Discourse and bargaining are distinct legitimate modes of political agreement

Evidence

Clarifying preferences is, of course, the first step in every political discourse; at the same time, discourses justify the expectation that the parties should examine their initial preferences in the course of deliberation and also change them in the light of better reasons. This condition enables us to distinguish cases of deliberative opinion and will formation from compromises. Discourses have an epistemic dimension because they create room for arguments to exert their preference-altering force, whereas compromises, which are negotiated between power-wielding partners in the currency of reciprocal concessions or shared benefits, leave existing preferences unaffected. Both discourses and bargaining are legitimate ways of reaching political agreements. One must pay attention to the kind of issue under discussion in order to establish whether an agreement should be sought along the epistemic paths of discourse or via the route of negotiation. — Jürgen Habermas, A New Structural Transformation of the…, 59

Categorization

• DEFINE: Precise boundary: discourses alter preferences through reasons, compromises leave them intact – a crisp two-track model of political agreement.
• XREF: connects to: Conflict situations are essentially bargaining situations — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 21

Broader Connections

• Conflict situations are essentially bargaining situations #qualifies (0.80) — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 21