Is the UN keeping up with the most recent approaches to building peace? Reflections of a loyal practitioner.

My reflections on the question of whether the UN really stays at the cutting edge of peacebuilding theory and practice come from a deep commitment to and appreciation for the UN, who needs to be commended for taking major strides in improving its effectiveness and efficiency.

These reflections are not comprehensive. In fact, they are quite narrow and were inspired by reading  the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review of the United Nations (QPCR) and the Open Working Group proposal for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) together with the White Paper on Peacebuilding (WPP),  Major Recent Trends in Violent Conflict and the Guidance for Effective Mediation.

There is concern amongst my peers in the peacebuilding field that the UN needs to move closer to the "thriving field of practice and underused capabilities" that the WPP points to. There is a real danger that while the UN recognises the fundamental principle of national ownership it actually achieves the opposite—the disempowerment of local and professional capabilities—and that it is less effective than it should be. 

Let me explain this in more detail.

Despite its best efforts, the UN is often compromised as a result of poor implementation because it seems to (maybe unconsciously?) neglect the notion that peace should be built by those who are affected by it—not by high level diplomats and mediators alone. The focus should always be on whether those who are affected by conflict are better able to build peace themselves as a result of our efforts. 

The UN, however, is not the only casualty.  Regional organisations and INGOs are also struggling to make the shift from good theory to solid implementation:  

"Over the last 20 years, peacebuilding practice has grown in extent and professionalism. Much of this practice involves the use of dialogue, trust-building, and consensus-seeking processes to resolve or manage conflict through non-violent means. However, despite the growth in experience, peacebuilding practice is often poorly implemented." (WPP)

One of the reasons for the poor implementation, the WPP says, maybe an institutional one: 

"...there is a lack of confidence in institutions that prepare for and address risks to peace. The background papers illustrate that the practice of many UN institutions has become increasingly driven by institutional incentives. This trend … highlights that the incentive to maintain and fund a specific institution, mandate, department or position has tended to trump the purpose of said institution or department. This incentive has made institutions less agile to adapt to changing contexts and has fortified professional silos around different concepts. In some contexts, this has also led to a gap between institutional practices and local needs for peacebuilding support.”

If the UN wants to remain relevant in terms of being an effective peacebuilding institution, it needs to shift its institutional approaches and practices closer to the wisdom emerging from the peacebuilding field of practice. It has to take its stated commitment to national ownership much more seriously. It simply has to listen better. That is the essence of process wisdom.

I am hearing from several UN staffers and civil society peacebuilders on the ground that their best advice is often ignored at the higher level of the UN, e.g. by special envoys or high level mediators.  The ideas and proposals of local peacebuilders seem to weigh far less than the position papers of analysts, diplomats or mediators. Insider mediators, professional and local peacebuilders on the ground—although being in the best position to understand and influence the context—often find themselves excluded from the tables where deals are negotiated. And too often are the agendas and proposals for solutions suggested by outsiders who have in interest in either the conflict or in getting credit for possible agreements.

Like fish that don't know any other environment than the water they swim in, high level mediators and negotiators often cannot recognise realities that are different from their own. They find it hard to narrow the gap between the current “high level efforts by eminent envoys” and the inclusion of wisdom from the ground, as White Paper on Peacebuilding and Major Recent Trends in Violent Conflict documents suggest. If locals complain that they find it hard to access high level mediators and that when they succeed in meeting them, they are given little time. They get the impression that  Geneva or New York's agenda is more important than their own.

In my view the UN too often seeks to take ownership of the responsibility to solve the problem (e.g. the Annan plan, the Brahimi plan, the De Mistura plan, etc.) without there being any substantial evidence that local actors are sufficiently empowered to take the lead. (An exception to this was when Kofi Annan worked very closely with civil society in Kenya to end the political violence in 2008.)  If the UN gets stuck in a paradigm of high-level—what used to be known as Track I—style peacebuilding, which is showing up as not very applicable and effective in most socio-political settings, the focus will always be on the profile of the mediator or the prominence of the "UN plan". 

Franzisca Zanker, in Mediation Arguments points out that 

"current research suggests that mediation processes are more likely to achieve durable peace if they are inclusive because they are then likely to enjoy the support of the entire population. One way to ensure this public support is to include civil society groups, either directly at the negotiation table or indirectly in supportive roles."

