To date, many open questions and ambiguities remain with regard to the concept of National Dialogue. Much of the existing knowledge is case-specific and anecdotal. This Handbook pulls together different strands of practice that emerged in response to political developments in different parts of the world, ranging from Africa, to Europe, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), and Latin America. Most recently, the turbulent developments in the MENA region, often referred to as the Arab Spring, reflected a profound questioning of the legitimacy of governing institutions by an increasingly emancipated population. This pressure from below has pushed narratives of ‘inclusivity and ‘participation’ centre stage and National Dialogue (re-)emerged as a suitable format in this context. In addition, the increasingly complex nature of conflicts calls for formats of dialogue that involve a broad range of stakeholders in order to address the multi-dimensional causes of conflict.
Also relevant for understanding the growing popularity of National Dialogue is the limitation of securitized approaches that involved large-scale foreign (military) interventions to bring political stability; Libya, Syria and Iraq being cases in point.
The onus of conflict resolution has therefore recently shifted from the international to the national level. Moreover, National Dialogues emerged in response to the desire to protect national sovereignty as well as to scepticism about internationally directed interventions in many parts of the world. This has placed emphasis on political solutions with more robust national ownership. Against this background, National Dialogue practices emerge as a viable mechanism for conflict transformation able to
accommodate different demands made by national and international stakeholders. As a result, National Dialogues have been used but also abused in the service of achieving a multitude of objectives, which range from the preservation of the status quo (‘fig-leaf processes’) to initiating genuine change. First, this chapter puts forward a definition of National Dialogue. Second, the National Dialogue Framework is outlined, capturing the main elements such processes across the world have in common. Third, the chapter attempts to situate National Dialogue in a larger framework of conflict transformation mechanisms, identifying its peculiarities vis-à-vis negotiation and mediation. Fourth and last, the relationship between National Dialogues and constitution-making is analysed, exploring their similarities as well as their differences and further demarcating National Dialogues from other tools.
National Dialogue: What’s in a name?
Arriving at a definition for National Dialogues begets considering the context in which they emerged. It is important to note that they are neither a new phenomenon, nor one confined to the Global South. National Dialogues are largely connected to four historical waves of political transition, the first three of which can be seen through the wider lens of ‘Third Wave Democracy’.
First, in order to grapple with the major political upheavals caused by the breakdown of communism in Eastern and Central Europe in 1989, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, (East) Germany and Bulgaria held a series of roundtables, opening democratic politics to newly emerging actors and agendas. Second, widely felt discontent with the growing gap between citizens and the ruling elite in Africa, amid raised awareness connected with the bicentennial of the French Revolution, led a number of Francophone-African countries to hold National Conferences in the early 1990s. Third, during the 1990s many countries across Latin America held consensus based constitution-making processes in an attempt to strengthen participatory governance and development. The processes by which agreement on constitutional elements were reached, as in Bolivia and Colombia, reflect key features of National Dialogues. Fourth, the emergence of National Dialogue today is inextricably linked to the events of the Arab Spring in the broader MENA region.2 Spreading from one country to another, National Dialogues (or similar processes) have taken place in Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Jordan, Bahrain, and Yemen, each with a varying degree of success.
-When and why do National Dialogues take place?
National Dialogues are set up in response to different situations. They take place to address crises of national importance that have repercussions for the whole of society. These can be severe political deadlocks or blocked political institutions. In these situations, they seek to ease tensions, to reach political agreement or even to (re-)establish a (new) institutional framework, fulfilling a crisis management function. National Dialogues also take place as part of the process transitioning away from civil war and after political transitions when old political institutions are delegitimized and more comprehensive mechanisms are needed. In this function, National Dialogues generate ownership within a new (political, economic, social) system, seeking to establish new institutions and to negotiate a (revised) social contract between the state and its citizens. In these contexts, “[d]eveloping socio-political processes that can serve as ‘containers’ to resolve these disputes peacefully is crucial and becomes the experiential basis for deeper institutional reform and nation building” (Barnes 2017, 7). For the purpose of this Handbook, we define National Dialogues as follows: National Dialogues are nationally owned political processes aimed at generating consensus among a broad range of national stakeholders in times of deep political crisis, in post-war situations or during far-reaching political transitions.
