El Diálogo como herramienta para la transformación pacífica de conflictos

Dialogue as a Tool for PeacefulConflict Transformation

by BETTYE H. PRUITT

and KATRIN KAÜFER

United NationsDevelopment Programme

DEMOCRATIC DIALOGUE REGIONAL PROJECT

Design and edition: Magna Terra editores5a avenida 4-75 zona 2, Guatemala cityTels.: (502) 2238-0175, 2250-1031 y 2251-4298Fax: (502) 2251-4048E-mail: [email protected]

Dialogue as a Tool for Peaceful Conflict TransformationWorking paper number 2 / “WORKING PAPER” Serie© United Nations Development Programme, 2004

1 UN Plaza, New York, 10017, United Estate of América

DEMOCRATIC DIALOGUE REGIONAL PROJECT

UNDP GuatemalaEuroplaza World Business CenterTorre IV, Nivel 105a. avenida 5-55, zona 14Tels.: (502) 2384-3100 2385-3859Fax: (502) 2384-3200/3201Guatemala, City, Central [email protected]://www.democraticdialoguenetwork.org

Regional Director forLatin America and theCaribbean: Elena MartínezRegional ProgrammeCoordinator: Freddy JustinianoCoordination: Elena Diez PintoTeam Supportin New York: Andrew Russell, Elizabeth Díaz y

Marc-André FrancheTeam Supportin Guatemala: Sonia González

Printed in GuatemalaFirst edition: october 2004

All rights reserved. This publication and its supplementary materials may not bereproduced in whole or in part or stored in or transsmitted by any information retrievalsystem, in any form or by any means whatsoever, whether mechanical, photochemical,electronic, magnetic, electro optical, phothocopies or any other means, without thepriorwritten permission of the UNDP.

Index

Contents

Linking Theory to Practice ................................................. 9 Talking Nice .............................................................................. 11 Talking Tough ............................................................................ 11 Reflective Dialogue ................................................................... 12 Generative Dialogue ................................................................. 13 The Antigua Workshop .............................................................. 14 What Is This Work About? .......................................................... 15 What Are the Process Options? ................................................. 16 Meta-Questions ......................................................................... 22 What Is the Way Forward? ......................................................... 23

Creating Collective Knowledge ................................. 25The Knowledge-Creation Infrastructure .......................................... 25

Conclusion................................................................ 27

Commentary ............................................................. 29By Manuel Manga

Commentary ............................................................. 31By Elena Martínez

References ................................................................................ 32

7Dialogue as a Tool for Peaceful Conflict Transformation

A member of the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) and a member of theNational Party were debating. It was like water and oil between thosetwo. And, of course, the PAC never spoke about the South African govern-ment at the time; it referred to the Racist Pretoria Regime. The PAC memberwas trying to say “the Racist Regime” but because of the bonding that hadgone on, he could not say that. He was caught between loyalty to a memberof a team whom he had come to like personally and the political imperativeof not talking about the South African government but rather the RacistPretoria Regime. When he needed to say “the South African government”or “the Racist Pretoria Regime” at one point, he stammered for quite awhile. It was clear he was facing a moral trauma. Then the member of theNational Party said to him, “Do you mean the Racist Pretoria Regime?”We all could see an obvious turning point in their relationship.

–Participant, civic scenario workshop

This quotation illustrates Gandhi’sprinciple that every conflict resolu-tion starts with a change in how wethink about the other person. It alsoillustrates a critical dynamic in dialo-gue processes –the formation of hu-man connections– that helps toexplain their effectiveness in conflictsituations. In the next quote, a dia-logue participant describes what helearned. Although this is a very per-

sonal statement, it illustrates whattransforms conflict into peacefulcooperation. It takes more than a‘’solution.’’ The participant describesa process of distancing himself fromhis own behavior and reflecting onthe impact this behavior has onothers. It implies getting out frombehind excuses and facing reality.And it implies a move to action:

I suppose that subconsciously we were all aware that what was beingdone to our brothers and sisters in this country was wrong. That peoplewere not being treated with dignity, but . . . somebody else was doing it. Iwas treating people with dignity. But I was not doing anything to get mybrothers to treat their brothers with dignity. So it was like the Germans inWorld War II. They saw nothing. Heard nothing. It was the Gestapo doingit, not me.

–Participant, civic scenario workshop

BETTYE H. PRUITT

President, Pruitt Et Company,Inc.

KATRIN KÄUFER

Visiting Scholar, MIT, SoL

Democratic Dialogue Regional Project8

These powerful insights into thehuman experience of dialogue inpostconflict situations come fromthree learning histories of civic sce-nario projects: Mont Fleur in SouthAfrica, Destino Colombia in Colom-bia, and Visión Guatemala in Gua-temala (Gillespie, 2001; de León andDíez Pinto, 2001; Díez Pinto, 2001).Commissioned by the United NationsDevelopment Program (UNDP) Re-gional Bureau for Latin America andthe Caribbean, the histories are partof an initiative to develop multi-stakeholder dialogue as a tool forstrengthening democratic institu-tions in the region. The impetus forthis project came from UNDP’s invol-vement in Visión Guatemala, whichwas facilitated by Adam Kahane ofGeneron (Kahane, 2001). In part-nership with Kahane-the pioneerand leading practitioner of the civicscenario process-and with the authors,representing the Society for Organi-zational Learning (SoL) and the Massa-chusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),UNDP has both promoted and assistednew civic dialogue initiatives and,concurrently, developed the know-ledge for making dialogue a moreeffective tool in the arena of demo-cratic governance (Kahane, 2001).

