to act with maximum care , not to give the opposition parties the opportunity to destabilize the situation and weaken his position . Moreover , in the countries with a strong civil society constantly involved in monitoring the actions of the leaders , specifically regarding the negotiation process , the leader is also prone to act less reckless and be more restricted in his strategies and actions in the course of the negotiation process . When striving to stay in the office in a state with a welldeveloped civil society , free , fair and regular election practices , the leader would be focused on preserving electoral support ( Ghosn 2010 , 1055 ). The initiation of the peace process has the potential to be perceived critically by the public and other political forces and institutions that have issues with accepting and supporting the peace process and strong opposition at the domestic level can be formed . In a case when the public struggles with accepting the concessions and compromises initiated , the leader can be framed as a traitor who is bargaining on national interests and is betraying the whole nation ( Rosler 2016 , 46 ). Thus , to avoid such a destiny in a democratic country with a well-developed election system , civil society and active political life of the state , the leader would be more restricted in his actions and more careful about the expressed positions in the course of the negotiation process . In autocratic systems with failing election system , being neither competitive , free nor fair , with a lack of checks and balances , and an absence of public monitoring of the leaders` actions in the negotiation process , the leader can take more controversial and unexpected actions , and agree to publicly hurtful concessions to move the negotiation process forward ( Irragori 2011 , 94 ).
The personal beliefs and values of the leaders can significantly influence the decisions made by leaders in the course of the negotiation process , either moving it forward and reaching outstanding results or stagnating and even degrading the process . It is widely accepted in academia that some leaders “ are better negotiators than the others as a gift from nature and culture ” ( Ghosn 2010 , 1058 ). The individual and psychological characteristics of the leader are assumed to have a significant impact developed by the leader in the negotiation process . Some leaders , due to their personal characteristics , are more prone to apply an individualistic style of negotiations when they take an active part in the negotiation process , becoming involved in all the phases of the negotiations by themselves , limiting the possibilities for other political officials to step in and influence the negotiation process ( Ghosn 2010 , 1058 ). However , others are more prone to use the group negotiation style when leaders rely more on group discussions in the negotiation process and create possibilities for other political actors to get involved in the process . Due to individual and psychological characteristics , some leaders
47