The Rising Nepal, 15 September 2013

"Ethnic identity tends to be exclusive, not inclusive."

You have closely watched Nepal’s ongoing political process. As a conflict resolution expert, how do you see Nepal’s conflict resolution process following a turbulent period in the country’s history?

I have actually not watched the details of Nepal’s ongoing political process that closely. My interest was more in supporting Nepalese who are occupying the “middle space” as citizens who promote dialogue. Nepal has indeed taken great strides since the peace agreement to put the country on the path of peace and development. But I get the sense that, generally speaking, people are worried about the apparent lack of new and creative thinking about how to respond to the ongoing impasse.  

Nepal recently completed integration of former Maoist combatants into Nepal Army that was a part of broader peace process. Isn’t it unique to the world?

It was indeed a huge achievement to integrate combatants into the state’s security apparatus, but it is not unique to Nepal. It has also happened in my own country. 

However, the crucial task of truth revelation and reconciliation has not yet begun. The key players have been divided over the provision of amnesty in a proposed bill aimed at forming the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Some political parties and rights activists have expressed their strong reservation about ‘the blanket amnesty’ provision. Could you share your South African experiences in the reconciliation among the conflicting groups?

You are right that maybe there is still a lot to be done to bring truth to light. For many people the path to reconciliation, which is not a one-off event but rather a life-long journey, starts with the first steps of telling the stories of what actually happened. One can understand the fears of those who fought on the front lines that getting to the bottom of the truth could open up a Pandora's box of demands for justice, but what about those who were on the receiving end? In the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission amnesty was only given to those who could prove that they acted on the basis of a political ideology or struggle (in other words, ordinary criminal deeds did not qualify) and who then disclosed the full truth. Blanket amnesty is not a good idea at all. It will not prevent a repetition of the conflict and it does not help the victims to bring a painful history to a closure. 

There is another contested issue that the conflict-era cases should be dealt through a separate mechanism, i.e. the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. But, when such commission has not been formed and many victims feel they have been deprived of justice and say they could not wait for a long time, can the regular criminal justice system be invoked to give them justice?   

A credible and well-functioning regular criminal justice system only pronounces on who was guilty according to the law. It seldom delivers “justice” in the true sense of the word. It cannot heal relationships and does not restore the equilibrium. A credible alternative is a voluntary process of mediation and dialogue in a restorative justice context. Experienced Nepali community mediators have already mediated 22 000 cases with a 85% success rate. When I asked them why they were involved in the Asia Foundation community mediation programme they all replied that people at local level find much more satisfaction when they are able to resolve conflicts through mediation than when they have to rely on the courts. Maybe the question should be asked how the perpetrators and victims of human rights violations could meet each other at local level in the presence of local mediators to close a painful chapter in our history. It will be painful, but some form of reparation could prove to be one of the most important healing processes that we can undertake. 

South Africa and Nepal have one strong commonality – the diverse ethnicities. The ethnic groups here have demanded the creation of states on the basis of ethnicities in new federal set-up. How did South Africa, known as rainbow country, resolve this issue? Would you offer some insights to our politicians?

South Africa was isolated and its policy of apartheid was declared a crime against humanity for its efforts to establish independent ethnic states. It was only accepted back into the international community after accepting a constitution that emphasizes the human rights of individuals, including their right of free association, respect for religious and cultural diversity, and the supremacy of the rule of law. This constitution enables the rich diversity of people to co-exist fairly harmoniously – though serious problems remain. Nepali politicians could do better than their South African counterparts by emphasizing an inclusive, overarching identity—a Nepali identity—as opposed to an identity of ethnicity, which tends to be exclusive, rather than inclusive. All of us have multiple identities, so why do we have to elevate the ethnic identity at the cost of our common identity as citizens in a sovereign country?

Identity politics has swayed the country’s transitional politics and it was also a factor for the dissolution of the first CA. Is it compatible with the universal values of democracy? How can it be addressed?

Identity politics is a world-wide phenomenon and it is a major source of conflict. However, it does not have to paralyze a country’s political processes. The key is to have deep sambaad, dialogue through which the underlying roots of identity politics can be examined and replaced by values of unity in diversity. The ground rules of sambaad are much different from that of barta or badbibaad.  In the case of barta and badbibaadthe atmosphere is quite often hostile and confrontational. The question is “who is right and who has the most power?” In sambaad we create safe spaces where the question “what does the future ask of us and how can we join hands to achieve that future?” can be explored in depth. It is not a question of giving up our differences, but making our differences a source of strength, rather than a source of division. These are the questions that political leaders should ask. 