Our joint efforts began with thedevelopment of the three learninghistories-analytical narratives jointlytold by first-person participants andoutsider observers-of Mont Fleur,

Destino Colombia, and Visión Gua-temala. In November 2000 at a work-shop in Antigua, Guatemala, UNDP

and its partners presented thelearning histories as the basis fordiscussion of civic scenario buildingand other civic dialogue processes.The Antigua workshop laid thefoundation for a broader effort tocreate knowledge that will havethree critical dimensions: collectivelearning, a learning network, and atight linkage to practice. Significan-tly, the Antigua meeting also gaveimpetus to new civic dialogue pro-jects in Latin America and the Ca-ribbean that will be an invaluable‘’learning laboratory’’ as the projectsand workshops move forward.

What we share here are somerich experiences with dialogue fromthe Antigua workshop, a brief over-view of the continuing effort to createknowledge, and some new under-standing of how dialogue works. Inparticular, we show how the concreteexamples derived from practice inthe field, illustrated in the quotationsabove, give meaning to theory on dia-logue and change. And, conversely,the theory makes it possible to createa language that can help practitio-ners discern and express the invisi-ble, relational dynamics in civic dia-logue processes-dynamics criticalboth to conflict resolution and to longerterm transformation in democraticsocieties.


The main objective of the currentUNDP initiative is to create knowledgethat will make it possible to under-stand successful dialogue processesmore fully and to replicate them. Whatis missing is a theory to provide a lan-guage of competence that will illu-minate the often invisible precondi-tions and underlying processes ofdialogue (Fletcher, 1999). This lan-guage would enable us, for example,to name and capture the dynamicsrevealed in the quotations with whichwe began this article.

In all three civic-scenario learninghistories, the participants describedthe inner changes that the processbrought about. Why do some pro-cesses alter people’s thinking so tho-roughly that their behavior changesand they become committed to ac-ting differently? Research on changeprocesses in groups can help us addressthis question. The classical model,developed by Kurt Lewin and EdgarSchein, emphasizes three phases:unfreezing, change, and refreezing(Schein, 1987, 1999). The most im-portant phase is unfreezing, whichmakes change possible. The art offacilitation is to design a process thatincludes spaces and time to allow andencourage the unfreezing. The .finalphase is action. The change occursin between (see figure 1).

Problems cause reaction, levelzero (Scharmer, 2001a). One groupviolates rules; the opposite groupreacts. One act leads to another. Asone civic scenario participant stated,‘’War produces something very com-plicated: the absence of tolerance.War as such is a drastic solution foreverything –it is the maximum solu-tion– so that when you break yourword, you have to take up arms, whichmakes it difficult to be tolerant of theideas of others’’ (de León and DíezPinto, 2001).

Action and reaction are deter-mined at different underlying levels.One is the structure or the policiesin place that influence individualaction. But at another level, structureand policies are based on people’smental models. To use an examplefrom Singapore, the police changedtheir mission statement from, ‘’Beinga police force for Singapore’’ to ‘’Beinga force for Singapore.’’ With thesecond statement, the police hopedto express that their mission was tohelp instead of to control. The fra-ming of this new mission marked abreakthrough in their change processbecause it helped them to thinkdifferently about themselves andtheir purpose (Cory and Kim, 2000).

We know from personal expe-rience how hard it is to sustain a

Linking Theory to Practice

Why do some processes alterpeople’s thinking so thoroughlythat their behavior changes andthey become committed toacting differently?


change effort. In organizations andcorporations, most change effortsfail. For reengineering efforts, thesuccess rate falls between 20% and50% (Strebel, 1996). Change effortsthat involve larger entities, nations,or transnational units are even morecomplex. Constituencies with con-tradictory goals, shadows from thepast that reach out to the present, lackof a communication system, and manyother factors make the large-scalechange effort a highly complex pro-blem. This complexity requires achange process that accesses thedeeper levels of change-levels threeand four in the figure. The deepestlevel of change touches the partici-pants’ will or intent and answers thequestion: ‘’Where does our commit-ment come from?’’ The uncoveringof will or intent is necessary to ensurethat change is sustainable and thatthe purpose is being put into practice.Not every change process needs to

involve all levels of change or accessthe deepest level, but a methodologythat aims at social change has to takethe participants through the deeperlevels where they become aware ofand reflect on their own thinking,and where they can build commit-ment for social change.

Civic-scenario participantsrecalled how the level of trust increa-sed throughout the scenario work,how they learned to listen, and howtheir perspectives changed. Accor-ding to one participant in the Gua-temala project: ‘’When I finally deci-ded to open my mind and forsake myprejudices, I learned from peoplewhom I would never have approa-ched. I learned from them as persons,at a personal level, but also aboutsome aspects that represented theirideologies. Several businessmenspoke of their experiences with kid-napping. It is then that one beginsto understand why these people


became hardened and are full of hateand resentment’’ (Díez Pinto, 2001).

Participants talked about thedifferent levels of communicationthey observed (Scharmer and Kaüfer,2002; Scharmer, 2001b; Scharmer,2002) and participated in throughoutthe process (see figure 2).

Talking Nice

Participants described their interac-tions at the beginning as playingaccording to the rules: ‘’In the firstsession, the project facilitator infor-med us that it was necessary to esta-blish the rules of the game, a seriesof principles that would serve as abasis for our work and discussions. Hesaid that we had to figure them out,so we came up with a list of eightrules; for instance, punctuality, res-pect for the ideas of others, listening,and so on. After all of us expressedour agreement with the rules, thesewere written on a board and keptbefore us all the time. . . . These ruleshelped us to keep our discussions ona low key. . . .They also helped us tofeel free to talk and to expect respect’’(Gillespie, 2001). Communicatingaccording to rules implies that peopledon’t speak up when the conversa-tion contradicts their own thinking.