-What are the objectives of National Dialogues?
Depending on the context, National Dialogues can be used or developed over time to fulfill a range of objectives. They may focus on a more narrow set of specific or substantive objectives (i.e. security arrangements, constitutional amendments, truth commissions, etc.), or on broadbased change processes, which may entail (re)building a (new) political system and developing a (new) social contract. Importantly, while many types of processes may reflect distinct uses or categories of dialogue, this Handbook distinguishes between two main types of National Dialogue, identified according to the function they seek
to fulfill:
-National Dialogues as mechanisms for crisis prevention and management
A shorter-term endeavour, undertaken strategically as a means to resolve or prevent the outbreak of armed violence
-National Dialogues as mechanisms for fundamental change
Efforts with a longer-term trajectory, envisioned as a means to redefine state-society relations, or establish a new ‘social contract’ Key aims: far-reaching institutional and constitutional changes Noteworthy example: Yemen Key characteristics: broad mandate and often fairly large in size. Seeking to include large strata of society and generate widespread support. They are confronted with the challenges of managing large-scale processes. Crisis prevention/management and fundamental change represent ideal types of National Dialogue, although in reality processes may exhibit features of both. Also, the distinction should be understood as a fluid one, as the function of a process may change over the course of its life cycle. A process might start as a temporary crisis management mechanism and end up in far-reaching change.
How are National Dialogues structured?
-National Dialogues pass through three successive phases:
Preparation, process and implementation. Within each phase different functions need to be developed into an institutional set-up. This is what we call the National Dialogue Framework. Once the objectives of the National Dialogue have been agreed upon, the next task is to translate these into corresponding institutions and procedures. Each decision will be informed by a range of technical, managerial, and power/political demands and considerations. There is no such thing as the one-size-fits-all or ‘correct’ format. Rather there are multiple options that help to address challenges and dilemmas. Like a cog in a wheel, each decision on process design will inform the way the overall system runs. Thus, each aspect demands thorough attention, strategic consideration, and honest assessment in order that informed decisions can be taken that consider the risks and opportunities involved and are based on a sound conflict analyses.
-The phases of National Dialogues:
Each process starts with a preparation phase. Sometimes the distinction is made between an exploratory and preparatory phase, though in practice this distinction is often negligible. Starting a National Dialogue will inevitably entail thorough conflict analysis, fact finding, establishing political will and positions, and gathering support. Once sufficient political will and/or momentum has been generated, some sort of formal public announcement will initiate official preparations, often conducted within bodies set up specifically for that purpose. The preparation phase can be as long as or even longer than the official process, and it often constitutes a mini-negotiation process in itself. Once all parameters have been negotiated – and, ideally, a consensus on the proceedings has been established – the process phase begins. Once an outcome has been reached, the implementation phase commences. For the purpose of clarity, this Handbook distinguishes between these phases, each of which is covered in a dedicated chapter. In practice, however, the transition from one phase to another is often fluid, non-linear and often interrupted and reinitiated.
-The institutional framework and structures of National Dialogues:
Each National Dialogue will have its unique structure corresponding to the highly context-specific needs and aim of each process. However, similarities can be detected. This structure tends to respond to a core set of functions: preparing the process, overseeing the process, providing technical support, facilitating broad-based/representative decision-making and generating substantial thematic input, often organized around working groups and subcommittees. Often, deadlock-breaking mechanisms or safety nets are also built into the overall structure, as well as fact-finding bodies that can be initiated early in the preparation phase. This is what we call the National Dialogue support structure.
Called from National Dialogue Handbook
A Guide for Practitioners
By Swiss Peace in cooperation with Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA
Directorate of Political Affairs DP
Human Security Division:
Peace, Human Rights, Humanitarian Policy, Migration