It is important to note that the walls between Track I, II and III have crumbled. It is now possible for civil society — traditionally regarded as Track II or III — to actively participate in national and international peace mediation and dialogue efforts. The recent MILF-Government of the Philippines peace process is a case in point.  

Before I conclude with a few recommendations, let share some key observations about the two UN documents:

Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review of the United Nations (QPCR)

1. The QPCR is spot on in terms of its emphasis on strengthening national ownership and capacities (see paragraph 64, 95, and 102 for example). Keeping this as the key operational and strategic focus of the UN is very, very important. We definitely see signs that this message is beginning to filter through, but I often wonder whether the realization of its importance translates sufficiently into practice at HQ level. 
2. The call for greater inter-agency collaboration (par. 102, 106, 107, 152 and 158) is also a good sign. The problem, in my view, lies in the fact that agencies still talk about “comparative advantage” and not enough about “collaborative advantage”. UN agencies often compete for the same funding for similar and duplicate projects and programmes and then elbow each other to fly their own flag to claim credit for results.
3. In contrast and in a welcome development, we are seeing major improvements in how the UN responds to conflict in countries where Peace and Development Advisers (PDAs) are deployed by the Joint Programme (Department of Political Affairs [DPA] and the UNDP's Buro for Policy and Programme Support [BPPS].  The PDA focuses the attention of the UN county team (UNCT) on the peacebuilding challenges: the prevention of and constructive response to destructive conflict. PDAs are highly skilled professionals whose task it is to unite the UNCT in its understanding of how the conflict system works (therefore you need systemic analysis done by in-house professionals in collaboration with locals); a vision of how it can be different (i.e. the ultimate purpose of our interventions); commitment to help shift capacities, skills, mindsets and relationships in order to achieve the change; solid theory and practice that underpin the design and implementation of processes to make the change happen (e.g. cutting edge analysis, facilitation, dialogue and mediation processes); and, very importantly, ongoing facilitation and accompaniment of local efforts to build peace. The so-called "Montreux RC retreats" and the recent Independent Review of Peace and Development Advisors and the Joint UNDP/DPA Programme on Building National Capacities for Conflict Prevention confirm the value of having the PDAs develop a more coherent, focused support for the RC in responding to conflict.
4. From where I sit it is a pity that the QPCR, almost without exception, situates peacebuilding in the context of “transition from relief to development” and “disasters”. While it is true that conflicts are often a symptom or outcome of disasters and that relief and development are key elements of our response to conflict, the two are not always connected. Some of the most disastrous conflicts happen in resource rich countries where powerful multi-national corporations and weak governments collude to exploit the environment and people’s opportunities. One needs to separate out violence  and then spell out its causes and effects if we were to examine strategies to deal with it.
5. There is, in my view, far too little attention paid to the UN’s role to prevent conflict through using joint systemic analysis, dialogue, mediation and facilitation — which, in almost all the literature, are mentioned as key approaches to addressing the root causes of conflict. For example, “mediation” and “dialogue” are not mentioned once; “prevention” is used paragraphs 94 and 106 and 109 but always in the context of disasters and relief. As I’ve said in the previous paragraph, it’s a pity that the prevention of violent conflict does not get more explicit attention. A natural link for me would have been the connection between national ownership and capacities to local mechanisms for peacebuilding through strengthening “insider mediators”. (In Ghana, e.g., local insider mediators, with the help of PDAs helped to establish the National Peace Council, which now has a national mandate to help the country resolve disputes.
6. The call for more efficient and flexible funding mechanisms (par 96) is something that is long overdue. Evidence suggests that donors now prefer to fund “hard development” over what they call “soft approaches” such as dialogue and mediation. I find it ludicrous to refer to dialogue and relationship building as “soft approaches”. It is much harder to sit down to talk to the enemy until you reach mutual understanding than to reward nations with development contracts if they stand up to terrorism and extremism. 