The Nepalese political parties demonstrate their own style of dialogue and negotiation. They forge agreements after lengthy debates and discussions. But, they often falter when it comes to the implementation of the accords in letter and spirit. Sometime key parties to the deals backtrack from them under the exterior pressure, posing a question of legitimacy to them? As a practitioner of dialogue facilitation, what do you suggest?

It is necessary to build on what has been working well in the Nepali style of dialogue and negotiation, but, as you rightly point out, there are also shortcomings. I often use the metaphor of the need to “step sideways”, which means that we take time to reflect on the process. Why is implementation weak? Why don’t parties own up to the solutions that were agreed upon?  Maybe stronger emphasis must be put during the negotiation phase on the feasibility of solutions and the political will to implement them. This is a reason for the failure of many peace agreements – almost 50% of all peace agreements. One option is to make use of a professional team of mediators who can ask the appropriate questions and facilitate the type of dialogue that is necessary to produce sustainable solution. 

Nepal is heading toward the second CA polls amidst the threats of ‘violent boycott’ by some parties. How do you see the prospect of getting an inclusive constitution through another CA?

Can Nepal afford to just go through another round of a CA process that is similar to the one that was inconclusive? If not, what needs to change?  This is why, in my view, it would be tremendously helpful if key Nepali role-players could take a step sideways to get consensus on what you have learned from the failure of the previous CA and what needs to change in terms of process. In other words, think process first, then substance and format. One can expect that the substance or issues to be negotiated will be more or less the same, but if the process is creative and more responsive to the tough negotiations that will follow, the chances of success are bigger. 

You have to say anything at last?

Nepal has some of the best minds in the world. Think about the  tremendous potential that can be unlocked when politicians, civil society leaders and economic actors get together to design a Nepali-driven process that is fresh, authentic and forward-looking. This would require an interim suspension of strong ideological positions for the sake of forging consensus on the process. It is not that hard to come up with a few scenarios of what may happen in the future, but if you are in agreement on how to prepare for these scenarios, the what (the issues) can be negotiated safely. I look forward to the day when the international community will again flock to Nepal, not to help you, but to learn from you. Ethnic identity tends to be exclusive, not inclusive"

"Ethnic identity tends to be exclusive, not inclusive." Interview in The Rising Nepal, 15 September 2013

Interview on dialogue in Nepal

MONDAY INTERVIEW IN THE KATHMANDU POST

2 September 2013 

Chris Spies is a mediation practitioner who specialises in the facilitation of dialogue processes in conflict and post-conflict scenarios. A pastor for 10 long years, Spies is Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation and has worked in diverse settings, from Kenya to Guyana and his own South Africa, helping societies come together and hold dialogue. He makes a point of distinguishing dialogue as a very different process from negotiation and emphasises the need for safe spaces where people and issues are heard, instead of just talked about. Here in Nepal under a UNDP programme, Spies has held workshops, consultations and meetings with political leaders, leading editors and civil society leaders on facilitation and dialogue. Akhilesh Upadhyay and Pranaya SJB Rana spoke to Spies in his personal capacity (not as a UNDP personnel) about the need for dialogue in Nepal, the creation of safe spaces and the lessons from post-apartheid South Africa.

What exactly is dialogue and do you see us as a nation that is lacking in dialogue?

People have engaged in dialogue for centuries but somehow we have lost the true meaning of deep listening. In Nepal, when we started exploring the concepts of dialogue, people heard the word barta, which is negotiation. Sometimes, they would even mix up the word badbibad (debate) with dialogue, which is a completely different concept. Both barta and badbibad operate in a context where somebody needs to win and others need to lose. So when we started digging deeper around the word sambad, people said that word is almost dropping out of the vocabulary. In every country, there are two spaces. One is the competition space, which is politics. The rules of that space are that you need to win and often, when you win, somebody else loses. You don’t bring your argument in such a way that others truly listen. So when you provide an alternative space where people can listen with an intent to understand, then you talk with an attitude of inquisitiveness and discovery.

For a nation as fragmented as ours, where do you start this process of sambad, dialogue?

The sad thing is that such processes are often not started unless blood is flowing in the streets. Dialogue is often the last option when things fall apart. One definite point is for key, credible people to stand up and say there is an alternative way that can be explored. Those people, which could also include the media, need to raise the consciousness that we are unable to get out of the trap we are in because we bathe in our pain all the time. An alternative is to create a type of prototype for the future that is different from the others. But as long as people have negative experiences of di-alogue and of feeling humiliated, then your chances of valuing dialogue are not good. In our workshops with politicians, the media, youth leaders and community-level facilitators, what they say is that we have never had a space like this, that this space is special. When we explore why it is special, it comes back to the issue of good process.

International conflict experts more often than not look at a society from a Western political science framework. Do you think this adequately explains the nuances inherent in another nation, such as ours?

