Generative Dialogue by Dene Rossouw

This article was first published by Dene Rossouw on http://www.possibil.com/generative-dialogue/ 

Generative Dialogue

In his book, Dialogue and the art of thinking together, William Isaacs introduces the concept of a container that is essential for dialogue to take place.

“Dialogue….is a conversation with a centre, not sides. It is a way of taking the energy of our differences and channelling it toward something that has never been created before. “
William Isaacs

The container is a place of psychological safety. He contends that if the elements of Energy, Safety and Possibility are not present, no dialogue will take place. In other words, a discussion might happen, but no real dialogue will take place.

We say a lot when we truly listen

One of the most powerful tools for generative and deep dialogue is committed listening, which involves a set of interrelated skills: open-ended questioning, paraphrasing, acknowledging feelings, non-verbal encouragers and summarizing.

It’s the commitment to listen to the unique experiences of another person by hearing not only the words but sensing and responding to the underlying feelings, and unexpressed meanings behind the words.

Generative dialogue

Generative dialogue creates something new. It’s a commitment to bring out the best in others with authentic conversations. Generative dialogue is appreciative and calls forth a new future through the flow of meaning in relationship. When we engage in generative dialogue, we lean towards a possible instead of a predictable future.

If the three conditions of Energy for dialogue, Safety and Possibility are evident, at least five generative actions take place:

1. Committed listening
2. Respecting one another
3. Suspending judgment
4. Coming out with an authentic voice
5. A collective search for truth

What are some advantages of creating a space for generative dialogue?

1. Conversations that never would have taken place are now part of the organizational culture
2. You are having more open and authentic conversations with your staff and it is being appreciated and noticed
3. Undiscussables are being surfaced and dealt with in a professional manner
4. You are getting better results when having performance reviews and communicating change
5. You are more confident having tough conversations with less stress and more success
6. You experience better productivity and morale is improving
7. Professional and personal relationships are enhanced
8. Political posturing, issues and power games decrease
9. Rework and errors decrease

When and how should a busy leader create opportunities for generative dialogue?

Answer – As often as possible. Generative dialogue is counter-intuitive because of the perception of a lack of time available in a busy day and the impulse to revert to normal discussion because it is perceived to be quicker to get results. Generative dialogue does not necessarily need to take longer, yet the rewards are extremely tangible and impactful – the more a leader models the principles of generative dialogue, the more it will happen naturally.

Dene Rossouw is the principal of Possibil – helping you build your influence and inspire innovation at work.

Ethics for Everyman: 98 years ago and still relevant

This poem was written 98 years ago. Has anything changed?


Throwing a bomb is bad,
Dropping a bomb is good;
Terror, no need to add.
Depends on who's wearing the hood.
Kangaroo courts are wrong,
Specialist courts are right;
Discipline by the strong
Is fair if your collar is white.
Company output 'soars',
Wages, of course 'explode';
Profits deserve applause.
Pay claims, the criminal code.
Daily the Church declares
Betting shops are a curse;
Gambling on stocks and shares
Enlarges the national purse.
Workers are absentees.
Businessmen relax,
Different as chalk and cheese;
Social morality
Has a duality -
One for each side of the tracks.

Roger Woddis, New Oxford Book of Light Verse (written in 1917)

Restorative Justice and Wounded Healers

The story about the Amy Biehl Foundation's work on healing and forgiveness is evidence that without dialogue there can be no healing and restoration. The courage to dialogue with "the enemy" when tears and pain from loss and woundedness scream at you to stop, gives birth to new life and new beginnings. The opposite is also true: when pain and memory prevent us from entering into safe and uncomfortable spaces, the intentions of the offender come out victorious and you remain a victim. So, for me the question is how we can walk alongside and support the offenders and victims so that they can risk becoming vulnerable again, but this time for the sake of planting new seeds of hope for a better world. In that sense we all become wounded healers, as Henry Nouwen says. Thank you, Marianne Thamm for this article in The Daily Maverick.

Amy Biehl and her killers’ gift to South Africa – the enduring power of restorative justice |...

Seventeen years ago on 28 July 1998, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission granted amnesty to four young men who had been sentenced to jail terms for...

dailymaverick.co.za

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.

