Dialogue Typology English by sndp gt

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean Democratic Dialogue Project (RLA-01-004)

Draft not for circulation

TOWARDS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DIALOGUE TYPOLOGY1

This document was prepared by Elena DĂez Pinto based on the small group and plenary discussions dialogue practitioners engaged during three learning workshops convened by RBLAC over the course of two years. Their contributions and discussions are summarized in three workshop reports. The emerging typology presented here has also been developed through technical meetings and team work with Andrew Russell from RBLAC, Katrin Kaeufer from MIT, Bettye Pruitt from Sol and Adam Kahane from Generon.

CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Definition of Democratic Dialogue

3. Dialogue Purpose: Framing Concepts

− Dealing with critical events – Dialogue as an instrument −

Addressing the challenges of the times – Dialogue as a philosophy/modus operandi

− Dialogue as a strategic discussion – Promoting long-term change 4. Contexts: Ripeness of the problem − − − −

4 6

Understandings Agreements Actions

6. Mapping Dialogue Process

Latent problems (needs): Recognized Problems (interests) Conflicts (positions) Crisis (sides)

5. Outcomes: Concreteness − − −

Towards the construction of a dialogue typology 1. Introduction The construction of a dialogue typology has been a central undertaking of the knowledge creation componente of the Democratic Dialogue Project. Dialogue practitioners2 participating in two of the project’s learning workshops have shared their experiences and engaged in a creative effort to understand where their particular experience fits in the overall dialogue “territory” and how can it be compared to other dialogue efforts. The Project’s ongoing effort of constructing a useful dialogue typology is essentially aimed at developing an analytical and conceptual framework that enables a deep understanding of the diverse dialogue experiences shared by practitioners (both supported by UNDP and by others) as well as a way for organizing, mapping and learning from them. This document presents a synthesis of the emerging typology categories and include: purpose (what dialogues intend to achieve), context (under what conditions dialogues unfold) and outputs (what dialogues produce). During the workshops many other categories were discussed such as types of intervention (consensus building, negotiation, rapprochement), convening body (national or international institution), participation (open or selective), power to effect change, government participation, territorial scope (supranational, national, regional, local, temporal scope (short,medium or long term), and general scope (events, current situation, structures. We tried to include most of them in the categories we are proposing. We believe others, such as convening and participation, are more directly linked to methodological aspects.

2. Definition of Democratic Dialogue Democratic dialogue has been defined by practitioners as a cross-institutional process for addressing complex societal problems or challenges that cannot be addressed adequately— successfully, sustainably, legitimately, peacefully —by any single institution. It is a crossinstitutional tool for democratic governance that complements democratic institutions such as legislatures, political parties, and governmental bodies. A democratic dialogue is multi-stakeholder, bringing together the people who are part of the problem and who have to be part of the solution, or alternatively, a microcosmic group of formal and informal society leaders. A democratic dialogue is inclusive. People from different sectors, classes, hierarchies, parties, regions, generations, gender and cultures who normally work separately or even in opposition to one another engage in a common dialogue process. A democratic dialogue produces a safe space for people to talk with and listen to one another openly and creatively, thus contributing to restore or build trust. Such conversations also enable them to reach consensu, that is, shared understanding of what the problem is, of their part in it, and of what they must do to address it.

Problem owners, facilitators, leaders of dialogue initiatives.