Talking Tough

Participants told how the group movedfrom being nice and engaging ononly a superficial level toward

speaking up: ‘’At the beginning, itwas a little hard. There was muchmistrust in the first meetings. No onewanted to talk, everyone limited him–or herself and said the minimum ofwhat he had to say, but little by little,that environment started breakingdown, and we were able to have allsorts of things come out–obviously,things that must be worked on’’ (deLeón and Díez Pinto, 2001). Thatprocess moves the group to a newlevel of communicating.

At one moment, the mode ofconversation was changed by oneparticipant’s introduction of a diffe-rent perspective: ‘’The first round inthe first session was extremely nega-tive because we were all looking backto the events of recent years, whichhad left a deep imprint on us. Thus,a first moment full of pessimism wasgenerated. Suddenly, a young manstood up and questioned our pessi-mism in a very direct manner. Thismoment marked the beginning of avery important change, and we con-tinually referred to it afterward’’(Díez Pinto, 2001). When peoplespeak their minds, conflicts show up.Participants described how theircommon work on the scenarios helpedthem to examine their disagreementsand work together to resolve them.In this phase of communicating, con-versation includes voicing and lis-tening to different opinions.


Reflective Dialogue

In a next phase, participants discusseda form of listening based on mutualunderstanding: ‘’We were capable ofunderstanding each other, of talkingto each other; we were capable of res-pecting each other. This is somethingthat I am certain has impressed manypeople in the country. And oneconversation was: Were the peopleof the guerrillas there? And if so, werethey listening? Yes. This is somethingso simple, but I believe that whatmight be happening in the countrymay be influenced by one of theseprocesses’’ (Díez Pinto, 2001).

In the reflective dialogue phase,participants individually and as a

group develop an inner voice thathelps them focus on what they aredoing. They listen more carefully andmove away from debate. A lot ofinterviewees from the civic scenarioprocesses described this new form ofcommunication; for example: ‘’I thinkthat the greatest impact was to dis-cover to what degree you always en-gage in conversation without liste-ning to what the other person says.And it is something that was so evi-dent that one begins to put it in prac-tice almost immediately. This issomething . . . that I took with me’’(Díez Pinto, 2001).

One interviewee described theexact difference between mode two,debate, and mode three, reflective


dialogue: ‘’So I try to make an effortnot to answer but to actually listen,not to be thinking mentally of howam I going to respond but rather,‘What is this guy trying to tell me?’To think beyond what this guy is tryingto tell me, to go even deeper and say,‘Why is he saying it the way he is sayingit?’ . . . Just the exercise of saying, ‘Isthis what you are trying to say? Am Iunderstanding it correctly?’ . . . Sothis is something that was very po-werful and something that is part ofmy baggage. I take it with me, I gowith it, I exercise it, I engage it, andit is good’’ (Díez Pinto, 2001).

The difference between reflec-tive dialogue and the debate modeof conversation is that the listenerbecomes aware of the perspective ofthe person talking and tries to under-stand it. Participants described thebonding that evolved from the commoneffort to get to this level of under-standing.

Generative Dialogue

Two interviewees described the nextlevel of dialogue: ‘’[One participanthad] witnessed an exhumation. It wasin a large field, and he was suddenlycalled to see what they had found.[There was] evidence of the skeletonof an unborn baby who had beenburied, perhaps alive or still in itsmother’s womb, and the mother hadprobably been buried alive. That isthe history. . . . But we were aware ofit. I was. I was a politician. . . . It is onething to know about something and

know it as statistical data, and ano-ther to actually feel it. . . . And I thinkthat all of us had to go through thisprocess. . . . I think that, after under-standing this, everyone is committedto preventing it from happening again.In giving this testimony, he was sin-cere, calm, and serene, without atrace of hate in his voice. This gaveway to silence that, I would say, lastedat least one minute. It was horrible. .. . If you ask any of us, we would saythat this moment was like a largecommunion. No one dared to breakthe silence’’ (Díez Pinto, 2001).

When communication reachesthis point, the participants recognizetheir common ground. Their interac-tions can then occur at a level of co-nnection that transcends individualinterests. We call this communi-cation ‘’generative dialogue,’’ whichallows the participants to experiencethe whole. Another example of gene-rative dialogue is when a new ideacomes up in a conversation and noone can identify which participanthad the idea because the idea emer-ged from the flow of the conversa-tion. Musicians often describe a simi-lar experience when they play togetherand start listening to the whole, notto their individual contributions.

Before reaching this phase ofdialogue, the group must move throughthe other levels of communication.But once the group has reached a ge-nerative dialogue, it has new oppor-tunities, such as preventing a horri-ble event from recurring. As oneVisión Guatemala participant statedat the Antigua workshop: ‘’The fire-


fly image [in the scenarios] and theidea of weaving a multicultural entityin Guatemala helped me to focus onhealing and reconciliation and mademe feel more obliged to participatein the process.’’ This commitment isnecessary for profound change. Thuswe see dialogue as a tool for changethat allows individuals and groups tomove to yet a deeper level of behaviorwhere intent, will, and commitmentare strong.

Relational theory proposes amodel of human development-’’growthin connection’’ –that emphasizes thecritically important role of social,relational interactions in the growthprocess (Miller and Stiver, 1997).Table 1 suggests how this theoryilluminates the dynamics underlyingthe four phases of conversation,matching the dominant logic of con-versation in each phase with theinvisible relational dimension under-lying it.

The anecdote about the SouthAfrican PAC representative and theNationalist Party member in ouropening quotation illustrates growth-in-connection. The story describeshow, through interactions, each per-son had expanded his or her worldview and capacity for empathy, pro-viding evidence that the conversa-tions of the Mont Fleur group hadreached a generative state. The se-cond quote describes clearly anawakened sense of selfin– relationemerging from reflections promptedby dialogue.