Re-thinking Orientation Workshops – an Experience by UN’s Peace and Development Advisors

From left to right: Henrik Mungenast (FBA), Harald Thorud, Michael Bäk, Ilona Lecerf, Chris Spies (FBA), Lorraine Reuter, Timothy Othieno, Maria van Ruiten, Pierre Antoine Archange, Jomart Omonbekov, Lawrence Lachmansingh (FBA), Manzoor Mirza and Lucy Wanjiru Ndungu. Absent was Jone Baledrokadroka. Photo Credit: UNDP/DPA Joint Programme.

Below is an article by Ilona Lecerf of the Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding, Governance and Peacebuilding Cluster, UNDP BPPS on the recent Peace and Development Advisor (PDA) induction course that Lawrence Lachmansingh, Henrik Mungenast and I had the privilege of facilitating as the Folke Bernadotte Academy team.

The feedback from participants was very encouraging, especially on the methodology and approach of the "training", which was actually more of a mutual learning experience than a full-blown training course. Power Points were used only in the case of an emergency. The combination of sharing, learning through exploration, and having maximum fun proved to be very healthy and inspirational.

The PDA is supported in the local context by the UN system to analyse (understand), design and implement peacebuilding initiatives.

The idea was to accompany new PDAs on their journeys from the time they enter into the UN system and their local contexts, through exploring key challenges that they may face (analysis, building relationships in and outside of the UN system, designing programmes, implementing and monitoring them, while at the same time exploring key conflict themes, such as natural resources conflict, gender governance, human rights, etc.)

Key elements of the Process Wisdom Approach

The group was incredibly talented, enthusiastic, energetic and committed. The UN, through its Joint Programme (UNDP and DPA), has invested so much in Peace and Development Advisors over the last 10 years. The results are beginning to show.

"The induction for the new Peace and Development Advisors (PDAs) currently deployed through the Joint UNDP/DPA Programme on Building National Capacities for Conflict Prevention took place 1-7 June, 2015 at UN Headquarters in New York.  The training workshop presented the opportunity to pilot an innovative approach for induction training for newly deployed PDAs in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Maldives, Papua New Guinea, Thailand, Togo, and Uganda, as well as the Conflict Prevention Advisor in Pakistan and JPO working closely with the PDA in Timor-Leste.

The week included meetings with colleagues from across the UN system as well as UNDP/BPPS Director, ASG Magdy Martínez-Solimán, and ASG Miroslav Jenča of DPA.

The training, in partnership with Sweden’s Folke Bernadotte Academy, adopted a ‘PDA Process Wisdom’ conceptual learning approach where the PDAs assiduously explored learning areas related to: Understanding > Designing > Implementing responses to conflict prevention and peacebuilding in a peer – to – peer  learning setting. The PDAs reflected on their roles and expectations as “analysts, brokers, accompaniers, and perception changers”.

In addition to the building of an ”esprit de corps” amongst the PDAs and course givers, the responses received from the workshop participants was a unanimous feeling it had reached its goal of preparing them to provide high-level and thought provoking strategic advice to UN Country teams and national partners. Importantly, the PDAs departed with a better understanding of their strategic roles, a stronger sense of belonging to community of practitioners, and renewed enthusiasm and confidence towards their work. Currently deployed in 34 countries, the work of PDAs represents an innovative approach for the UN in developing nationally tailored capacities to prevent conflicts and build sustainable peace.

The next PDA induction course will be held in the Fall, 2015.  In addition, a global retreat which will take place in the last quarter of 2015 will provide the opportunity for the current corps of PDAs to share how they have progressed in applying the ‘Wisdom’ they gained from their innovative experience of the June course."  

Peacebuilders speaking on Cape Talk Radio

Two participants in the Unyoke Leaders Exchange 2015 and I recently featured on Cape Talk Radio.

Listen to the interviews by clicking on the links below.

• Prof Clever Nyathi (Zimbabwe) spoke to Africa Melane on How Xenophobic Violence Can be Mediated; and 

• Ms Stella Sabiiti (Uganda) spoke to Pippa Hudson on her work as a peacebuilder.

• I spoke to Pippa Hudson on the need for a national dialogue mechanism in South Africa. 

Prime Media is a wonderful partner in building awareness for the peaceful resolution of conflict. 