Democratic dialogue produces four types of outcomes, all of which are important to understanding dialogue’s process and impact. Some outcomes are produced individually by members of the dialogue team and some collectively by the team as a whole; some outcomes are invisible, perceivable only by members of the team, and some are visible to external observers.3 The collective, visible outcomes are in turn of three types, with different degrees of concreteness: general understandings, specific agreements, and implemented actions. Democratic dialogue is used in four types of political contexts determined by the “sense of urgency” a society has to address problems. These political contexts are directly related to four stages of problem’s “ripeness.” Proble ms can be latent, arising from unmet and generally unrecognized needs; problems and people’s interests in them can be generally recognized; problems can be producing a conflict, with people taking positions; or problems can be erupting into a crisis, with people taking sides. 4 In general, as problems become riper, the sense of urgency to solve them increases and so do threats to legitimacy, governance and stability. Riper problems produce either conflicts or erupt into a crisis. Solving these problems requires combined efforts by both civilians and government authorities. Less ripe problems—such as latent needs or recognized problems—may also present threats to legitimacy, governance or stability. But in general, a timely dialogue effort-- often led by civilians with or without government participation-- may be sufficient to address them. Democratic dialogue processes can be classified according these two variables: the concreteness of the dialogue’s collective, visible outcomes, and the ripeness of its problem context.

3. Dialogue Purpose: Framing Concepts Two sets of definitional categories have emerged regarding purpose– one for what might be called the scope of purpose; and one that differentiates the role of dialogue. These came up from from discussing the challenges or problems of the times--the most critical being corruption, persistent poverty, the negative impact of globalization, disillusionment and cynicism about government—and the long-term problems/Challenge such as racism and class divisions (e.g. Peru, Guatemala, and Mexico), “tribal” political traditions (e.g. Jamaica), disempowerment of women in the public sphere, or inadequate traditional structures and processes of representative democracy to deal with problems of the 21 st century. The specific categories proposed were the following: Scope of purpose § § §

Dealing with critical events Addressing the challenges/problems of the times Promoting long-term change

These four types of outcomes correspond to Wilbur’s four quadrants: “I” (individual and invisible), “We” (collective and invisible), “It” (individual and visible), and “Its” (collective and visible). 4 These four contexts or stages were proposed at the Panama workshop.

Role of dialogue § § §

Dialogue as an instrument Dialogue as a philosophy and modus operandi Dialogue as a strategic discussion

These categories are based on what one of the participants expressed as “the classic differentiation in history: the history of events; the history of particular eras; the history of the long term.” 5 Also, they are clearly linked, as the following paragraphs describe.

Dealing with critical events – Dialogue as an instrument A good example of dialogue organized around this purpose is Diálogo Argentino. The Catholic Church and UNDP convened this dialogue at the request of the government, in the midst of an “accumulation of crises” – economic, social, and political – that had caused public demonstrations, looting, and violence. The case forcefully illustrated the painful contradictions of the crisis situation, in which there were urgently pressing issues demanding concrete action but having complex, structural, and often psychologically-rooted causes requiring deep change. The particular challenge in using dialogue in these situations is the tendency to focus on the immediate crisis and avoid dealing with the structural issues underlying it. Part of learning how to use multi-stakeholder dialogue effectively involves finding ways to manage this inevitable tension. At the same, a word of caution to be considered in each case is whether dialogue is the appropriate tool or are there other alternatives?. For example, might Argentina have been better served by dissolving the legislature and holding new elections? Another example of dialogue as an instrument is Agenda Uruguay. In a context of a social and political crisis, this dialogue generated concrete proposals for action and positive changes in the relationships among political parties and in the attitudes of government. Dialogue can also be used as an instrument of restoration – restoration of public sanity in times of chaos. In this regard, multi-stakeholder dialogue can have great symbolic value: “The simple act, as in the case of Venezuela, of having the actors seated around the table, the symbolism of that fact has a tremendous force, although it solves nothing.” And it can provide time – for finding solutions, for stepping back from the brink of violence, if need be. Can multi-stakeholder dialogue also be an effective instrument of problem solving in times of crisis? The outcome of the “salary of social inclusion” from Diálogo Argentino or the 1991 Geneva dialogues that ended the Salvadoran civil war, are examples of dialogues in this category of purpose. Finally, keeping in mind the important distinction between presenting problems and underlying causes, we need to explore the role in dialogue as an instrument of reform or revitalization in crisis situations. This is, of course, the most highly politicized area and an area in which workshop participants have expressed considerable frustration with the gap between dialogue and action. Practically speaking, this use of multi-stakeholder dialogue bridges the short-, medium-, and long-term purposes we have defined. Yet, some experiences demonstrate that there can be a 5

