Unyoke Leaders Exchange 2015: An Opportunity to Invest in Peacebuilders

Webersburg Wine Estate, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 7-17 April 2015

What is Unyoke Leaders Exchange® (ULEx 2015)?

ULEx 2015 (7-17 April 2015) is a gathering of a diverse group of international peacebuilders and business leaders in who expressed a need for time and space to refine their strategies to achieve deeper impact in their local contexts. The exchange is designed as a proverbial pitstop or a “creative pause” where participants can “unyoke” exchange their best ideas, inspire one another to lead peacebuilding efforts more effectively and design concrete strategies as next steps. 

Who will be attending?

Academics, practitioners, NGO directors, programme managers, and business leaders have expressed an interest to attend. Amongst those who want to attend, for example, is a team of three prominent facilitators in the current political impasse in Nepal. 

What is the purpose?

The purpose is to achieve greater effectiveness and impact as peace practitioners. 

Why are we convening ULEx 2015?

Peace practitioners work in high-pressure, reactive environments with very little time to review their strategies and impact. ULEx 2015 is creating this space to reflect and share with peers on key lessons, challenges and innovations. One of the most important — if not the most important — investments that is required now is to support thoughtful practitioners who have the potential to change the trajectory of shifting and new emerging violent contexts. Those who build peace must become as strong, supported and resilient as never before, because they are the catalysts for creative interventions. At ULEx 2015 a community of practitioners will learn from one another as they seek to transform intractable conflicts around the world. 

What are the desired outcomes?

• Deeper understanding of the challenges facing peacebuilding and corporate leaders and exploring creative ways to increase leadership effectiveness;
• Deeper understanding of how to effectively sustain and support key leaders;
• A re-vitalised and inspired team of practitioners who return to their contexts with a new vision of what is possible and concrete ideas to realise that vision.  

What are the concrete outputs?

• A “Nuggets of Wisdom from the Field” paper on crucial insights into the challenges facing peacebuilders and business leaders at various levels and innovative ideas on how to respond appropriately to some of the challenges; 
• Action-research on developing appropriate support systems for peacebuilding and business leaders;
• A network of ULEx alumni, which will be connected to a world-wide network of peace practitioners.

Why Webersburg Wine Estate in South Africa?

The idea is to convene in a beautiful and serene environment that has access to the mountains, sea and nature. 

Why 8 days?

To allow for maximum space to write, reflect and share. 

What is theory of change? 

The theory of change behind the Unyoke Leaders Exchange® concept is the following: 

“When key leaders in the peacebuilding and corporate fields spend quality time alone and with others to reflect, share and learn in a relaxed and beautiful environment, they will be inspired and guided towards greater excellence and impact in their respective environments because they will have clearer visions and strategies for the future.”

What are the programme elements?

The focus will be on

• Mutual learning through the sharing of key insights, challenges, and lessons—not on training or teaching
• Tailored inputs by and networking with relevant South African resource persons and institutions;
• Feedback on ideas and plans for the future;
• One-on-one leadership coaching (optional).

Programme director and facilitator

The programme director and facilitator will be Chris Spies, Director: Dynamic Stability Consultancy; and 

Founder and Facilitator of Unyoke Leaders Exchange.

“Chris brings an extraordinary high level of integrity and sensitivity to the field. His respectful, yet creative facilitation ability is outstanding. His contribution to my own practice has been immeasurable.” Andries Odendaal, Conflict Transformation Specialist, South Africa.

“Chris is a thoughtful practitioner who is able to work at several different levels of peacebuilding and conflict resolution — both in planning effective strategy and as an excellent facilitator and consensus-builder. He has been a pleasure to work with as a colleague.” Diana Chigas, Professor of Practice at Fletcher School, Tufts University.

“Chris is working with the inner capacity of us, humans, to change. He is bringing in over-all, holistic and integrated perspectives where our purpose, linked to our own basic human values remain in the focus. Listening and common learning, in dialogue,  make a difference. He is a very efficient facilitator making accompaniment the main instrument for change of thinking leading to change of action. No quick fixes but consolidated quality action. Chris had a key role in the design and the development of the FBA training program on dialogue and mediation, now a basic element in training for UN Staff  dealing with Political Affairs and Peace-building.” Ambassador Ragnar Ängeby, Founder and former Head of the Conflict Prevention in Practice Program of the Folke Bernadotte Academy, Sweden.

