In the Shade of the Palaver Tree

Derrik Marco's comments on my piece "Dialogue without contest: A table has no podium." refers to the conflict resolution practice in the Shade of the Palaver Tree. He kindly provided the link to the article by UNESCO Courier journalist Jasmine Sopova. The site is: http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_05/uk/signes/txt2.htm. Derrick writes: Your request (for dialogue spaces -- ed.) is so timely - especially since the new challenges we face in SA."

Dialogue without contest: A table has no podium.

"All wars eventually end where they should have been prevented in the first place: around a table", said Kenneth Daniels, a Guyanese, to me one day. How true!  So what will it take to foster a culture of talking instead of fighting?  How can we in South Africa rediscover the value of dialogue at the table instead of jumping on podiums? How can we use our mouths differently? Do all our spaces for interaction have to become battlefields for power?  Thinking about Zimbabwe and most other conflict areas I wonder why dialogue is in most cases the absolute last option, after everything else has failed? In South Africa we have a different story on which we can build.

In the 80s and 90s there was a very healthy democratic culture in the liberation struggle in South Africa. Eventually even the apartheid government, thank goodness, had to realise the value of dialogue. Throughout this period lively debates and negotiations (we talk because we have to)  happened alongside a growing culture of dialogue (we talk because we want to). Pregs Govender wrote a couple of years ago in the Mail and Guardian about the value of and respect for "collective thinking” in the African National Congress that she admired so much. Creative ideas and counter ideas were generated and, through respectful deliberations, the best ideas of the collective were accepted and acted upon. Bold decisions were taken and people could commit to decisions because they felt valued and consulted. Many people in the country, I think, credited our transition to democracy partly to the fact that the people of South Africa refused to let go of one another. There was a strong awareness of the spirit and ideals of the Freedom Charter and our new constitution paved the way for people to trust that their rights, alongside the rights of all our people, would be protected and their dreams realized.

However, the spirit and culture of democracy has been seriously eroded over the last 10 years.  "Collective thinking" was sacrificed on the altar of "group thinking", which means that those people who were closest to the views of the centre of power in the executive prevailed over others who had different views.  Here the examples of HIV-denial and the way the executive dealt with Zimbabwe come to mind.  Peter Senge and co authors write about groupthink in Presence, (p31-21) as follows: "The Voice of Judgment can stifle creativity for groups as surely as for individuals.  It is what we typically call 'groupthink', the continual albeit often subtle, censoring of honesty and authenticity in a team. The collective Voice of Judgment tells people what they should and shouldn't say, do and even think.  Often, its effects become evident only in retrospect…"

Parliament -- mostly a forum for heckling and very seldom a forum for dialogue -- lost much of its oversight capacity over time because MPs could not dare to break ranks.  A culture of fear to speak your mind and to criticise the dominant and powerful voices discouraged independent thinking and action. This situation was exacerbated by weakened organisational structures of the ANC and civic organisations on the ground.  In the 80s and 90s the ANC and United Democratic Front (UDF) had structures on the ground that dealt effectively with short term crises and medium and longer-term ground-swell issues that arose.  It was therefore, for example, possible for the ANC and its partners to contain the mass anger over the assassination of Chris Hani and to prevent the outbreak of full-scale revenge attacks because there was strong leadership at national, regional and local levels. This is no longer the case.  The scale and impact of the recent outbreak of xenophobic attacks were most devastating in communities were there were no or weak leadership structures or mechanisms. Government watched helplessly as people who are protected under our constitution were fleeing their attackers with no one to run to. 

Before and during the 1994 elections the tensions were far worse than today, but there was a very a very important safety-valve mechanism in place: The National Peace Accord (NPA) structures at national, regional and local levels.  The National Peace Secretariat, Regional and Local Peace Committees were inclusive, credible and agile forums that provided people a safe physical and process space to mediate and facilitate solutions to thousands of potentially destructive conflicts.  They used dialogue, joint problem solving and monitoring. Ordinary people had an opportunity to discuss issues threatening peace.  Politicians and police, government and NGOs, religious and cultural leaders, housewives and business executives collectively held one another accountable. There was a sense of ownership of  processes that affected them.  

Since the disbanding of the National Peace Accord structures and the conclusion of the negotiations for a new constitution there have been virtually no safe spaces for creative and generative dialogue and cohesion-building. That is, in my opinion, one of the main reasons for the growing intolerance and xenophobic attacks.  Where do people meet without defending or attacking each other?  And where do people explore ways to overcome problems in spaces that are free of political contest?  Radio talk stations are doing a fantastic job in amplifying people's voices, but  in itself it has little potential to change behaviour because people are not meeting fact to face. There are very few safe spaces where people can meet and dialogue in the absence of politicians who push group thinking.  We have lost the spaces to connect to each other with the sole purpose of building a cohesive society.  People are caught between ignorance and fear, without hope-giving and enlightened guidance and inspiration by leaders, on the one hand, and without access to constructive processes, on the other hand. 

This is where I would like to invite you to explore me some ideas on how to help turn this situation around.  How do we work towards the design and facilitation of safe spaces in ways that are empowering and reconciling? How does one help leaders and ordinary people to separate politically contested spaces (which is the arena for party politics and the current default style of discourse in and via the media) from safe spaces where people can explore ways to "see with fresh eyes"? How do we stimulate dialogue at various levels? How do we build cohesive societies that are working together to overcome the hurts of the past? How can we reclaim the momentum and right to determine the direction of processes that impact on poverty alleviation, economic growth and socio-economic development? Who needs to talk, how and when?