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. 

Get involved in leading dialogue in South Africa

For some time now calls for an “economic CODESA” and “national dialogue” were made at various levels. As we speak, many citizens are involved in great initiatives to manage the tensions that arose from the attacks on citizens from other African countries residing in South Africa. 

Focused dialogues to overcome economic and social challenges are important, but the impact will be limited if there is no nationally mandated, civil-society driven, state sponsored mechanism in place to ensure sustainability. South Africa was the shining example in the world when we signed and implemented the National Peace Accord and its structures in the early 90s. As the attached concept note indicates, we have sadly been overtaken by Ghana, Kenya and Zimbabwe and we have not shown sufficient leadership in Africa on national peacebuilding since our transition to democracy.

The purpose of my mail is to stimulate discussions and ideas on how to unleash the energy of ordinary South Africans in partnership with government so that we can, once again, engage one another in pursuit of durable solutions to our common challenges.  

Dialogue is a leadership function, hence my call for you to help take leadership in building momentum for a national dialogue and conflict resolution mechanism in South Africa.

Please read the non-paper concept note on ideas to mobilise for social justice and inequality elsewhere on this blog. 

There is no copyright, and no ownership is claimed by me or anyone else. The important thing is to get the ideas out in the open and to stimulate dialogue. Feel free to extract or publish ideas and to challenge all who live inside our borders to bring their best ideas on how to build lasting justpeace — peace with justice and justness. 

My request is the following:  

1. Please read and then disseminate and discuss the concept note in your circles of influence.  
2. Please copy me when you forward the documents by email so that we can build a database of interested people.
3. Consider ways to stimulate the discussions in the media (talk radio, electronic media, social media and TV). One possible hashtag is #NationalDialogueSA 
4. Please volunteer to undertake some of the functions described in the concept document. 
5. You are welcome to call or email me to discuss ideas. 

Unyoke Leaders Exchange Participants 7-17 April 2015

From left to right: Stella Sabiiti (Uganda) Colin Herrman (UK) Solange Furaha (DRC) Andries Odendaal (SA) Khaled Al Bitar (Syria) Sifiso Mbuyisa (SA) Pieter Vanholder (Belgium/DRC) Chris Spies (SA) Nomfundo Walaza (SA) Philip Visser (SA/South Sudan) Clever Nyathi (Zimbabwe)

Unyoke Leaders Exchange was a resounding success. It exceeded all expectations.  We achieved our objectives more than 100%. At the moment I’m working on a short document and a video documentary to capture some of the gems without breaching the Chatham House rules that we had set for ourselves. 

You know something has worked when people say the following:  

"Thank you so much for the Unyoke Leadership Exchange. Very very special. I have not felt so refreshed in a very long time.”
“I was rather dead, but there is a lot of life that has started to grow during this week.”
"When I came here, life was quite dark. I was in a very bad space. The horizon cleared up while I was here, even if there are still a few dark lines. But this was a very light time for me, even if it was heavy or intense, but far lighter than what I have hoped.”


Not only have we achieved a rejuvenation of inspiration and energy, but quite a number of participants said that the time together helped them to change direction and to work differently. That is exactly what we had hoped for. 

What can practically be done to mobilise South Africans behind the goal of social inclusion, dignity and equality? Ten Principles and Ten Ideas

The accompanying message to this post can be found here.

Who are we?

The drivers of this initiative are passionate and committed citizens who want contribute constructively to the well-being of our country. We are supported by the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation and the In Transformation Initiative. 

Goal

Assuming that this is a widely-shared national aspiration, the project seeks to propose some concrete ideas for consideration by government, business and civil society leaders on steps to unify and mobilise South Africans behind the goals of dignity, social inclusion and equality. 

Problem statement

There are strong indications that South African society is experiencing increasing fragmentation. At leadership level, the three tiers of government, organised labour, business, civil society, faith communities, and even society at large are displaying deepening and potentially debilitating fault lines. 

Ongoing attacks against citizens from other African countries residing in South Africa are symptoms of deeper systemic problems. Calls for national dialogue are indeed a step in the right direction, because the underlying causes of systemic problems can only be resolved through deep dialogues and urgent action at various levels. The basis of concrete action by citizens and government is informed by the common understanding that emerges from these dialogues. 