“Chris demonstrates a very high level of integrity in whatever he undertakes. He allows people to explore their own assumptions and perceptions in a way that people feel safe to express themselves. I also would like to mention his absolute talent to tell stories and exercise the necessary dose of humour. It has been a great personal and professional opportunity to work with someone like Chris.” Afke Bootsman, UNDP, Lebanon

“Chris is a superb team player with high quality international experience in the area of peacebuilding. He brings a personal style that is warm, serious and confidence-inspiring…Perhaps more critically, Chris takes the time to understand those he works with at a deep social/spiritual/cultural level. This aids trust and helps ensure the success of his work. In peacebuilding, he is a true master of the art.” Lawrence Lachmansingh, former programme manager at UNDP Guyana and former Peace and Development Advisor, Ghana.

“Chris Spies demonstrated what a wonderful facilitator can and should be…” Dr. Dinesh Prasain, Sociologist, Nepal.

“Seldom have I met a person, who was able to meet people where they were, using his unique leadership skills to transform us from individuals to a movement with a higher purpose.” Tina Monberg, Mediator, Psychotherapist and Lawyer, Denmark.

Bio of Chris Spies, an Experienced International Facilitator and Conflict Transformation Practitioner 

Chris Spies is the founder and director of Dynamic Stability Consultancy in Stellenbosch, South Africa, and Senior Research Fellow of the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation.  

Chris is driven by the belief that people have the wisdom and can grow capacities to influence processes that affect their lives, especially where justice, freedom and civil liberties are at stake. These capacities are best enhanced in mutual learning spaces that are safe and respectful. It is possible to build those spaces with people rather than for them through engaging in relationships of trust, respect and support. 

He specialises in the design and facilitation of processes to build capacities for dialogue, mediation and collaborative leadership in socio-political conflict settings. He is currently a lead facilitator of international courses in dialogue and mediation for the Folke Bernadotte Academy in Sweden and various UN programmes and specialist retreats. 

Chris has been involved in Infrastructure for Peace (I4P) related initiatives and developed curriculum and training courses on Collaborative Leadership and Dialogue for Nepal, Kenya, Malawi and Myanmar. 

He was the coordinator of the Finding Ways to Walk Together dialogue initiative in South Africa in collaboration with the Shared Societies Project of the Club de Madrid, the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, Idasa, the Citizens’ Movement and the Harold Wolpe Memorial Trust.

From 2003 to 2006 Chris served as the UN Peace and Development Advisor in Guyana, South America. This programme, with others, contributed to the first violence-free elections in more than fifty years. 

In the 1980s Chris worked as a pastor in disadvantaged and neglected rural communities in the  Eastern Cape in South Africa, where he joined hands with communities and activists to overcome the devastation caused by apartheid. 

Chris was deeply involved in peacebuilding in South Africa in the 1990s.  After the signing of the South African National Peace Accord in 1991 he served as the Regional Organiser of the Western Cape Regional Peace Committee from 1992-94. Thereafter he was a Senior Trainer and Researcher at the University of Cape Town-based Centre for Conflict Resolution. 

As a member of the National Land Reform Mediation Panel Chris mediated several land claims.

His full profile is available at http://www.linkedin.com/in/chrisspies, his blog address is http://chrisspies.blogspot.com and he can be followed on Twitter at @lukanani. He runs a Dialogue Ideas Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/groups/447750585269309/

Chris Spies

spies.c@gmail.com

Listen deeper and deeper!

Listening on Five Levels*

Chris Spies

The purpose of this model is to help us listen to more than words.  The five levels are: The head (thoughts or facts), heart (emotions), needs (stomach), clothes (culture), and intentions (feet).  Each of the levels is interconnected and interdependent.   