This language for both the logicunderlying conversation and the re-

lational dimension in which it is em-bedded provides tools for understan-ding and improving dialogue proces-ses. An important part of UNDP’songoing effort to create knowledgewill be to apply these tools to analyzeother civic dialogue experiences, in-cluding but not limited to civic sce-nario projects. At the same time, wemust address the challenges of usingdialogue to strengthen democraticinstitutions and create the conditionsfor human development in countriesstruggling to overcome violence andauthoritarian rule (UNDP, 1999).Theinitial workshop in Antigua, Guatema-la, brought many of these questionsinto focus.

The Antigua Workshop

Unfortunately, we stillhaven’t invented a sort of ‘’pill’’for transformation of the cultureof the country which you couldbuy at the pharmacies. [Thiswork] is very difficult; theresults are not guaranteed, noteasy to see, and not short-term.But like an old saying in China,‘’Any road, no matter how longit is, starts with the first step.’’And there is no other option.’’

–Workshop participant

The Antigua workshop (No-vember 8-19, 2000) brought together100 participants from 17 countries-people committed to social develop-ment and involved in a wide arrayof civic dialogue initiatives-to reflect

Another example ofgenerative

dialogue is when a newidea comes

up in a conversation andno one

can identify whichparticipant had

the idea because the ideaemerged

from the flow of theconversation.


on common issues and challengesand on the future direction of civicdialogue. In contrast to the establishedworkshop format organized aroundformal presentations, this was botha conference about civic scenarios andother civic dialogue methods and afirsthand experience, facilitated by ateam from Generon, of some dialo-gue tools used in the civic scenarioprocess.1 From it came the first stepstoward a broad methodological plat-form for civic dialogue work, as wellas the foundation of a global commu-nity of people committed to thisapproach to social change and in-creasingly skilled in using it. Said oneparticipant: ‘’We are a group trying toreconstruct what has been destroyed,to make the world better. There aregroups like this all over the world.This gives hope to the human spirit.’’

Talking Nice

■ Dominant logic: rule repeating,politeness

■ Relational dimension: focus is onself as perceived by other

Talking Tough

■ Dominant logic: debate, clash,conflict

■ Relational dimension: focus onadvocacy and self; it is a flight forpower and legitimacy

Reflective Dialogue

■ Dominant logic: inquiry, listeningto your inner voice

■ Relational dimension: at least oneperson adopts a self-in-relationstance; there is potential for mu-tual learning among some mem-bers that might move collectivelyto next phase

Generative Dialogue

■ Dominant logic: self-transcending,cocreating

■ Relational dimension: collectivegrowth-in-connection; mutuality

What Is This Work About?

The workshop participants formedcountry teams to discuss and sharethe most important challenges facingtheir nations-mostly Latin Americanand Caribbean countries, but alsoSouth Africa, Bulgaria, India, andPakistan. With the help of simul-taneous Spanish-English translation,the teams shared their stories.Although each national story was inmany ways unique, collectively theyconveyed an overwhelming sense ofbroadly shared social and politicalproblems. In many countries, historicpatterns of class and ethnic divisionsand racial discrimination contributeto a lack of trust, an absence of shared


vision, and uncertain national iden-tity. Three countries-Colombia, India,and Pakistan-have ongoing armedconflict; others struggle with the le-gacy of authoritarian regimes, mili-tary rule, and violence, even genocide.

Faced with democratic institu-tions undermined by corruption andpolitical leaders who do not rise tothe challenges inherent in these pro-blems, many countries are experien-cing widespread public frustrationand even disillusionment with de-mocracy. The common characteristicis that the solution requires enga-gement across the sectors and levelsof society, because many people mustchange in order to break the deep-seated, complex patterns of behaviorthat maintain the current reality. Anunderlying assumption in the work-shop was that any solution to suchcomplex problems must be groundedin dialogue across boundaries, in partto provide a viable alternative toauthoritarianism and the solution ofconflict through violence. In the wordsof workshop participant Rubén Za-mora, a leader of popular movementsin El Salvador and a participant inthe Geneva dialogues that broughtpeace to his country: ‘’In societieslike ours that have been characteri-zed by authoritarian, vertical, nonparticipatory ways of making deci-sions and implementing decisions,which has led to a state of war, inter-nal civil war, these sorts of exercisesbecome even more necessary becausethey are not just an exercise, they arethe bricks for building a new politicalculture. [Yet] participatory or dialo-

gue consensus building is not natural.It is something that has to be learnedand developed as part of the civicculture of society.’’

What Are the ProcessOptions?

A thorough, systematic comparisonof civic dialogue processes was beyondthe scope of the Antigua workshop,though the workshop helped to iden-tify the need for it. The participantsbrought a broad range of experiencewith different methods and projects,which conveyed a strong sense ofprocess options, even as the discussionfocused on issues and challengescommon to all approaches. Indeed,one strong message from the work-shop was that a single project or pro-cess cannot be expected to carry thewhole weight of the needed changes.

Civic Scenarios

The Antigua workshop conveyedinformation about the civic scenarioprocess in various ways: through thelearning histories of projects in SouthAfrica, Colombia, and Guatemala,offered as preconference reading;through a panel discussion by parti-cipants in those three projects; andthrough the workshop facilitation bythe Generon team, which replicatedmany aspects of its approach to civicdialogue. For example, the intellec-tual content of the meeting builtgradually through layers of small


group and large group conversation(breakout groups and plenarysessions), suggesting how scenariosemerge and become increasinglyclear and compelling through dia-logue. The facilitators also demons-trated a number of tools-includingground rules supporting mutualrespect and listening, check-in andcheck-out exercises that invited per-sonal statements, one-on-one con-versations, storytelling, and thesupport of a graphic recorder-forhelping people connect on a personaland emotional level, as well ascognitively. These dialogue-promo-ting techniques created discomfortfor some participants who were accus-tomed to more formal and imper-sonal workshops. In contrast, oneparticipant commented, ‘’I like thecivic scenario approach because it isnot only intellectual but alsoemotional. People can express fearsand frustrations, and this is impor-tant in countries with a legacy ofarmed conflict.’’

