Final answer:
Siddig is conflict-averse, often maintaining the status quo by avoiding difficult negotiations. His approach reflects challenges in political problem-solving, where vested interests in current policies can impede change.
Step-by-step explanation:
Siddig's avoidance of conflict and reluctance to engage in challenging negotiations could best describe him as conflict-averse or possibly as a conciliator who seeks to maintain harmony over confrontation. In the context of political negotiations, which entail a combination of persuasion, compromise, and sometimes less savory tactics like intimidation or improper deal-making, Siddig's approach might often result in maintaining the status quo.
Typically, political bargaining can lead to three outcomes: collapse of negotiations with the status quo prevailing, compromise which can be criticized as selling out, or continuing conflict. Siddig might try to side-step contentious issues, aiming to keep discussions amiable but potentially avoiding the difficult confrontations necessary to enact change.
It's important to note that this approach might not effectively address the root causes of a problem. In political contexts, those who benefit from existing circumstances can be resistant to change, making it harder for new policies or reforms to be accepted. Effective problem-solving in such scenarios might require different strategies. Alternatives might include focusing on shared goals, seeking smaller incremental changes, or finding common ground on less contentious issues before addressing larger ones.