For example:  “When I heard you swearing at me it became clear to me that you did not respect and understand me.  That made me very depressed and angry because I don’t believe that that is how one should behave. What I would like you to do in future is to ask me for my side of the story.”  

The facts:  You swore at me

The emotions: Depressed and angry

The needs: Understanding, identity, protection

The culture: This is not how I believe one should behave

The intentions: To ask for a change in behaviour

This example shows that communication happens on various levels and through different types of dynamics. In order for us to be good listeners, it we need to to be clear about  the role we want to play:  

• Am I a facilitator of understanding who helps the other see themselves and find their own answers and resolve conflicts? 
• Am I a partner that listens with a view to build a new community together?
• Am I an explorer that is interested in fact finding?

The speaker may or may not indicate to you which role he/she wants us to play.  Do not assume that the listener wants advice or direction. Listening on all five levels is a difficult, but an important empowering exercise for both the speaker and listener.

1. Listening to the thoughts of the other is fairly easy.  All one has to do is to say back, in your own words, the facts our thoughts that you heard from the other person.  One has to “find out what’s happening in the other person’s head” as clearly as possible.  The listener basically has to help the speaker see the full picture of what that person is describing. You would often find that as you paraphrase the facts, the speaker will say: “Exactly! And what’s more, …”.  That is a good sign, because the person finds your reflections helpful and fill you in on details that matter to him/her.  Or, you may find that the person is saying: “No, not exactly that.  In fact, what happened was…”.  That is also a good sign, because the person is given an opportunity to make sure the two of you have the same understanding of the facts.
   
   Be very careful not to allow your curiosity to take the upper hand.  It is not your story.  So, stay away from asking questions that would satisfy your curiosity.  Allow the other person to share what he or she wants to share.
2. Listening to the emotions is more difficult.  Many people find it difficult to show or talk about how they feel.  If someone says:  “I feel that Mary was wrong when she said…” or “I feel that things are going to get worse…”, you should know that the person has not expressed an emotion or feeling.  Rather, the person has expressed a thought.
   
   It is very important that the listener helps the speaker to name his/her emotions.  If people don’t express how they feel, the feelings build up and cause people to lose their ability to think clearly.  That could lead to actions such violence or suicide.  On the other hand, connecting to and expressing emotions serves as a safety valve and relief.
   
   When needs are being met are people feel confident, excited, grateful, hopeful, inspired, joyful, peaceful, refreshed, etc.
   
   When needs are not being met people may feel afraid, angry, irritated, appalled, confused, hesitant, disconnected, disturbed, uncomfortable, embarrassed, burnt out, devastated, hurt, lonely, miserable, remorseful, sad, depressed, disappointed, unhappy, hopeless, tense, bitter, edgy, nervous, overwhelmed, restless, stressed out, vulnerable, envious, jealous, etc.
3. Listening to the stomach refers to listening to the needs. The stomach reminds us of unmet needs like hunger, thirst, etc.  But there are many more needs that people are not even aware of.  Manfred Max-Neef has developed a list of 9 fundamental human needs:  Subsistence, Protection, Affection, Understanding, Participation, Leisure, Creation, Identity, and Freedom.  These needs, if not met, drive conflict and determine our behaviour.  For instance:  If someone discriminates against me, my needs for identity, understanding and freedom are seriously frustrated and I will probably confront that person and something ugly can happen.  If we understand, however, that all human beings have the same needs but they choose different satisfiers, we would be better able to understand and empathise with others.  The conflict is about the satisfiers—not the needs.  Dialogue is a powerful approach to express needs and talk about constructive ways to achieve win-win solutions. Some satisfiers may look like satisfiers, but in fact they are destroyers.  For example: When someone is stressed out there is a need for understanding, leisure and freedom.  If the the person chooses satisfiers such as chain smoking, drink alcohol excessively or take harmful medication all the time, these satisfiers are in fact destroying the needs for subsistence, protection, freedom and identity.  In the listening process, the listener should help the speaker identify the needs and explore the range of possible alternative satisfiers that satisfy a combination of needs.  Then the conversation can move on to the next phase of uncovering the intentions or will.
4. Listening to the intentions or will means that the listener helps the speaker get clarity on what is the next step for him or her.  What does the person want to do about the situation?  And what would the speaker want to see happening?  It is important to stay clear from the temptation to give advice.  The person who presents the problem has to take the lead in finding and owning solutions to the problem.  
5. The clothes represent the culture, values and beliefs.  The listener should attempt to understand where the views and beliefs of the speaker come from.  For example, a police person coming from a “police culture” will describe a conflict differently from a university lecturer who comes from an “academic or university culture”; men and women, young people and the older generation, employees and employers, generally speaking, express themselves differently in many ways.  Each group—whether it be the civil servants, NGOs, the UN, private sector, opposition, government, and the rest—understands “the way we do things around here”.  Members of these “cultures” are not necessary aware of how they think and behave.  The listener can help the speaker to become more aware of how culture, values and beliefs have shaped him/her.