In the panel session, partici-pants in the South African, Colom-bian, and Guatemalan civic-scenarioprojects shared some of their expe-riences and reflections on thisapproach. Members of the Mont Fleurgroup, for example, reflected thatthere was a good deal of serendipity,as well as foresight, involved in theproject conveners’ selection of parti-cipants, many of whom went on tobecome very influential in NelsonMandela’s government and as civicand business leaders in post apartheidSouth Africa. A small-group exercise

on the first evening, in which eachgroup had to brainstorm 10 storiesof possible futures in South Africa,helped people set aside the divisionsthey had brought into the sessions.Ultimately, the messages the scena-rios conveyed had legitimacy becauseof the diversity of the group that wasthe messenger.

When Mont Fleur convened,South Africa was, in the words of oneparticipant, in the grip of ‘’an incura-ble cancer, and it looked as thoughthere was no solution.’’ This groupfelt strongly that its work had madea positive contribution to the ‘’politi-cal miracle’’ of South Africa’s success-ful transition from that apparentimpasse to pluralistic democracy. Yet,in retrospect, the group also reflectedthat there had been some weaknessesin the process; for example, someimportant voices had not been at thetable-an issue that recurred throughoutthe workshop discussions (Gillespie,2001). Moreover, the group had notanticipated problems that now loomlarge: the impact of the conservativeeconomic policies of the Mandelagovernment, the problem of crime,and, in particular, the threat of AIDS.As the workshop progressed, therewas serious consideration of under-taking Mont Fleur II.

The presentation by the Desti-no Colombia panelists addresseddirectly one of the most problematicissues identified in the workshop-thatof connection to existing institutions.Confronting a situation of active war-fare, to which the government was aparty, the conveners of this civic


scenario process took great pains tomake it ‘’antiseptic’’ in political terms.They included people who had in-fluence in the government but didnot directly represent it. And in thescenario process, they took care toavoid connection to any particularpolitical agenda. The outcome of thiseffort was mixed. On the one hand,the feeling that the process did notrequire making a commitment beyondparticipating in three meetings washighly conducive to ‘’free thought’’and creativity. The scenarios thatresulted were compelling and, inhindsight, valid. Yet their impact waslimited, both in the government andin civil society. Noted one panelist:‘’The great challenge that DestinoColombia still faces is to convert thisinto a day-by-day tool of the citizens.There is no doubt that [its politicallyantiseptic character] makes this intosomething that belongs exclusivelyto those who participated. This is notright, because, in the end, societieslive their daily and common mattersin politics.’’

In Visión Guatemala, the greatestchallenge was to find a way to over-come the legacy of racism and geno-cide against the indigenous majority.In the context of that terrible legacy,one panelist noted, it was clear ‘’thatthe road to consensus is a long road,and it’s not necessarily consensusthat we need. Perhaps transparencywould be more desirable.’’ Anotherprovocative question that arose inthis panel was, in the context ofglobalization, what power does‘’dialogue, persuasion, and hope’’

have to make a difference in a smallcountry such as Guatemala? Thesethoughts echoed the concerns ofothers at the workshop about thedanger that civic dialogue processesmight raise false hopes for thepossibility for change. Finally, onepanelist brought up the importantissue of how to bring about thedesired scenario-to make thedialogue count for more than just the‘’empathy and friendship’’ achievedby direct participants: ‘’In the end,that is the challenge we have now:how to go from thought to action.’’This concern was widely shared inthe workshop.

El Salvador Peace Process

Two workshop participants, VictorValle and Rubén Zamora, broughtexperience from El Salvador. Vallehad been active in popular move-ments in El Salvador and was afounding member of the SalvadoranConciliation for Peace Commission.The Salvadoran factions met in Ge-neva in 1991 and agreed to developpolitical agreements based on threekey elements: respect for humanrights, democratization of govern-ment and society, and reconciliationof ‘’the Salvadoran family.’’ Vallepointed out that the discussions tookplace within the context of the PeaceCommission, the purpose of whichwas to develop principles for creatinga new government and methods formonitoring compliance to agree-ments. These were very concrete


goals derived from the immediateexperience of civil war.

At the same time, Valle madeclear that the dialogue among ene-mies engendered –and required–personal transformation, a centraland explicit aspect of the civic sce-nario methodology. In Geneva, hesaid, ‘’Many of us who had been onone side of the war had the oppor-tunity to sit around with our formeradversaries, many of whom wouldprobably have laughed to hear thatwe had been downed by bullets in ElSalvador. But at that time, we wereable to deploy personal resources thathad to do with courage and love andhope, and [we were] able to acceptourselves as we were and able to dis-cover that we had certain commo-nalities.’’

University of Peace

Valle also attended the workshop asa representative of the University ofPeace (UPEACE), an organization affi-liated with the UN and based in CostaRica. He described his current workas part of the dialogue initiatives‘’going on all over Latin America.’’UPEACE has convened a group of 100Colombians to talk about issuesunderlying the war. They use a lessfacilitative approach than the civicscenario method, Valle said, simplyputting people around tables todiscuss five concrete questions. Theparticipants talk and try to reach someagreement, and the sessions arecaptured by a university recorder. In

another initiative, UPEACE has created“peace zones’’ on the borders betweenEcuador and Peru.