Milda Rivarola, a Paraguayan participant.

fruitful connection between crisis and long-term change if the crisis awakens people to the need for reform. In Peru, for instance, the dramatic, highly -publicized, corruption crisis in the Fujimori government mobilized the citizens to a degree that years of civil rights violations had not. Addressing the challenges of the times – Dialogue as a philosophy/modus operandi A recurrent theme at the learning workshops is that about the weakness of democratic institutions, which are not working very well, both regionally (in Latin America and the Caribbean) and elsewhere. This crisis in democracy itself – described variously as a crisis of power, of legitimacy, of deliberation, of effectiveness in governing in the face of entrenched de -facto powers on the one hand and powerful geo-political forces on the other – is perhaps the defining challenge of the present era. And the key purpose for dialogue initiatives is to reform and reinvigorate democratic institutions and democratic processes at every level But how can a democracy be reinvigorated? A possible vision is that of “democracy-in-dialogue (democracia dialogante).” The kind of extraordinary, problem-solving dialogues are no substitute for this desired state, but they can help to bring it into being, because multi-stakeholder dialogue is, in its essence, a democratic process. Democratic institutions may also be “infused” with the philosophy of dialogue – a philosophy that dictates opening the discussion space widely to include the voices of those people usually excluded. In many Latin American cities, the recently created institution of the Ombudsman exemplifies this philosophy. But it also exemplifies the problems that constrain the practical implementation of the philosophy. On one hand the people are not accustomed to exercising their right to be heard; and on the other, the established powers-that-be are not accustomed to taking the people’s opinions into account. Together, by maintaining their accustomed patterns of behavior, both sides help to keep the institution from becoming anything more than a legality. Democracy-in-dialogue must be a philosophy enacted – it must be a modus operandi, a culture. A true democratic culture is “a culture of talking to each other to solve problems rather than shooting at each other.” To build such a culture requires not only to “embrace” the philosophy of dialogue but also to develop the capacity to practice it and cultivate it as a normal way of doing business. The dialogues supported by WSP -International, have developed a methodology that encourages and supports people in developing the dialogue skills that will serve them after the specific project has concluded. In many countries there is a public hunger for a more direct role in debating and deciding on the problems and challenges of the times. And there is frustration with the established institutions of representative government, which reserve that role to the elected officials alone. This could be labeled as a challenge to the established institutions, a “crisis of deliberation.”, a structural crisis: the tension between 19th-century institutions and 21st -century needs and aspirations. It is a governance crisis that exists in institutions other than government – for example, in churches and schools. Dialogue as a strategic discussion – Promoting long-term change This category refers specifically to the civic scenario projects – Mont Fleur in South Africa; Destino Colombia, Visión Guatemala, and Visión Paraguay. These dialogue processes, have

been multi-stakeholder, strategic (“a mechanism of living more reflectively, of planning for the long term – of understanding the past and reconstructing the future”) and a way of getting “unstuck” from the problems of the present moment and thinking about long-term, structural change, an opportunity to define the country of the future. Visión Paraguay, for instance, came about in a context of increasing poverty and crime; lack of confidence in government; widespread corruption, and social fragmentation. Visión Guatemala, emeged after the Peace Accords were signed with the purpose of supporting their implementation. Both dialogues resulted in development of new relationships, increased capacity for dialogue within a diverse group of leaders, and scenarios of possible national futures that provided a basis for expanding the discussion and further actions beyond the dialogue group . Similarly, Mont Fleur emerged in a society facing the challenge of charting a way forward in post-apartheid South Africa. As outcomes, the Mont Fleur dialogue established working relationships among former opponents, especially across the racial divide, built consensus among them on key principles of economic policy, and constructed scenarios of possible national futures.