The task of the listener is to listen and explore at all five levels—not to advise and to hijack the agenda of the speaker. 

* Hamo Hammond of Catalyst Consulting (hamohammond@rogers.com) has generously shared his wisdom, contributing to sharpen the ideas. The Five Level Listening Model is an expansion of the module Levels Of Listening: a few helps and hindrances in a "facilitating organizational development" training course. 

Dialogue amidst power asymmetry: A great article on dialogue in Myanmar

Myanmar is slowly making progress to winning peace from the jaws of war. As one after the other cease fire agreement is signed with armed groups—without the direct involvement of international or outsider actors—the need for dialogue as an approach to build and sustain genuine peace becomes more and more evident.

In my work on supporting dialogue platforms in Myanmar I rely on the common wisdom that those who are affected by conflict should lead the process to transform the conflict. The Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies in Cambodia is one such organisation that understands the importance of supporting local actors. I am inspired by their example.

Below is a great article about the importance of understanding the meaning of dialogue in the Myanmar context:

Dialogue in Myanmar: Losing and winning together

By Aung Naing Oo   |   Monday, 21 July 2014

9

IN November 2002 I wrote a book called Dialogue. On the cover I dedicated it “to the people of Burma, who do not have the culture of dialogue”.

A police officer and a Kayin man smoke cigarettes in Kayin State during a ceremony to distribute rice donated by the Nippon Foundation in February 2013. (Aung Htay Hlaing/The Myanmar Times)

Even before the book was published I received angry calls demanding I remove the dedication. My book’s graphic designer asked me to remove it because he had received severe criticism from members of the exile community. They thought it was a provocation and an insult to Myanmar culture. They claimed to have a culture of dialogue.

Undeterred, I left the message on the front cover.

Unbeknown to them, earlier that year I had had a most disturbing conversation with one of the top exiles. It started out as a casual conversation. I told him I was writing a book called Dialogue. He then confided in me an alarming revelation: His group would only go into dialogue when it had the upper hand. Worse still, he even asked me if I was pro-dialogue.

To say that I was alarmed would be an understatement.

It was pure hypocrisy. The leader belonged to an opposition group that constantly accused the military government of refusing to enter into dialogue. He was at every gathering of major opposition groups on the Thai-Myanmar border calling for a nationwide ceasefire and a political dialogue “to resolve political problems through political means”.

I was alarmed because he did not understand what I meant by dialogue. It made me wonder. How about other politicians and opposition exiles? Would they understand it? Like the exile I spoke to, did they consider dialogue a power game?

My thoughts went further – if exiles focused on gaining the upper hand in political dialogue, how would the Myanmar military view it? It was a “no brainer”. There was no question as to who was more powerful in the context of Myanmar’s political and armed conflicts.  

As I explored further, I realised that misunderstanding was not only confined to political groupings outside the country. I found out, for example, that many in the National League for Democracy at the time considered “dialogue” as a means for transferring power to the party.  

In the end, I used that disturbing conversation with the exiled politician in the foreword to my book. I thought it would be useful for readers, who I invited to debate if Myanmar truly had the culture of dialogue.

Actually, all I wanted was to give political stakeholders an understanding of dialogue. And my message was simple.