War-Torn Societies Project

Zamora participated in the workshopas the director of the War-Torn So-cieties Project (WSP). WSP uses themethodology of participatory actionresearch, associated in particular withthe Brazilian social scientist PaoloFreire and widely used in developingcountries as a tool for social change.Zamora described the steps for laun-ching a WSP project:

The first step is to scope outconditions in the country for possibledialogue among the parties and forbalancing both government and civilsociety in the process. Next is to choosea local project director and sub di-rector with the stature and socialscience skills to carry out the process.For example, the project director ofthe WSP project in Guatemala wasEdelberto Torres Rivas, a sociologistwith an international reputationwho had been living outside Gua-temala for most of the war, so had anaura of impartiality. The director andsubdirector then create a ‘’countrynote,’’ or ‘’diagnosis’’ of the causes ofconflict, built up through separatediscussions with key institutions inthe society, for example, politicalparties, NGOs, universities, unions,and women’s organizations. Theyidentify both the problems and po-tential solutions, with the socialscientists serving as facilitators. The


country note in effect ‘’extracts’’ con-sensus from these individual dis-cussions and presents it as a startingpoint for the dialogue. If the institu-tions then agree to engage in theprocess, they send representatives tothe dialogue.

When the group is assembled,people participate as individuals, notas representatives of their institu-tions. The method does not empha-size personal change, said Zamora,but it occurs in the dialogue process.The whole group sets the agenda andthen splits up into subgroups that focuson specific issues, conceived as ‘’entrypoints’’ for dealing with nationalproblems. A social scientist supportseach group and is responsible forwriting the group’s report. Zamoranoted, ‘’This is a discussion betweenactors and people who have scientificknowledge-very difficult to attain.’’The results are policy-oriented pro-posals, for example, a policy paper ora suggestion for legislation, presumedto be broadly acceptable to the socie-

ty because of how they have beendeveloped.

WSP offers a method that invol-ves the government and civil societytogether, but there are difficult issuesto resolve with this approach. Zamo-ra suggested that the main problemis that a government minister in adialogue process doesn’t like to be onequal terms with other organizations-the trade union, the universities, thepolitical parties. So the method for-ces the government to be in a posi-tion that it doesn’t like, and as aresult, its participation is sometimesquite limited. For example, it mayonly participate in general meetings.But the government provides a sortof validation of the process wheneverit does choose to participate. NotedZamora, ‘’These projects areprofoundly political, but they cannotrisk being partisan.’’

Dialogue Processes in Panama

Raul Leis, a sociologist, president ofthe Centre for Studies and SocialAction of Panama (CEASPA) and a po-pular writer, described his experiencewith dialogue processes in Panama.In 1994, the Catholic Church pro-posed a national dialogue as part ofan ethical accord among politicalparties, following a difficult period oftransition to democracy after the US

invasion and ouster of Manuel No-riega in 1989. The resulting civic dia-logue involved three successive pro-jects. The first, Bambito, in 1994,was a ‘’learning experience,’’ both for

©Emily Sper


the organizers and for the UNDP,which provided technical, logistical,and financial support. Several factorslimited Bambito’s impact, said Leis.National elections running concu-rrently were a distraction, and therewere questions about whether thedialogue included the right partici-pants-the conveners had invited theleaders of the various civic groupsrather than asking the groups them-selves to decide whom to send. Fina-lly, said Leis, Bambito was organizedaround a less than compelling topic:the general question of nationaldevelopment.

The second effort at civic dia-logue focused instead on the subjectof the Panama canal-a topic vital toall Panamanians. Said Leis, ‘’GeneralTorrijos said that the only religionof Panamanians is the canal, the onlything that has kept us together foryears. So [we took] the canal as thetopic.’’ Coronado 2000 Panama En-counters was a yearlong process in-cluding four ‘’encounters’’ with work-shops in between. The conveners inthis instance used a reference-groupmethodology for selection-that is, asin WSP, the groups were selected andasked to choose whom to send. Par-ticipants represented political par-ties, civil society, churches, indige-nous people, and the press. Respec-ted outsiders, for example, BelisarioBetancur, ex-president of Colombia,facilitated the dialogues. The Coro-nado project resulted in two majordecisions on Panamanian sovereigntyover the canal and the territory theUS was returning to Panama. Those

decisions, made through the civic-dialogue process, became policywhen the legislative assembly appro-ved two projects, effectively unitingthe two parts of Panama that hadbeen so badly divided for many years.

The third project, National Vi-sion 2020, built on the success at Co-ronado. This civil society assemblydeveloped a vision for Panama’s futu-re in 20 years. As a result, candidatesin the 1999 elections signed five pactswith civil society on decentraliza-tion, women, youth, the environ-ment, and participatory government.At the time of the Antigua workshop,the dialogue conveners were workingon a ‘’visionometer’’ to hold the go-vernment accountable for the com-mitments made in these pacts, andmunicipalities were developing theirown versions of Vision 2020.

The civic dialogue process inPanama has successfully linked topolitical elites, with some significant,concrete results. To develop dialoguemethods, it will be important to under-stand the steps and context thatmade this possible. It may also bevaluable to examine the nature of thedialogues in Panama and in compa-rison with those in other countries.

Paraguay Jaipotava

The experience in Paraguay providesan example of dialogue on a massscale: in a country of 5 million people,it engaged nearly 70,000 participantsand 2,000 facilitators. Jorge Talavera,who described the project for the work-


shop, outlined the goals of the Para-guayan Episcopal Conference, whichconducted it: ‘’Given the situationof frustration and desperation in thecountry, the first objective was toprovide hope. The second objectivewas that all Paraguayans could decideupon and define the country wewant, the vision for the future. Andthe third, as part of this exercise, wasto reach a conviction that the Para-guay we wanted was one that onlywe could do. Nobody was going togive this to us.’’