I will always be grateful to a Nepali collegue of mine who has been very helpful in reminding me that we are outsiders and do not understand even the first layer of complexity in Nepali society. My knowledge of political science will not get me very far. There is much more of a human element that we could be working with. I was helped in this, ironically, by a book by a political scientist from France, called The Geopolitics of Emotion: How Emotions of Hope, Fear and Humiliation are Shaping World Politics. If you want to look at humiliation, take the former Russian federation or the Muslim world today, which was once a huge influence in the world with culture and moral values. Look at how they are being treated today. If you want to look at hope, you can look at China, India or Malaysia. Things are not perfect but they are picking up, at least there is progress. Their emotion of hope determines the way they do business and interact with the global world. If you want to look at the impact of fear, look at the West and how fear is driving their politics. Coming back to Nepal, you were never colonised but what Nepalis are asking now is: are we being humiliated by our own politicians or by our own neglect? What gives us hope as a nation and how can we generate hope? What are we afraid of and how is fear driving our politics?

Where do you see the mass media fitting into this whole process—of dialogue—if you may?

The media is one of the few places in the country where dialogue can be assisted in a big way. You have the university but that is a very small component. The political field is a winner-take-all system. You have your protest movement but that is an activist voice. So the media is the best mechanism to step into the middle ground and shine a light on different perspectives. If the media can succeed in amplifying voices that are silent then it can serve the wh-ole nation. The media can elevate mudslinging and tit-for-tat debate to a level where people can engage with key driving forces. In Nepal, I have seen thoughtful practitioners and a media that has a tremendous awareness of its role and wants to take the country forward.

Easier said than done, how do create this safe space for dialogue where everyone’s views are listened to?

The first thing to do is to try to achieve the political will to create that space. The secret lies in ongoing conversations with credible people that the politicians will listen to. These type of conversations can help us explore scenarios for the future. Civil society, business and academics need to come together and think process, not so much content. Let me give you an example of what happened in Guyana. There were deep differences between people of African descent and people of Indian descent. But we formed a multi-party process committee whose task was to just think process. They were briefed on the kinds of conversations we had, not what was discussed. After many months, parties agreed to a conflict transformation workshop. Up to the last moment, there was some hesitation because they thought it was a negotiation. But we sat in a circle; there were no opening statements and no speeches. We saw that they rediscovered the ways of being together that they had when they were children and students. They lost this when they became politicians and opponents. They said they wanted this kind of conversation to happen across the country. So in about four months, we had about 141 conversations, which then became a national conversation. Unfortunately, this wasn’t sustained and the programme ended. But think about the potential when the conversation grows from the bottom up, where people can get together about issues that are more pressing than politics—water, climate, violence against women, development and education. The flow of the conversation must be reversed, instead of politicians telling people what they will do, the people themselves must say this is what we want to see happening in the country.

How do you reverse this hierarchy between the people and the politicians?

Politicians worldwide think that they know best. The tool to change this hierarchy lies in citizens finding their own voice in a practical way by organising themselves so that they can call politicians to their meetings instead of only going to meetings that politicians are calling. Another lesson we’ve learned is that it does not help to hammer politicians all the time. The louder you shout, the deafer people become. It is important to understand that in politics, not everyone is a devil and not everyone is an angel. It is not helpful to paint every politician with the same brush.

South Africa has become an international model for truth and reconciliation. How well has it handled the reconciliation component?

The TRC was an important event and the hope was that truth would lead to reconciliation and that justice would prevail. Mandela himself set an example of not hanging on to the past but he has been criticised that he sacrificed economic and social justice on the plate of reconciliation. I’m not sure we could have done it in any other way. If we had not emphasised reconciliation during the early 90s, I think we would’ve fallen apart. My black colleagues and friends would say that there cannot be reconciliation without social and economic justice and I agree with that. Our country is the second most unequal country in the world, next to Brazil. So if you have a majority of people who are still poor and suffering, you cannot talk about reconciliation. They will always look at who has the most, who are the rich and question why are they are still suffering.

Despite all the tremendous progress on electricity, water and healthcare, in terms of poverty and the quality of education, we are not making it. We are in a deep crisis. I think the African National Congress is at a very interesting stage. The tendency to blame apartheid for everything is still there but they can’t be doing that for too long.

Can our political class continue to blame history for long?

They should never have blamed anything on the past. You cannot change anything in the past. You can only learn from it and make things better. Blame tends to put guilt on one side and innocence on the other. It’s more helpful to say we are in this thing together so what can we do as a nation to get out of it. Justice has to be served, you cannot get away with impunity but sometimes there are tough calls to make. Even though what happened was atrocious and mistakes were made, what about our children and grandchildren 15 years from now? What will they blame us for?