Is it time for a new round of scenario building processes along the same lines as the Mont Fleur scenarios during the early 90s?  I'm sure some private sector companies are undertaking research into scenarios, which is helpful, but I think we need an inclusive process that involves polity, business and civil society. 

Isn't it time to seriously engage with one another on how to ensure that South Africa leads the way to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and sustainable development and that our progress does not depend on whether whether Mbeki or Zuma is president?  

How do we build a common understanding of what sustainable development is?  Nicanor Perlas, in my opinion, gives a crucial perspective on and framework for sustainable development in his book "Shaping Globalization. Civil Society, Cultural Power and Threefolding".   Sustainable development, he says, has seven dimensions: Spiritual Development, Human Development, Social Development, Cultural Development, Political Development, Economic Development, and Ecological Development. I particularly like this framework because it goes beyond the usual focus on economic and political stability.  In all the other six dimensions we are seriously lacking.  

What we need is generative dialogue: conversations that will help us generate something new, something that goes beyond what is there for all to see.  

The question is how to make the dream of Sharunas Paunksnis  a reality:  “Today, the voice of power is much louder than the voice of dialogue, and our hope is that someday the latter will dominate both politics and public perception.”

I look forward to tap into your wisdom, so please leave a comment below.

The Accra Agenda for Action -- one further step towards aid effectiveness

In my work with politicians, business, civil society and international organisations I'm often struck by how few people know about agreements between developing countries and donor countries and organisations on how to ensure that aid is delivered more effectively.  In some cases people say "I have heard about the Paris Declaration, but they cannot recall ever using it in their work.  A new chapter has now been added to this process in the form of the Accra Agenda for Action.  "Ministers of developing and donor countries responsible for promoting development and Heads of multilateral and bilateral development institutions met in Ghana on 4 September 2008 and endorsed the Accra Agenda for Action, to accelerate and deepen implementation of the Paris Declaration

on Aid Effectiveness (2 March 2005)." 

The signatories of the Accra Agenda for Action say they are committed to eradicating poverty and promoting peace and prosperity by building stronger, more effective partnerships that enable developing countries to realise their development goals. Progress has been made, but not enough as more than "1.4 billion people—most of them women and girls—still live in extreme poverty,1 and access to safe drinking water and health care remains a major issue in many parts of the world." But one of the most important reasons why aid is not effective is defragmentation.  In Scramble for Africa the Economist provides chilling evidence of how ineffective aid is, despite all the "generosity of the West" -- a questionable statement, to say the least. The article is a must read.

Learn from the San People!

In 1997 I was privileged to work with the San people in the Kgalagadi desert.  We had a workshop where internal leadership struggles in the San community surfaced as a major issue.  I asked them to make a drawing of what peace looks like.  Without hesitation two people, one on each side of a flipchart on the ground, started to draw this picture.  Explaining this to the rest of us, they said:  "People are spiritual beings.  That's why we don't draw feet. And we're all connected to the animals.  Hence the animal heads.  Peace happens when people who are ready to fight pause; put down their weapons on the ground; sit down and talk to each other; and then exchange their weapons to seal the peace."  Remarking that they had painted only three phases, I asked them what would the fourth phase be.  They said: "We will only draw one person, because the two of them are one now." 

Isn't the courage to talk instead of fight the first step to peace?  And why can't all wars be prevented in the same manner as most of them end: through dialogue?

Kinders, moenie met die water mors nie! / Don't upset the water!

Ek lees nou die dag in 'n boek van Peter Senge met die titel "Presence" van Professor Masaru Emoto se navorsing oor hoe water kristalle reageer op iets soos musiek en gebed. Dit was 'n kopswaai-oomblik toe ek besef dat water ook lewe is en dat water reageer op emosies en gedagtes.  Prof Emoto was hierdie week in Suid Afrika.  Gaan lees gerus hieroor by http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-09-04-dont-upset-the-water en http://www.zerisa.org/Photo_Gallery_Images_of_Water_crystals.html.

I recently read in "Presence" by Peter Senge of Professor Masaru Emoto's research on the impact of our thoughts on the reality of how water crystals are affected.  It was a real eye opener to realise that water is life and that it can react to emotions and thoughts.  Prof Emoto visited South Africa this week. You can read more about this at  http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-09-04-dont-upset-the-water and http://www.zerisa.org/Photo_Gallery_Images_of_Water_crystals.html.

Annatjie en Chris Spies

Vandag, 7 September, sou my ma 80 gewees het. Sy is kort op 10 Februarie 1981, een week voor my verjaardag,  in 'n motorongeluk naby Swellendam dood.  My kinders het nooit die voorreg gehad om hierdie besondere mens te ken nie!  Sy sal vir altyd in ons herinneringe bly lewe.  My pa is op 23 Februarie 2006 ook in 'n motorongeluk op die N2 dood.  Ons eer hulle nalatenskap. 

Today, 7 September, my mother would have turned 80 years.  She died on 10 February 1981, one week before my birthday, in a motor car accident near Swellendam.  My children never had the privilege of knowing their unique and beautiful  grandmother.  We salute her and cherish her legacy. My dad also died in a motor car accident on the N2 on 23 February 2006.  They will always be honoured for their love and legacies.