In Paraguay Jaipotava, roughly8,500 groups of eight people each, infour-hour meetings, worked throughprepackaged materials, published inboth Spanish and Guarani, the indi-genous language. Each individualused a list of 26 needs and 22 valuesto define both current reality and afuture vision for their communities.Separate materials were designedspecifically for professionals and foryoung people. When the results werecompiled, the most frequently iden-tified needs were health care and edu-cation; the values were honesty andfaith in God. In a subsequent phaseof the project, leaders at the districtlevel-for example, public authoritiesand teachers-met to develop a commonvision for the district.

Then a provincial assemblypulled those local visions togetherinto a vision for the whole province.Talavera reported that the bishopsand provincial governors had takennote of these visions, but the politicaland economic elite of Paraguayneeded to be brought into the pro-

cess. The Paraguayan contingent atthe UNDP workshop came looking formethods to help them accomplishthat. The Paraguayan experience pro-vides a model for sharing the vision-building exercise on a mass scalethrough the agency of the church. Inthe workshop, it was a significantcounterpoint to the other dialogueprocesses discussed, which partici-pants described as suffering from theproblem of elitism. As more than oneworkshop participant pointed out,most dialogue groups are composed ofelites, but the need arises in the firstplace because the elites are not doingwhat they should do for society.

Meta-Questions

The collective experience from theseprojects and others-in Bolivia, Chile,Peru, Nicaragua, and Bulgaria-was arich source of data for comparing andidentifying common issues. Twosignificant ‘’meta-questions’’ surfacedrepeatedly throughout the workshop.One was the issue of connecting civicdialogue processes to political institu-tions, about which there was no con-sensus in the workshop group. Onesmall discussion group asserted thatcivic dialogue processes have arisenprecisely because weak political insti-tutions do not reflect or respond tosocial needs. Another view held thatnational governments and politicalparties have become scapegoats;people blame them for ineffective-ness and continuing poverty when,in fact, they are constrained by an


uncontrollable global economicsystem. In Latin America, said oneparticipant, the immediate challengeis to strengthen political institutions,not create a parallel, separate trackin civil society. Another suggestedthat people in civil society mustsimply accept the task of engagingwith political parties, clean up thesystem, and get better leaders whomay be better able to deal with theproblems of globalization: ‘’What wehave to understand is that althoughwe might all be in agreement, noneof us will solve anything unless we arein power. And the only way to poweris through our political parties.’’

A related question was how adialogue group moves from thoughtto action. This issue, too, evokeddifferent views. The small group thatdiscussed it suggested that the mainactors-civil society, government,political parties-should commit upfront to comply with the outcome ofthe dialogue process. And they shoulddevelop a mechanism by which civilsociety can hold those in poweraccountable for enacting the dialogueoutcomes. Others suggested that theinfluence of dialogue groups must bethrough persuasion or through theprocess, rather than through someform of control. The product of thedialogue (scenarios, proposals), theysuggested, must be convincing enoughto change public perception of theissues. At the same time, the peoplewho participate in the dialogue andwho change as a result must have animpact.

Another meta-question, notformally stated by the workshop group,but clearly part of the discussion, iswhether personal transformation asan explicit goal of the dialogue pro-cess is a valuable or even essentialstep in multistakeholder consensusbuilding. For most participants in thecivic scenario process, the transfor-mative experience emerged as thedefining aspect of the exercise. YetVictor Valle and Rubén Zamora bothsuggested that this kind of changeoccurs in dialogue whether or not itis an explicit objective. Neither RaulLeis nor Jorge Talavera mentionedindividual-level change as critical tosuccess; further research needs toexplore the dynamics of dialogue inthe Panamanian and Paraguayancases. In all these cases, there is a needto examine the various civic dialogueexperiences and, in particular, under-stand the connections between thechanges that individuals experiencein the dialogue process and the con-crete outcomes it produces.

What Is the Way Forward?

Despite these unresolved questions,many participants in the Antiguaworkshop felt renewed commitmentto starting civic dialogue projects intheir own countries. At the end of2001, Vision Paraguay was largelycomplete, Futuro Democrático in Gua-temala was under way, and projectswere in the planning stage in theBahamas, Jamaica, and Argentina.


And the UNDP had launched theregional project in Latin America andthe Caribbean to promote the use of“democratic dialogue.’’

From the Antigua workshop,UNDP describes the defining charac-teristics of democratic dialogue. It ismultistakeholder, engaging peoplefrom diverse sectors of civil societyand from governmental institutions.It includes groups not usually inclu-ded, for example, women and indige-nous people. The issues it addressesare transinstitutional-too broad tofall within the purview of a singlebranch of government. Finally, andcritically, the dialogue is connectedto action, as the participants emergefrom the process with a shared senseof purpose, commitment to a commonfuture, and agreed-on steps to imple-ment the desired future.

A major piece of the regionalproject will be to support at least sixdialogue initiatives in Latin Americaand the Caribbean. There is now a

UNDP service center, based in Gua-temala, which is providing technicalsupport to those efforts in collabora-tion with Generon. A small team, ledby Elena Díez Pinto, project managerfor Visión Guatemala and FuturoDemocrático, will spearhead andcoordinate the regional project andmobilize resources. At its conclusion,the Guatemala office will functionas a self-supporting service center,assisting dialogue projects, both inthe region and beyond.

Another key element is the pro-cess for creating collective know-ledge about dialogue methods. Incollaboration with its Generon, SoL,and MIT partners, UNDP has designedan infrastructure to support rapiddevelopment of both concepts andpractical tools for democratic dia-logue and to disseminate the expe-riences, knowledge, and best practi-ces of people in the field. All willbuild on the foundation establishedby the Antigua workshop.