Posted on: 2013-09-02 09:22

As secure as the mountains...

The Nepalis have a saying: "No matter what happens, tomorrow the Himalayas will still be there." 

This is how I felt when, amidst all the bad news in the media—worries about strikes, corruption, poo-protests, abuse of power, poverty, the deteriorating situations in Syria—I drove along the False Bay coast between Gordons Bay and Kleinmond, South Africa the other day: The rocks, sea and mountains will still be there. 

But will everyone be able to enjoy them when lives are snuffed out because of poverty, violence and abuse of power?  

Beauty and suffering exist side by side. They are watching each other. And they are watching us. We can't be bystanders.  

Article in Afrikaans on racist incidents at a rugby match. Rapport Weekliks. 11 Aug 2013

This article has been moved to my Afrikaans blog under the title Dronk Ellisparkers maak rugby kyk 'n nagmerrie. It was published in Rapport Weekliks on 11 Aug 2013.

Learning to work with conflict: Just do it!

I am often approach by participants in training workshops who want to talk about their future. They talk about a deep passion to transform destructive conflict somewhere on this planet. 

They usually ask me how I got involved in this field and what they should do to improve their skills.The one point that almost everyone raises is: Where can I learn how to facilitate/mediate?  The conversation inevitably touches on the bizarre phenomenon that while there are plenty academic courses on conflict studies (except, surprisingly, in South Africa), there are very few opportunities for young inexperienced practitioners to get practical hands-on experience. 

The courses that my colleagues and I facilitate provide these rare kind of the opportunities for people to experiment, practice skills and make mistakes in a safe space. People find the methodology, process and contents very inspiring and then they are fired up to make a difference. Discovering how relatively easy it is to dream about possibilities they also begin to believe that they, too, can play a role to shift relationships and create new options for creative responses. 

You don't need to be a psychiatrist to see the spark in their eyes and the spring in their steps. But you also sense that self-doubt and inspiration are often dance partners.  It's like they are on a bicycle where the left leg does the "I want to..." and the right leg does the "Will I be able to...?" cycles. 

The key is not to wait until you're good enough. It will be hard at first, but practice makes possible. 

So here's an excerpt of an email that I recently wrote to a group who attended a course on mediation and dialogue: 

Dear friends and colleagues,

I look back at the past week in Sandö with a spring in my step and a smile on my face. I learned so much from you all and have enjoyed the week tremendously. May we all continue to unfold and grow into our fullest potential, exploring the unexplored, and serving others like a fountain that never runs dry. 

Please do not wait to apply and practice what you have learned because you feel you are good enough. Yehudi Menuhin, the great violinist once said: "There is no such thing as learning how to play a violin. You play a violin and by playing you keep getting better at it." 

So here's my wish for you: Just play, and while you play, listen deeply to how others play. There is no sense in playing when your instrument is not tuned in to others, so listening is our most important skill that we need to improve—not talking! 

Soon the music of peace will fill the world and people will sing instead of cry. They will dance with joy instead of die from hunger, poverty and displacement. Just play and play and play. 

Soon after this email, a Nepali participant replied: 

Dear Chris

Thank you so much for the inspiring email. Indeed the Sando training was a great learning experience. The exchange in Sando motivated me to further dig into what Adam Kahane said ‘the mystery is that we cannot know the future, we can investigate it and influence it, but we cannot calculate it or control it’. As the ‘investigation’ goes along I will continue ‘tune my violin with others’.

It is practice that makes the difference, not trying. Can you hear people tuning their instruments?

Bring in the police researchers and the conflict practitioners

Khadija Patel ‏@khadijapatel recently tweeted "Crunch this. In the month of April, there were 650 protests in Gauteng alone. 40 of them said to be 'violent'." That is 32 every working day. How can the police cope with such explosion of anger? 

I think we can learn from the way the Swedes have taken research and best practices as the major learning tool to improve the way protests are policed, as I've argued in my earlier posts on this blog and in City Press. We simply cannot allow the status quo to continue.

There are good examples out there, such as this piece about the Godiac project that Carsten Alvén ‏@123carre, a dialogue police officer from Sweden forwarded to me: "Recommendations for policing political manifestations in Europe: GODIAC – Good practice for dialogue and communication as strategic principles for policing political manifestations in Europe".

In the introduction the authors explain that "the purpose of the project was to identify and spread good practice in relation to dialogue and communication as strategic principles in managing and preventing public disorder at political manifestations in order to uphold fundamental human rights and to increase public safety at these events in general. The overall idea of the project has been to integrate operative police work, research and training within the field and to build international and institutional networks."

