By MWALIMU GEORGE NGWANE
So much ink and spittle have been spilled since 2016 on the need for a Dialogue platform or Assembly to seek sustainable solutions to the current crisis. However both the form and the content of such an Assembly are still shrouded in conjectures and speculations. A few models of or approaches to a Dialogue Assembly would help state and non-state actors who believe in creating dialogue spaces make decisions, recommendations, proposals, and implementation benchmarks that hopefully should resonate with the aspirations of the citizenry. Models identified below do not include those targeting trade unions or socio-professional groups. The focus here is on grievances of a national character where the Dialogue Assembly is both dynamic in process and structured in event.
National model
A National model can be referred to as an inclusive national dialogue, a broad-based dialogue or simply a National Conference. This model seeks to debate issues on a national scale. It often occurs when a country is in the throes of a national crisis (power vacuum, military intervention, pre and post election agitations, national insurgence or civil war) and is in search of a national restructuring. Like in the African palaver theory where the village sits under a tree to agree or disagree until there is a consensus, the national model attempts to take into account all the frustrations and demands of citizens. The predominant issues on the table are, but not exclusive to, power-sharing reconfiguration, resource allocation, governance paradigm shift, electoral reforms and geo-political grievances.
This model may be in the form of a bottom-up formula, in which discussions and representations are held at the “lower indaba” (subdivisions or divisions), “medium indaba” (provinces, regions, kilils, states; and upper “indaba” (nation’s capital). This bottom-up three-tier formula gives the citizens a voice and visibility at all levels and helps to filter grassroots petitions into the national receptacle. It gives value to democratic entitlement as virtually every geopolitical locality feels their articulations are being taken into consideration and conveyed faithfully to government. On the other hand, a top-down formula would require an election of representatives from the medium indaba who carry the concerns of their people to the upper indaba. It is more or less like a nation’s lower or upper houses except that in this situation this is a new call for new voices with a new vision in a new dispensation. A top-down formula could also give room for selection by the central powers of representatives based on geo-political balance, state and non-state actors, partisan and non-partisan considerations and sometimes parochial interest. For the top-down formula to have a semblance of legitimacy, those selected would have to first hold consultations with the lower and medium indaba before any upper indaba Dialogue Assembly.
Constitutional model
This model is born out of the need to engineer or negotiate a constitution that would bring back aggrieved parties within the mainstream of the body-politic. Such a Dialogue Assembly is often linked to a governance or constitutional grievance whose solution can only be found in fashioning a win-win constitution. Indeed most governance grievances emanate from biased power-sharing structures (hypercentralisation, clientelism, personality cult, and the culture of patronage and prebendalism); unbalanced development (unfair resource allocation, non-compliance with the law of derivation, critical development deficiencies and poor national economic agendas);truncated historical and constitutional manipulations (periodic constitutional tinkering, skewed perception of nation building, flawed prisms of binary and multiple identities and civil war). A constitutional model only succeeds when the citizens and especially the state actors identify the source(s) of the governance grievance. Without pride or prejudice, power or pretence, falsehood or fanaticism, the political elite have an obligation to discuss all the details of rancor and requests that may have shaken the very foundation of the nation’s edifice. Hopefully the outcome would be to build not break, heal not hurt and save not sink a new or amended architecture that guarantees a positive peaceful coexistence. A constitutional model requires first and foremost the expertise of constitutional statespersons guided by the input of informed citizens and the religious implementation of policy makers. What this therefore suggests is that a constitutional model is one that goes straight ahead to convening a constitutional forum in the guise of a Dialogue Assembly.
Holistic model
This is a combination of the national and the constitutional models. It aims at seeking solutions to a national crisis in tandem with constitutional grievances in the hope that justice, good governance and peace shall be restored. This model reminds us of the Tripartite Talks of 1991 in Cameroon where the draft electoral code and the draft decree on the access of political parties to the official media were the main items on the agenda. However even though the government had emphasized that there would be no additions to the proposed conference agenda, four Anglophone participants attending the conference in different capacities pulled out after the rejection of their proposals relating to the constitutional concerns of the Anglophones. Yet the 18th January 1996 constitution was born from the 1991 holistic model. It is important that the focus of a holistic model be on a balance between the national and the constitutional so none eclipses or dilutes the other. To this end the choice of participants should reflect a fair mix of state actors, civil society, aggrieved parties and constitutional experts.
Whatever Model
Research reveals that six political context factors play a decisive role in whatever model is chosen. First, the political elites can for self or group interest stand on the way of governance reforms. Even when far-reaching agreements of a model are arrived at, the political elite may either reverse the gains of the agreements or refuse their implementations. Still to this end aggrieved parties without any linear coordination can torpedo the agreements because of internal wrangling. Second, frustration from the citizens may hinder the progress of the model if there are delays in implementation. Therefore a lack of buy-in by the public often results in the resurgence of the initial governance grievance. Third, the presence of regional or international mutually accepted and credible facilitators helps in whatever model is selected. Fourth, there is always a merit in what is known as homegrown or indigenous expertise. No country should ignore the role of neutral, impartial and inside-outside local facilitators who have firsthand knowledge of the dynamics of the grievances. Fifth, many countries have had repeated occurrences of governance grievances. Experience from these occurrences should serve as corrective measures that would avoid stalemates and deadlocks even though it is rightfully argued that deadlocks are mere signposts to restrategising. Lastly whatever model is chosen the aim is to stop talking past each other and start talking to each other. The aim is to hold hands and not guns.
Conclusion
Dialogue Assemblies are not new to the African. Indeed Africa’s palaver tradition is informed by the fact that it is only by sitting under the tree or an open market square can people talk sincerely, listen actively, confront creatively before reaching a consensus. Trees and market squares are today especially in urban settings metaphors for halls called in most of Southern Africa “indaba”, in Lesotho “kgotla” and in some East African countries “mbuza”. These are all indigenous expressions of modern community dialogue assemblies where debate about the state and future of society are determined. The outcome is to restore sanity in a fragmented or failed society by charting a way forward for justice, development, growth and positive peace.