromise integrity, in the sense that it threatens personal integrity. Firstly there is the risk that you will no longer be able to explain what you stand for, losing your way in shades of gray, or making it unclear what you stand for. This applies mainly to intangible, qualitative issues. If one party wants to save 3% and the other 1%, then 2% is a clear compromise. However, when it comes to non-material issues, such as security and integration, we are no longer talking about gradual differences but rather differences in principle, making compromises more difficult to explain and justify. As one deputy prime minister said, “If you keep on watering down the wine, eventually you’ll have no wine left.”368 Compromise means taking the middle way, and as US president John Adams stated, “In politics the middle way is none at all.”369
A second risk of compromise is that it gives the impression that you are prepared to give up your values at any price. Compromises can be seen as deals instead of ideals, bartering rather than standing for a cause and making a point. You may even be accused of turning tail or hypocrisy if you trade in too many ideals and promises.370
For that reason it is important not to defend your compromises as if they were your own ideals and views, but rather as a means to an end, a step towards realizing your own ideals while also giving others the opportunity to realize some of theirs. At the same time vocal promises and agreements and use of terms such as preconditions and breaking points are only desirable if you know you can live up to them. As an SP said during an election campaign, “Our standpoints are negotiable, our principles are not.”
A further risk is that compromise becomes easier over time, so that you compromise too easily (giving others the impression that you are bypassing points of principle) or on issues that damage integrity. For that reason SPs should be careful not to let excessive compromise damage their own commitment, leaving them satisfied with dwindling progress. This requires of SPs what Martin Benjamin calls “a creative blend of commitment to particular positions and tolerance of opposing positions.”371