Can the South African Police Service ever win back the trust of protestors?

Andries Tatane’s widow Malehlohonolo Tatane said she “would never trust a police officer again”. Her husband died at the hands of police during a service delivery protest march in Ficksburg when, according to the findings of the South African Human Rights Commission, the police used excessive force and violated many of Tatane’s rights, including his right to protest and his right to life. The protest was not about police action, but the police eventually had blood on their hands. 

With an estimated 3000 protests having taken place the last four years, South Africa has one of the highest number of service delivery protests in the world.  According to Leadership magazine, “the interaction between the protesting residents and the local councilors, national government and police, seems to indicate widespread collapse of systems and structures as well as growing distrust”. 

This assessment was unfortunately reinforced when footage of the killing of protestors in Marikana and images of people being dragged by police vehicles went viral on the internet. As the whole world looked on in shock at our police brutality, police commissioner Riah Piyega defended the police brutality and said there was no need to apologise to Marikana miners.  

Given our exposure to violent protests, why is the South African Police Service (SAPS) not the world leader in the policing of violent protests? By now we should have been at the forefront of knowledge, experience and reputation as far as de-escalation of violent protests is concerned.

There was a time when we were leaders in this respect. Now we have to look with some jealousy at, for example, what a country like Sweden is doing.

Sweden also experienced violent protests in the city of Gothenburg in 2001. The Swedish police were completely caught off-guard and realised that it needed a different form of policing to prevent violence during protests. They embarked on a renewal mission and asked researchers to help them find answers. 

This process led to the development of a successful model to policing protests, which included the establishment of a Dialogue Police Unit whose ultimate goal is to facilitate freedom of speech and the right to demonstrate. Their emphasis is on de-escalation, minimizing violence against the police and other groups, and preventing damage to property.

Dialogue police adopted a new mindset.  Protestors are no longer seen as law-breakers, criminals and enemies, but as equal fellow-citizens and partners whose human and constitutional rights and dignity have to be protected at all cost. Police officers see themselves as “gateways to trust” and, consequently, as communicators, negotiators, mediators, facilitators, problem solvers and monitors in the first place, and appliers of law and order only when the first approach is not appropriate any more. 

“When you respect people’s right to express their views you build trust and a space to open dialogue,” according to Carsten Alven, a Swedish dialogue police officer. “You’ve got to give police and protestors reason to trust each other. When you don’t trust you don’t give others the responsibility to show you are worthy of trust.” 

How did the Swedes manage to change the mindsets of police officers? 

There are three key reasons for their success: they valued field studies; in all projects they worked collaboratively in partnerships with practitioners, trainers and researchers; and they focused on communication between key stakeholders before, during and after protests. 

In reality police officers had to develop a communicative mindset and an ability to de-escalate conflicts through listening to counterparts. 

Alven explains that “police train how to give orders and take command of situations, but not so much how to really listen and how to engage in a genuine dialogue.”

Real dialogue requires good information, solid networks and open communication channels within the police and with outside partners so that, when a protest occurs, everybody is connected and prepared for any event. 

Before the event police would typically meet with all key stakeholders, especially the leaders of the protest action, in a spirit of “how can we help you to have a successful and non-violent protest, which is your right? And how can all of us respect one another’s dignity and rights and show this through responsible behaviour?” 

Is this scenario possible in the current South African context? Of course is it possible. In fact, during the National Peace Accord (1991-1994) we did exactly what Sweden is now credited for: preventing violence through negotiation, mediation and facilitation.

I had the privilege of working for the Western Cape Regional Peace Committee and vividly remember many occasions where civil society activists, peace workers, political parties and the security forces met to share information, design strategies to defuse tensions and forge consensus on tactics and logistics. Police commanders learned not to exclude “outsiders”, but to seek their advice and assistance, without which the police would never have been able to de-escalate tensions. 

Even in situations where the police themselves were the source of the problems they subjected themselves to be held accountable by the peace committees. 

We may not have had a Dialogue Police Unit like the Swedes, but we had strong institutionalised infrastructures for peace on the ground with a mandate from the National Peace Accord (NPA). Everybody joined hands with a common purpose: to combat violence nonviolently towards a peaceful transition. We succeeded and that is what the world credited us for. 

So why did we not continue from there to transform into the best civilian and civilized police service in the world?  

The reference to the Swedish example does definitely not suggest that the West or Europe is setting the standard here. On the contrary. We were the ones who had set a standard for the rest of the world in 1994, but now we are so far behind.  

Many of my former colleagues—researchers, practitioners and trainers—in the NPA structures continued to work with the police in these capacities but since Jackie Selebi’s appointment as National Police Commissioner, they found themselves excluded.  Police management has been far less willing to work with “outsiders” than before. This is a bizarre development which defies logic and does make sense. 