“Dialogue” is about exploring ways together to find a solution to a conflict and implementing that solution together. It is a process to “resolve political problems through political means”.

I thought this message was fitting for Myanmar because I considered Myanmar’s problems collective and not individual. Thus, the solution must be collective and not individual. At the time of publishing Dialogue, in my view every single political grouping both within and outside the country was pursuing its own individual interests.

We are now in 2014 and the Myanmar government and the ethnic armed groups are nearing agreement on a nationwide ceasefire. Consequently, we are at the threshold of long-awaited political dialogue. I feel that understanding “dialogue” is now more urgent and important than ever.

More critically, there are still many groups pursuing individual interests at a time when we are within reaching distance of a collective solution to Myanmar’s conflicts.

The origins of the word “dialogue” come from Middle English “dialog” to French “dialogue”, Latin “dialogus” and Greek “dialogos”. It generally means “conversation”.

But the meaning I like to convey, as in Merriam-Webster dictionary, is “a discussion or series of discussions that two groups or countries have in order to end a disagreement, or an exchange of ideas and opinions, or a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution”.

With that meaning, dialogue is not a casual conversation or a debate. It is a tool to resolve conflict specifically “aimed at finding a resolution”.

But I am not an expert on dialogue. In describing it in my book, I quotedThe Magic of Dialogue by Daniel Yankelovich.

In his book, Yankelovich talked about the many qualities of a successful dialogue, ranging from peaceful interaction, mutual respect, equality and reciprocity to frank exchanges of deepest feelings and differences with a view to resolving a conflict.

He said dialogue is not something arcane or esoteric. But most important of all, dialogue is about winning or losing together. It is not about a contest in which one sides wins and the other side loses.It is a win-win situation. A win-lose or lose-win situation is incompatible with dialogue.

That is why togetherness, both in finding a solution and implementing it, is so central to successful dialogue.

I have often mentioned in my writings that dialogue in Myanmar is about repairing relationships that were severed due to the devastations of the war. Yankelovich, for his part, said dialogue is about building successful relationships.

In any case, democracy has allowed for peaceful and reciprocal negotiations to take place between the government and ethnic armed groups. This will help the culture of dialogue to take root and develop over time.

In the meantime, though, we should realise that focusing on power asymmetry, like the exiled politician back in 2002, will not lead to successful dialogue. We should all avoid threats, violence, hatred, unrealistic expectations and distrust – they are destructive to dialogue. Likewise, we must start narrowing the gap in terms of our interests. Otherwise, these will prevent an effective dialogue that is so essential to securing a win-win outcome for everyone in Myanmar.

Aung Naing Oo is associate director of the Peace Dialogue Program at the Myanmar Peace Center.

Running Orders by Lena Khalaf Tuffaha

They call us now.
Before they drop the bombs.
The phone rings
and someone who knows my first name
calls and says in perfect Arabic
“This is David.”
And in my stupor of sonic booms and glass shattering symphonies
still smashing around in my head
I think "Do I know any Davids in Gaza?"
They call us now to say
Run.
You have 58 seconds from the end of this message.
Your house is next.
They think of it as some kind of war time courtesy.
It doesn’t matter that
there is nowhere to run to.
It means nothing that the borders are closed
and your papers are worthless
and mark you only for a life sentence
in this prison by the sea
and the alleyways are narrow
and there are more human lives
packed one against the other
more than any other place on earth
Just run.
We aren’t trying to kill you.
It doesn’t matter that
you can’t call us back to tell us
the people we claim to want aren’t in your house
that there’s no one here
except you and your children
who were cheering for Argentina
sharing the last loaf of bread for this week
counting candles left in case the power goes out.
It doesn’t matter that you have children.
You live in the wrong place
and now is your chance to run
to nowhere.
It doesn’t matter
that 58 seconds isn’t long enough
to find your wedding album
or your son’s favorite blanket
or your daughter’s almost completed college application
or your shoes
or to gather everyone in the house.
It doesn’t matter what you had planned.
It doesn’t matter who you are
Prove you’re human.
Prove you stand on two legs.
Run.

Running Orders by Lena Khalaf Tuffaha

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?