It is our considered opinion that the time has come to acknowledge that these schisms have developed beyond normal democratic contestation and debate. The profound lack of cohesion, together with a growing skepticism that South Africa will automatically self-correct, are beginning to threaten our democratic gains, most importantly, the common resolve to build an inclusive and fair society from the ruins of apartheid. The question becomes: what can be done to inspire South Africans to unify once again, this time explicitly with the aim to build a more equal, peaceful society that affirms the dignity of and justice for all? How can we come to a conversation on a “common social project”, based on a new framework of interaction, while accepting that painful issues of power and asymmetry remain? How can we learn from the mistakes of the past and create an irreversible momentum towards a common future? 

It is our assumption that South Africans are able to devise effective solutions to transform these challenges into opportunities for genuine change. We believe that it is therefore eminently possible to effect socio-political and societal change with more urgency and efficiency, should stakeholders regain the requisite trust in one another to collaborate effectively.

South Africa has proven that it is capable of coming together to resolve deep rooted conflicts when it signed and implemented a National Peace Accord, which facilitated spaces for ongoing political dialogue, conflict resolution and even political competition and paved the way for the celebrated multi-party negotiations and eventually a democratic and peaceful dispensation. Is it possible to re-create a national mechanism with a clear mandate and nation-wide support from government, business and civil society?

Previous and current best practices

African Heads of State called for the establishment of National Institutions for Prevention and Management of Conflict as far back as 2002. One of the Key Performance Indicators would be to: 

“Establish by 2004, national institutions or mechanisms for prevention, management and resolution of conflicts at community and national levels with active involvement of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and Community Based Organisations (CBOs). It should include indigenous conflict resolution mechanisms, Emergency Relief Assistance and confidence building measures between ethnic, racial and national groups. Such institutions could be national focal points for regional and continental early warning.”

Thirteen years later, only Ghana, Kenya and South Sudan have heeded the call of the African Heads of State. How would Africa’s ability to deal with conflict been different if these mechanisms were indeed implemented?

Ghana has established a National Peace Council, supported by Parliamentary Act 818, as an independent state mechanism 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”. 

Having established offices in all the regions of Ghana, the NPC pursues 6 strategic objectives:

1. To coordinate and harmonize all peace actors and initiatives within Ghana;
2. To promote understanding of peace for behavioural change;
3. To facilitate prevention and management of electoral violence;
4. To prevent tensions from erupting into conflict;
5. To manage conflicts so as to contain and limit further violent escalation; and
6. To identify root causes and resolve conflict.

According to Prof Clever Nyathi, who was instrumental in the establishment of the NPC, 

“the dialogues leading to the establishment of the NPC moved from organizational learning to action and to institution-creation. It required active civil society participation, patience, resilience and champions—and a relentless push for political and citizen commitment.” 

Zimbabwe, Kenya and South Sudan are all making good progress with their own locally grown conflict resolution mechanisms. Prof Nyathi personally engaged senior politicians and civil society and facilitated the crafting of a whole new chapter on the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission in the 2013 Constitution of Zimbabwe.

South Africa’s National Peace Accord was limited in scope, but exceeded the expectations as a national mechanism for the peaceful resolution of conflicts. Dialogue, mediation and negotiation were, albeit for the duration of the NPA's limited life-span of three years (1991-1994), the preferred strategies to build peace. An elaborate and effective infrastructure/peace architecture was developed at local and regional levels. Communities, interest groups and politicians had access to resources, expertise and local mechanisms where, under the leadership of credible bi-partisan chairpersons, burning and potentially dangerous issues were resolved peacefully. These regional and local peace committees provided safe spaces for belligerents to explore peaceful alternatives to violence; and healing and justice for those who suffered injustice and oppression. The repealing of the National Peace Accord Act in 1994 unintentionally led to the gradual disappearance of constructive dialogue spaces in favour of political competition and destructive contestation. 

South Africa have started a national discussion with representatives from all sectors of society during 2012 on the issue of social cohesion.   That process has been stalled and new impetus is required to ensure that the process gets back on track. To achieve success, government cannot be held responsible on its own, but partnerships between relevant and important sectors are crucial to ensure that mistakes of the past are not repeated. 