Why on earth would you deprive yourselves of learning from others? And why would you sideline your own fellow-citizens whose purpose it was to help SAPS grow into the most experienced and sophisticated police service in the world?

If the police want to win back the trust of South Africans it needs to pause, learn and unlearn a few things. It is time that South Africans hold the Minister and the National Commissioner of Police and her team accountable to do the following:

Firstly, invite South African practitioners, trainers and researchers to help you succeed. There is a wealth of experience and knowledge in this country and abroad. 

Secondly, call the best minds in the country together to design a kind of “Operation Restore Trust and Safety”— a comprehensive turn-around strategy that is based on solid research, sound theories and practices, and aligned with constitutional and basic human values and principles. 

Thirdly, acknowledge and apologise for the mistakes of the past and spell out clear principles and strategies to prevent a repetition.  

Fourthly, catch police officers doing things right and reward them as role-models.

Fifthly, all police officers should be trained to listen to and build relationships with the public, especially those with a potential for violent protests.  As the tagline for the movie Babel says “If you want to be understood, listen.” 

Sixthly, reorientate police towards prevention and de-escalation instead of only enforcing law and order. 

It will be a long journey, but trust can be restored. It depends on leadership. 

Can police and protestors solve a common problem? Interview with Carsten Alven, a Dialogue Police Officer in Sweden

8 February 2013

After the Gothenburg riots in 2001, the Swedish Police realised that they needed to develop a new tactical approach to manage protests and crowds. Eventually a new tactical unit, the so-called Dialogue Police Unit, was established. 

Stefan Holgersson and Johannes Knutsson describe the goal of the Swedish Dialogue Police as follows: 

"By using a counterpart perspective, the police want to avoid actions that cause escalation. The aim is to achieve de-escalation. In this connection, dialogue police officers have an important function. Their task is to establish contact with the demonstrators before, during, and after the demonstration and to act as a link between the organizers of the events and the police commanders. Compared to the old tactic, the new uses a number of situational techniques that are known to have preventive effects. A dilemma for the dialogue police officers is pressure from the commanders to act as intelligence officers. Another is that other officers may be skeptical to their role. Development over time suggests, however, increasing acceptance." Dialogue Policing - a Means for Less Crowd Violence? Stefan Holgersson, Stockholm Police Department Johannes Knutsson, Norwegian Police University College.

I have had the privilege of working with Carsten Alven, a Dialogue Police Officer, on several occasions and interviewed him recently at Arlanda Airport in Stockholm: 

The last time I saw you you were on your way to Gotland to mediate in an environmental protest. How did it go?

Yes, after I got home from the workshop I had only one hour to pack and then took the ferry to the island. There was a stand off between local and environmental activists and a mining company at a stone quarry. The farming community and a large part of the population on the island supported the action. I did not have much sleep that night, because early the next morning I was informed that the newly arrived Greenpeace activists had chained themselves to the trucks and bulldozers.

So what did you do?

We talked to the protesters about their aims. They said that not least they wanted media attention, which we then tried to help them arrange. The media interviewed them and published the stories online. I showed them the media coverage on my iPad and asked them whether they were satisfied that some of their aims were achieved. Some of them then unchained themselves.

And what about the the rest?

The police removed the chains and they were arrested. 

But how did the arrest of protestors influence your role as dialogue police?

One has to draw the distinction between legality and legitimacy. Whilst the police acted according to the law by arresting the protesters, we as dialogue police acknowledged the fact that the protesters had legitimate concerns. When you respect people’s right to express their views you build trust and a space to open dialogue. It is a fact that that laws keep changing. What was illegal a couple of years ago is now legal and vice versa. People have the right to question and oppose legislation, but if they break the law they will face the consequences. When the police only focus on the law without regard for people’s concern about the legitimacy of the laws they do not contribute to any solutions. The focus then becomes on apprehending the law-breakers.

So when police are only wearing their professional jacket instead of also their “human” jackets they miss the opportunity to connect to people as citizens with rights?

Yes, they then tend to see people as law-breakers, criminals and “enemies” instead of creating the notion of a common problem that needs to be solved together. 

Narrative therapy conveys the message that people are never the problem. The problem is the problem and what needs to be resolved is our relationship with the problem. 

Carsten: In this case the problem is respecting the rights of everyone involved to express themselves. The answer lies in the conversations—dialogue—to arrive at a common solution to a common problem. Most police do not put enough effort to invest in the quest for a solution to the common problem. They don’t see it as their role to bridge the gap. 

So how do you as dialogue police influence your colleagues to approach matters in a different way?