Open Working Group proposal for Sustainable Development Goals

1. The Open Working Group proposal for Sustainable Development Goals is very rich and promising. I realise that it has to be general and it’s therefore not too specific on the how. The danger is that the enthusiasm about the noble goals may prevent us from realising how much hard work it takes to put these goals into practice through conflict sensitive approaches, and that is where I think the document can be stronger.
2. I do find it strange, once again, that dialogue, mediation, facilitation and negotiation are not mentioned once in the entire document. Rule of Law (RoL), on the other hand, is mentioned three times. It speaks to the conceptual framework underpinning the working group’s view on the foundation of peacebuilding. Rule of Law, of course, is very, very important. But in my view, RoL is not an end goal and access to justice is not the only avenue to build peace. The end goal should be to promote a more human and dignified world where people can develop and prosper in a peaceful, just, equitable society. In short, as par. 15 says "…(those practices that are) incompatible with the dignity and worth of the human person (should be) combated and eliminated”.  In order to do that, relationships (geo-politically, regionally, intra-state, and intergroup) have to shift; humiliation of states and their leaders has to stop; fear has to be eliminated; and hope and dignity need to be created and promoted. (Dominique Moïsi: The Geopolitics of Emotion. Also The Clash of Emotions in  Foreign Affairs, January/February 2007). No institution or government can significantly create this change without building, having and sustaining local mechanisms and approaches that are based on dialogue, mediation and facilitation.
3. Conflict is driven by tangible and intangible key driving factors. The UN must not fall into the trap of viewing the tangible factors (poverty, access to justice, infrastructure, etc) as more important as the intangible factors (such as fear, anger, woundedness, humiliation, societal imbalances). The latter will not disappear simply because there is now “development” or "aid". Having mechanisms to vent, debate, dialogue, and heal together as as important as having access to better roads and health care. That is the responsibility of responsible governments. And it deserves the attention and support of the UN.
4. The document is completely silent on the issue of power: its use and abuse.  It does not mention power anywhere, except in the context of empowerment. Yet, if we continue to accept the dominant paradigm of power as something that is linked to money, status, history, military might and geographical location, nothing will change. The current deficiencies in how the UN Security Council operates is a case in point. The concept of servant-leadership is virtually non-existent in the field of politics. At national level, what will be the goals and incentives for governments that have been abusing their power for decades?
5. I find Goal 10 on Inequality quite powerful and in line with one of the most important key drivers of conflict. 10.2 quite rightly says: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.”  10.1-7 are clear, but I don’t understand why 10 a-c only focuses on the economic dimension of inequality. The social and political inequality is often the most potent fuel for conflict and deserves mentioning.   

In essence, my plea is for the UN to make bold shifts its institutional habits and practice by 

• integrating and operationalising the 8 fundamental principles of mediation in all the UN led- or supported initiatives; 
• recognising that peacebuilding is about people building their own peace and not about the profile, status or plan of the facilitator/mediator; 
• actively reversing the current perceptions that the UN does not listen to the people on the ground;
• exploring alternatives to the outdated high-level carrot-and-stick dominated mediation styles;
• including and working more in support of insider mediators, local peacebuilders and local stakeholders;
• prioritising building joint systemic analysis, dialogue, mediation and facilitation capacities at local, national and regional levels; 
• raising the profile of the DPA Mediation Support Unit in the UN by investing much more human and financial resources into the Unit and by making it mandatory in DPA to include MSU at all levels during the initiation, design, support, implementation and monitoring phases of mediation efforts; and
• giving maximum support and collaboration to RCs and their Peace and Development Advisors.

It’s time to build a mechanism for dialogue, mediation and problem solving in South Africa

If the recent systematic and ongoing violence does not mobilise all who live inside our borders to do something radically different, nothing will. 

Not even the fact that South Africa was once the shining example of preventive action (through the National Peace Accord structures when we successfully navigated the path away from a threatening civil war towards peaceful elections); nor resolutions by the AU (African Heads of States vowed in 2002 to establish by 2004 National Institutions for Prevention and Management of Conflict and 13 years later only Ghana, Kenya and South Sudan have heeded the call of the African Heads of State);  nor the Marikana massacre or Andries Tatan’s death; nor the horrific gender-based violence; nor gang and drug-related violence; nor the SONA-related tensions and violence, nor all the evidence from research that peace should be built by those who are affected by the conflict; and certainly not even the National Development Plan and Government’s efforts to build social cohesion prompted us to radically rethink the way we approach conflict and violence in the country. 

We cannot waste a good crisis. Systematic and ongoing violence forces us to ask ourselves tough questions: Why does it happen? How are all of us contributing to a system that allows violence to flourish almost unabatedly? How do we collectively make sure that violence is prevented in the first place? How do we heal from our wounds?

There are indeed signs that government and citizens are waking up.  The #WeAreAfrican and “We are One Humanity” awareness campaigns, the AHA! movement, marches and practical help offered by ordinary citizens are timely, if not too late. But these campaigns are not sustainable. They will inevitably lose steam as time goes by. 