4. Contexts: Ripeness of the problem Democratic dialogues have arisen under four types of contexts, to address societal problems at four different stages of “ripeness”: latent problems, recognized interests or problems, conflict, and crisis. Latent problems (needs): society faces problems that are still latent and which arose or are arising as a result of unmet or generally unrecognized needs. An example of such dialogue is the Indigenous People Dialogue in Guatemala organized to fulfill the promises of the Peace Accords (1996) to honor the rights and identities of the indigenous majority. Recognized Problems (interests): the problem and people’s interests are generally recognized and addressed through a dialogue process. The civic dialogues of Visión Guatemala, Visión Paraguay, Destino Colombia and Mont Fleur represent dialogues where society interests— poverty, apartheid, corruption, social fragmentation-- were recognized and addressed. Conflicts (positions): severe problems which are critical to a country’s governance, legitimacy and stability and have not been recognized and addressed produce conflict , with people taking positions. The Acuerdo Nacional Perú, for example, came about in the midst of a triple crisis—that of political legitimacy, of government credibility (caused by corruption and violations of human rights), and of the economy. Similarly, the Bambito dialogues of Panamá emerged in a context of deep political divisions following the US invasion and arrest of Manuel Noriega, and subsequent four years of political turmoil, impending elections and the opportunity to take control of the Canal and Canal Zone. Crisis (sides): problems that are critical, shared by society at large, remain unsolved and are consistently ignored by governments may also erupt into a crisis. During a crisis, governance, legitimacy and stability are generally lost. People are polarized and take sides. The Venezuelan negotiation process came about only after government and the opposition were polarized and a broad-based strike paralyzed the economy and threatened to turn violent. Similarly, Diálogo Argentino was organized when the country was sinking in a debt

crisis, a political, economic and social deterioration, and a lost sense of common good in a fragmented and disoriented society.

5. Outcomes: Concreteness Democratic dialogue produces four types of outcomes, all of which are important for understanding dialogue’s process and impact. Some outcomes are produced individually by members of the dialogue team and some collectively by the team as a whole; some outcomes are invisible, perceivable only by members of the team, and some are visible to external observers.6 The collective, visible outcomes are in turn of three types, with different degrees of concreteness: general understandings, specific agreements, and implemented actions. In general, dialogues organized in a context of “latent needs” or “recognized problems” produce understandings and agreements in relatively short term. But concrete actions often take a longer time to be implemented, unless under a context of conflict or crisis when immediate actions are taken to prevent further fragmentation and polarization. Understandings: dialogues may produce more understanding among stakeholders which in turn generates greater tolerance, increased trusting relations and networks, a collective vision about the future and recognition of particular needs. The Indigenous People Dialogue in Guatemala , is generating a better understanding about the prevailing racism and widespread exclusion of the indigenous majority. Similarly, the civic dialogues of Visión Paraguay, Visión Guatemala, Destino Colombia and Mont Fleur created a deeper understanding of these countries’ current and emerging realities and opportunities for the future. Agreements: dialogues also produce specific agreements or consensus. These include proposals for new legislation, public policies, agendas for further discussion and imple mentation. The Security Policy dialogue in Guatemala, supported by WSP International, for instance, built consensus among the armed forces, the police and civilians and produced proposals and documents. Similarly, the Tri-sector Dialogue in the Philippines produced the Philippine Agenda 21, a framework for sustainable development modeled on Global Agenda 21. Also, the Multi-party Dialogue in Guatemala has brought together delegates from the 20 existing political parties who produced a shared national agenda which they agreed to support for the next four years. Actions: the capacity of dialogues to generate concrete, immediate actions seem to be related to the sense of urgency a society has to resolve any given problem. This explains why under contexts of conflict or crisis concrete actions are implemented in the short term. Diálogo Argentino, for instance, produced the Salary of Social Inclusion, organized dialogue tables for discussing critical problems for specific sectors, and planted the seed of dialogue as an instrument for regenerating democracy. Agenda Uruguay produced fairly soon concrete proposals for action and positive changes in the relationships among political parties and in the attitude of government. The following two tables organize and map the democratic dialogue experiences shared by the members of the dialogue network, according to the two last categories discussed: the

concreteness of the dialogueâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s collective, visible outcomes, and the ripeness of its problem context