We are in regular discussions with my colleagues. The current debate is about how to increase police efficiency. For them it means that more people should be charged and convicted. The current conviction rate is about 15%, which does not reflect well on the police. While one would argue that their primary function is to prevent crime, they are more interested in getting people convicted. One example is that they rejected a proposal to warn motorists on returning ferries not to drive while under the influence of alcohol. A proposal to notify motorists to that effect and to offer assistance in finding alternative drivers for them was rejected. No, the police would much rather let them drive 400 meters and then arrest them for driving under the influence of alcohol. That, in my view, is not crime prevention. But it looks good on the reports and police need to show that they are winning the fight against crime, but are they?

So you’re concerned that the police only focus on the negative things?

Precisely. Instead of strengthening the forces of society to create the common good for all, they choose to be reactive and punish people. It is easier to illustrate how many people you have arrested than to illustrate what you have prevented. Police are measured by the number of convictions, but convictions do not prevent crime and do not heal the effects of crime. The role models of police are the images of brave men and women on the frontline apprehending criminals and protecting the public. Because this role model is so deeply engraved in police culture, very few realise that the whole point of policing is that it should not be necessary to reach that frontline. Preventing crime does not make you a hero. You may get credit for mediating in tough situations, but all the hard work that goes into prevention—the many hours of building relationships, assessing the situation, putting proactive systems in place, etc.—is not public and newsworthy. The fact that you prevented violent clashes is not recognised, because the clashes never happened.

So prevention does not mean that you want to prevent people from demonstrating/

Not at all. In fact, you actually encourage people to express their views and feelings. You do not try to suppress it. And even more, you actively help people to make the demonstration as successful as possible. For example, in the Gotland stand-off, police blocked the road 1.5 km from the demonstration site to prevent the farmers of blocking the only road to the quarry first and thereby making it impossible for the police to reach the demonstration. It was a hot day and many people came out in support of the protest action. We as dialogue police helped to arrange transport for the elderly folks who could not walk the distance and we made sure there was enough water to drink. 

So your first response is to treat people with respect?

Of course. The first response should always be to respect people and their civil liberties. This does not always happen in the police, unfortunately. Police tend to violate people’s rights to choose where and when they want to protest and then confine them to an area far away from the site of action.

But is that not a good thing?  In South Africa we experience many violent demonstrations. The most recent one was the farm worker strikes in the fruit producing Western Cape. When the protestors roamed the streets and roads in December a lot of property was destroyed and violence was used. When the strikes resumed in January, the loss of property was less because the police contained the strikers to residential areas, away from the farms and factories. 

It seems like the rules of the game are perfectly clear to the activists and that they act logically by adhering to those rules. People use violence because they see that as the only way they can get the attention of authorities. Once people understand this as the rules, then they play within those rules and even go beyond that. When the society is able to change the rules to make non-violent protests achieve the desired results the situation can be resolved constructively, but if police react with violence it is familiar territory for the protestors and they will respond with violence.  Violence between police and protesters is often a case of misunderstanding. To a bystander, a crowd might well seem to behave irrationally, while at the same time behaving perfectly rationally in the view of the participants. 

We live in a violent society where the political and socio-economic temperature flares up to the point of spontaneous combustion. Violence spreads like a wild fire in summer time and the actions are often spontaneous, uncoordinated, leaderless, hard to influence and very susceptible to opportunistic political or criminal infiltration. The police can only step in to “restore law and order”, which entails traditional public order policing methods such as rubber bullets, teargas and sometimes live ammunition as in Marikana. 

You cannot take out an insurance policy when your car is already on fire. Likewise, you cannot expect to prevent violence when violence has flared up already. The bulk of prevention happens prior to the action. That is the time when you should have your ear on the ground, meeting with key leaders in the sector and discuss ways to ensure that people express themselves peacefully.  A real challenge with this focus on prevention is that most organizations are reluctant to spend money if on prevention of things they don’t even know will ever occur. Policing is not about putting out fires. It is about preventing the fires from starting in the first place. That requires the involvement of the whole society. You cannot only hold the police responsible and blame them when fires break out and things go wrong. 

Are you also saying that police are like someone who only has a hammer and that every situation is a potential nail?

Precisely. If you have only one tool you tend to try to be on the lookout for situations where you can use that tool. That kills creativity. And creativity is needed if we are to change police culture and the culture the society and how they look at themselves and the police. 

What is the profile of the dialogue police in the rest of the Swedish police? Do you get the support that you need?