Police Minister Nathi Nhleko's call, for a “national dialogue on the prevalence and patterns of violence in society” is an important initiative. The fact that “Government is turning its attention to a long term and sustainable intervention that would address the underlying mindsets that motivated these attacks in the first place,” is even better news. He is absolutely spot on when he says that “it is imperative that the root cause should be addressed” and that “mindsets (should) be transformed for long term peace and stability”. (SABC, 19 April 2015).

But government is only one stakeholder in the drama that is currently unfolding in South Africa. Building peace is everybody’s responsibility. To get to the systemic root causes of destructive conflict we need creative and brave solutions, such as a mechanism—maybe even a Chapter 9 institution—for dialogue, mediation and conflict transformation.  (See also my previous posts here and here.)

When Ghana, for example, faced massive challenges as a result of deep-rooted identity and election-related violent conflict, it established an independent state mechanism, the Ghana National Peace Council (NPC), to facilitate the prevention of conflicts. The statutory mandate of the NPC is “to facilitate and develop mechanisms for conflict prevention, management, resolution and to build sustainable peace in the country.” The NPC aims to “promote the values of reconciliation, tolerance, trust and confidence building, mediation and dialogue as responses to conflict”. Every region in Ghana has an NPC office and staff who are skilled in facilitation, dialogue and mediation. 

So, imagine where South Africa could have been had we not dissolved the National Peace Accord structures. We lost the habit of dialogue and mediation. We lost a well-developed infrastructure for peace when offices were closed, staff retrenched, telephones and vehicles suddenly were withdrawn. There was no place, no mechanism, no professional conflict resolution practitioners to help us solve our problems.

Putting out fires, clamping down on “criminals”, tighter border control and occasional campaigns will not be enough. Let us, like before, get together to design a comprehensive and long-lasting response in the form of an equivalent of the Ghana NPC: A national peace mechanism, led by credible civil society commissioners whose task it is to get the country talking and listening to the heartbeat of the nation in every corner of our country. 

Our Chapter 9 institutions are already doing a great job of making sure our constitutional values are upheld, but no-one on its own can deal with the wide ranging issues of social and political tensions and violence. Our country will benefit from such a mechanism in the following ways:  

• Ordinary citizens will have access to regional and local spaces and expertise available to help them solve the challenges nonviolently through dialogue, mediation and collaboration
• Reliable information and high quality inputs from citizens can better inform governance policies and actions because a citizen’s agenda is developed from the bottom up. 
• People’s views and dreams about a more just and equal society will continue to grow into a vision that calls us all into action. 
• Powerful stakeholders, such as government, business, trade unions and interest groups, will participate on equal footing with ordinary citizens in spaces where decisions are not made by the majority, but on the basis of common understanding and joint commitment.
• Political contestation will hopefully tempered, because the struggle for power and votes is now supplemented by joint encounters of inquiry, listening and joint action.
• We can once again develop the habit of dialogue, mediation and facilitation as the default response to problems, provided that the mechanism stays free from any party-political interference and the paralysis of non-action. 
• There will be greater accountability because a national mandate will ensure that stakeholders commit themselves to the ground rules of such a mechanism. 
• Societal conflict resolution and the pursuit of peace with justice and justness will remain a primary focus for decades to come.
• Key stakeholders and sector can collectively build and align their actions and policies around a system of governance and cohesion that affirms dignity for all will have to be aligned. 
• The creativity and brilliance of our people will be unleashed like before when everybody thought we were doomed and we showed them we are resilient, creative and peaceful. 
• This mechanism will serve as a safety valve to counter eruptions of frustrations and violence.

Everything counts in our favour: The time is ripe; momentum is growing; we (still) have an institutional memory of times when we were successful; the AU’s resolutions are paving the way; we have good examples from Ghana, Kenya and the new Zimbabwean constitution; and we have brilliant peacebuilders in our country and African peacebuilding practitioners who are ready to help.

All we need is the political will and popular support to build a sustainable vehicle for peacebuilding. We can do it, but will we?

IF YOU SUPPORT THIS CALL LEAVE A COMMENT BELOW. 

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

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!

Elections and Violence Guideline

The publication that I have co-authored with Tim Sisk has finally been published. There are useful case studies and examples of best practices.

It can be downloaded at http://www.undp.org/oslocentre/index.html