CONTEXT The ripeness of the problem

Erupted: sides

Conflicted: positions

Recognized: interests

Latent: needs

Relationships

Understandings

Agreements

The concreteness of the OUTCOMES Source: UNDP

Actions

Mapping Dialogue Process PROBLEM CONTEXT (Ripeness)

Erupted (Sides) Crises

Conflicted (Positions) Conflicts

Destino Colombia Context: armed conflict fueled by narcotraffic Outcomes: consensus among participants about a desired peaceful future; scenarios of possible natio nal futures that provide a basis for expanding the discussion beyond the dialogue group

Negociación Venezolano Context: polarization between the government and the opposition; a broadbased strike, paralyzing the economy and threatening to turn violent Outcomes: agreement to establish a negotiation process and to find an electoral way out of the crisis

Perú Acuerdo Nacional Context: coming out o f a triple crisis – of political legitimacy, of governmental credibility (caused by corruption and human rights violations), and of the economy Outcomes: more understanding among the actors and greater tolerance; an agreement to institutionalize the proces s; the possibility of thinking about a collective vision Futuro Democrático, Guatemala

Bambito, Panamá Context: deep political divisions following the U.S. invasion and arrest of Manuel Noriega and subsequent four years of turmoil; impending elections; the opportunity to take control of the Canal and Canal Zone; a prior dialogue process and resulting agreements on fair and transparent elections Outcomes: broad agreement on a national agenda in the key area of management of the Canal and use of the land and facilities in the Canal Zone; new working relationships among former political enemies; a foundation

Diálogo Argentino Context: debt crisis, political, economic, and social deterioration; loss of the sense of common good in a fragmented, disoriented society Outcomes: the Salary of Social Inclusion; creation of dialogue tables for specific sectors; planting the “seed” of dialogue as an instrument for regeneration of democracy Agenda Uruguay Context: economic and social crisis; political crisis; governmental paralysis in the face of opposition Outcomes: concrete proposals for action; positive changes in the relationships among political parties and in the attitude of government

Recognized (Interests) Problems

Latent (Needs) Needs

OUTCOMES (Concreteness) ?

Visi贸n Paraguay Context: increasing poverty and crime; lack of confidence in government; widespread corruption; social fragmentation Outcomes: development of new relationships and the capacity for dialogue within a diverse group of leaders; scenarios of possible national futures that provided a basis for expanding the discussion beyond the dialogue group Mont Fleur Context: challenge of charting a way forward in post-apartheid South Africa Outcomes: working relationships among former opponents, especially across the racial divide; consensus among them on key principles of economic policy; scenarios of possible national futures that provided a basis for expanding the discussion beyond the dialogue group Visi贸n Guatemala Di谩logo sobre Pueblos Ind铆genas, Guatemala Context: unfulfilled promises of the Peace Accords to honor the rights and identities of indigenous people Outcomes: recognition of the need for dialogue among indigenous people at the local level Paraguay Jaipotava Understandings

for continuing use of dialogue Mesas Intersectoriales, Guatemala WSP Politica de Seguridad, Guatemala Context: paralyzed process to reform the armed forces into a democratic security force Outcomes: proposals and documents of consensus between police and civilians on security policy Mesa de Justicia, Argentina Context: institutional weakness of the judicial system Outcomes: formation of working groups on various aspects of judicial reform; multistakeholder agreement on reform principles Tri-sector Dialogue, Philippines Context: the challenge to the Philippine economy posed by the World Trade Organization Outcomes: Philippine Agenda 21, a framework for sustainable development modeled on Global Agenda 21 from the 1992 Earth Summit Multi-party Dialogue, Guatemala

Agreements

Actions