The rank and file are not convinced that our approach is effective to prevent crime. The top leadership supports us, but we do not get the financial support we need. We were supposed to attend a potentially explosive demonstration between two opposing ideological political groups the other day, but there was no money to deploy us. When the dialogue police unit was established in 2001 after the riots in Gothenburg in response to an EU summit and a visit by US President GW Bush,  there was a lot of growth and excitement about the results of the first dialogue policing attempts. That awareness of why dialogue policing was so effective has subsided somewhat. Having said that, we are expanding the focus areas from the original political, religious and ethnic conflicts to hooliganism and sport fan clubs. Three of my colleagues and I are departing tomorrow for Berlin to exchange ideas on how to prevent fan club violence. 

We get a lot of support from foreign academics who come to Sweden for research. There is scientific evidence that we are effective. 

So what is your strategy to influence your colleagues?

It is a struggle. For example, police typically don’t make a distinction between the person and the behaviour. They would blame us for having coffee with or meeting a “trouble maker”. We then tell them that while we do not agree with the behaviour, that individual has exactly the same rights and freedoms as everyone else and that needs to be respected. When you enter into a conversation with someone you move beyond the behaviour to ask about intentions. What does he/she want to achieve? What values are important to you? Can we jointly find alternative ways of meeting your needs and aspirations? Are different outcomes possible while you still achieve your goals?

There has been a shift already. In the past the focus was on protecting the public order. Now the focus is on protection of civil liberties and democratic values. It is not an empty slogan. The priority should be on civil liberties, not the protection of public order. 

I’m not so sure that one is more important than the other, especially in the South African context where public violence and destruction of property and lives are so prevalent…

You’ve got to give police and protestors reason to trust each other. When you don’t trust you don’t give others the responsibility to show you are worthy of trust. The way to build trust is to dialogue. The beauty of dialogue is that you take part in it voluntarily. You become the architect of  your own future and the protector of the solutions. 

But dialogue has to also address the issue of power? You know the saying that power is like cow manure. When you heap it up it stinks, but when you spread it out it fertilizes the fields. 

In police academies all over the world the police train how to give orders and take command of situations, but not so much how to really listen and how to engage in a genuine dialogue. So police is used to give orders and tell people what to do. When tasked to engage with their clients they now need to share power and that is not easy. When you seek solutions with others through dialogue they also need to have the power to propose and act differently. That is often hard for police to accept, especially if you view people as subjects who need to be disciplined. 

It looks as if you are really good at building relationships with the public and the potential capacities for friction in society, but are you paying sufficient attention to dialogue in the police service?

It is hard to engage in real, genuine dialogue with your peers and police management. We need to put in as much effort to internal dialogue as external dialogue. I don’t quite know how to rectify this. For example, the criminal intelligence unit wants to use dialogue for intelligence purposes. They consider every carrier of information intelligence, and expect us to gather intelligence for them and upload our information into the intelligence software. For us as dialogue police information and intelligence need to be separated. We need a separate information gathering system. We can’t use dialogue as our source for intelligence gathering. Intelligence gathering methods are bound to create mistrust and suspicion. All of our work could be ruined. 

Coming back to the internal dialogue issue, surely it is possible to nurture relationships of trust with key senior people who would be your advocates and champions?

There is unfortunately no internal dialogue insofar as this matter is concerned. The gains that we made by demilitarising the police after the 2001 Gothenburg riots came as a result of rigorous internal debate. We were part of the innovation and inventions. Unfortunately dialogue died out after that. Now we are just part of the status quo. 

And how is that linked to the “police culture”?

There is a saying that culture eats strategy for breakfast. The strength of dialogue is that it can broaden the conversation about how we do things and how we understand the situation to include not only the police but also the public. It is hard for those who are defined by the group culture to reinvent themselves and to be creative in changing the culture. Police culture, in particular, has thicker walls than most other cultures because there is so much at stake: public and political pressure, history, uniforms, hierarchy, expectations to see robust and tough people on the frontline, pride and loyalty are all contributing to the DNA of police culture. That culture does not stay in the police environment. Police carry that culture into their personal and public spheres. Anyone who challenges “the system” is seen as a trouble maker and a threat who is best dealt with by isolating and ostracising him or her. 

So, for many police, dialogue is seen as a short term response to a crisis instead of a longer term approach to achieve lasting solutions. You don’t build a career by investing time and energy into lower profile behind the scenes longer-term work, but through short term impact with high visibility. Nor do you build a career by advocating for change. This is also the case with politicians whose attention is mostly focus on getting re-elected at the next election. There is little traction to prioritise longer-term strategic thinking and proactive action. 

Maybe the conversations could shift the focus from career (what’s in it for me) to legacy (what’s ultimately the benefit for society)?

I come back to the point of how do we shift the rules of the game? How do we make it beneficial to my career to work for dialogue?  For that we need genuine dialogue!  I’ve been thinking of writing a book on this. 

There is no better time than now to start!