Now, more than ever, is the appropriate time to push for a concerted effort to redesign and develop a national mechanism for the peaceful transformation of conflict and the eradication of the causes thereof.  

The focus is, therefore, to achieve restoration of the dignity of all who live in South Africa regardless of age, gender or creed; to achieve peace, stability, unity and prosperity for individuals, their families, communities, organizations and the country as a whole. 

Some principles

Research and case studies from best practices suggest that the following principles should guide our actions:

1. Adequate preparation, inclusion, ownership and participation: Those whose healing, peace and justice are pursued should be included in the design, preparation and implementation of the peace efforts.
2. Creativity and volunteerism: Unleashing the creativity of citizens through inviting them to contribute in various ways is crucially important. 
3. Non-partisan leadership: Political structures should support but not lead or claim credit for the initiative.
4. Mandate: A broad-based mandate should be sought and given at local, regional and national levels. 
5. Coherence: Government policies and programmes, and civil society initiatives should be aligned around key fundamental human rights, needs, values and purposes.
6. Credible convenor: A credible convenor (person/group of persons or a mandated institution) should enjoy the trust of the widest possible range of stakeholders.
7. Credible facilitation: The process should be facilitated by a team of gender balanced inter-generational facilitators who are able to lead the process professionally and build trust and momentum.
8. Collaborative and collective leadership: Politicians, economic actors and civil society leaders should demonstrate political will and collaboration to establish and support a non-partisan conflict resolution mechanism across ideological and and other divides.
9. Organic development and linkages: Efforts to build peace will be stronger when they build on existing initiatives. Citizens and local/provincial government counterparts should be encouraged to develop home-grown mechanisms, which eventually can be linked and aligned to a national mechanism. 
10. Research: Current research should continuously inform, support and monitor the development and implementation of a national mechanism.  

Some process ideas and action steps towards building momentum

In the pursuit of creating a supportive process to give new impetus and insure renewed dedication to the already government established “national dialogue on social cohesion mechanism” that hopes to facilitate dialogue and mediation in South Africa, we propose the following steps to start this “parallel but supportive conversation”: 

1. Facilitation and communication: Establish a small, credible facilitation team and interim secretariat to coordinate, manage and facilitate the following processes as well as managing a flawless communication strategy with all stakeholders.
2. Convenors: Identify a diverse group of not more than 15 key leaders from government, business and civil society to convene a national peace mechanism design consultation. These leaders do not have to “represent” their institutions — their ideas are more important — but will play a leadership role, providing direction and oversight.  The same steps can be taken at regional and local levels. 
3. Professional expertise: Lean on seasoned national and international conflict transformation practitioners to help guide the process as advisors. 
4. Preparation, inclusion and participation: In preparation of such a process, encourage civil society organisations, business, academics, faith communities, and other interest groups to embark on a nation-wide consultation process to hear “the heartbeat of the nation” on matters of peace; the underlying systemic causes of inequality, poverty and violence; and concrete ideas on a sustainable mechanism to build justpeace, i.e. peace with justice and justness.
5. Policy framework: The aggregated responses from the consultation process provide the basis for the development of a broad policy framework. Such a framework creates an enabling environment to facilitate the development of mechanisms for dialogue or conversations amongst people at local and national level. The framework should also describe possible programmes and / or projects which would lead to peace and conflict as well as social, political and religious reconciliation and transformative dialogue engagements.
6. Political will: The convenors and facilitators engage key senior politicians, academics, business, the media, and other relevant civil society leaders on an ongoing basis to secure political will and commitment to establish a national mechanism for conflict resolution.
7. Mandate: Convene a national peace mechanism design indaba where the design is discussed, tested and recommended for implementation. 
8. Institutionalisation: Develop a white paper on a contextualised and indigenous equivalent of the Ghana National Peace Council and accompany the process towards the passing of a Bill in Parliament. 
9. Implementation: Key facilitators assist the newly formed mechanism with organisational development support, as well as the interview process for Commissioners and Secretariat Staff. 
10. Support: Provide ongoing coordination and support throughout the process.

Draft by Chris Spies, based on consultations with IJR and ITI colleagues
20 April 2015

spies.c@gmail.com