A key objective of the cooperationwith the UNDP is to develop a tested,proven social technology for bringinga broad range of stakeholder voices-in particular, the voice of civil socie-ty-to bear on resolving conflict andbuilding consensus in the democra-cies of Latin America and the Ca-ribbean. To be useful, this technologymust have a solid theoretical basis andbe firmly grounded in practical under-standing. And it must emerge quicklyto meet the pressing need to strengthendemocratic institutions in the region.The development process, therefore,must be intensive, bringing an inter-national group of academics and prac-titioners together in truly collabora-tive knowledge creation.

The Knowledge-CreationInfrastructure

In the next phase, knowledge crea-tion will proceed in parallel with anumber of national democratic dia-logue initiatives. The practitionersleading those projects will form thecore of the learning group. The aimof this action research approach is tosupport the work while learning withthem from their experiences. Linkingpractitioners to each other and to a

broad network of people committedto advancing dialogue methods insupport of democratic governance willsupport this project over the long term.

UNDP will convene four work-shops over two years (2002-2003),bringing together people activelybuilding consensus among multistake-holders, in particular, the practitionersfrom ongoing projects meeting inparallel under the umbrella of theregional project. This structured in-teraction between theory and prac-tice is the centerpiece of the effortto produce new understanding ofdialogue processes and their use fortransforming society. A broad learningnetwork, connected through e-mailand the UNDP website, will expandknowledge creation beyond thosepeople participating directly in theworkshops. Building on the 2000Antigua workshop, a workshop reportwill grow and evolve over the courseof the regional project, its form andcontent determined jointly by thereport writer and the workshop parti-cipants. It will help to maintain conti-nuity and momentum from work-shop to workshop and will capturekey ideas-about useful tools and theirapplication, best practices, problemsolutions-as well as the stories ofpractical applications.

Creating Collective Knowledge


The UNDP has recognized both a needand an opportunity for advancing themethodology of social change. Thereis no simple formula or ‘’recipe’’ fortransforming societies after periodsof conflict. A successful civic dialo-gue process takes time and is rarely adramatic event, except for the parti-cipants-its effects on the larger socie-ty unfold gradually. The greatest cha-llenge is to institutionalize dialogue.This is as important in countries suchas Panama that have achieved signi-ficant cumulative results throughsuccessive dialogue processes as it isin countries such as South Africa, Pa-raguay, Guatemala, and Jamaica thatare experimenting with a civic dialo-gue process for the first time.

Our hope and highest aspira-tion for this project’s future is that itwill serve as a platform for partici-pants to reflect on ongoing civic dia-logue and together create knowledgeon dialogue as a tool for peaceful con-flict transformation. There are manypractical questions to address, but aslong as we lack the language to des-cribe the social process that leads tosolving and transforming a conflict,we will not be able to replicate thisprocess or to establish it as the domi-nant approach to crisis intervention.We hope and believe the UNDP’s ini-tiative will help to fill that need.

Acknowledgment

Elena Díez Pinto of the UNDP is anactive partner with us in designingthe workshops and the knowledge-creation process. We gratefully acknow-ledge her contributions.

Notes

1. The Generon facilitation teamincluded Adam Hahane, amesButcher, Manuel Manga, ReolaPhelps, and Betty Alexander.

References

Cory, D. and D. Kim. Unpublishedinterview (Cambridge, MA, De-cember 2000).

de León, A. and E. Díez Pinto.‘’Destino Colombia, 1997-2000:A Treasure to Be Revealed,’’ inCivic Scenario/Civic DialogueWorkshop, ed. B.H. Pruitt (UNDP

and Generon Consulting, Inc.,2001, available at www.demo-craticdialoguenetwork.org).

Díez Pinto, E. ‘’Visión Guatemala,1999-2000: Building Bridges ofTrust,’’ in Civic Scenario/CivicDialogue Workshop, ed. B.H. Pruitt(UNDP and Generon Consulting,

Conclusion


Inc., 2001, available at www.democraticdialoguenetwork.org).

Fletcher, J.K. Disappearing Acts:Gender, Power, and RelationalPractice in the Workplace (Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999).

Gillespie, G. ‘’The Mont FleurScenario Project, South Africa,1991-1992: ‘The Footprints ofMont Fleur,’’’ in Civic Scenario/Civic Dialogue Workshop, ed. B.H.Pruitt (UNDP and Generon Con-sulting, Inc., 2001, available atwww.democraticdialoguenetwork.org).

Kahane, A. ‘’How to Change theWorld: Lessons for Entrepreneursfrom Activists.’’ Reflections 2(Winter 2001): 16-26.

Miller, J.B. and I.P. Stiver. The HealingConnection (Boston, MA: BeaconPress, 1997).

Scharmer, C.O. “Commentary,’’Reflections 3 (Winter 2001a): 19.

Scharmer, C.O. ‘’Self-TranscendingKnowledge: Organizing AroundEmerging Realities,’’ in ManagingIndustrial Knowledge: Creation,

Transfer and Utilization, eds. I.Nonaka and D. Teece (ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications,2001b).

Scharmer, C.O. Presencing EmergingFutures. Illuminating the Blind Spotof Leadership (forthcoming).

Scharmer, C.O. and K. Ka¨ufer.‘’Dialogue: Moving Across FourField Structures of Conversation’’(Cambridge, MA: forthcoming).

Schein, E.H. Process Consultation.Lessons for Managers and Consul-tants. Volume II. (Reading, MA:Addison Wesley OD Series, 1987).

Schein, E.H. ‘’Kurt Lewin’s ChangeTheory in the Field and in theClassroom: Notes Toward a Mo-del of Managed Learning.’’ Re-flections 1 (1999): 59-72.

Strebel, P. ‘’Why Do EmployeesResist Change?’’ Harvard BusinessReview 74 (May-June 1996): 86.

UNDP. Human Development Report,1999 (New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press, 1999, available at www.undp.org).


Dialogue has been around since hu-man beings acquired language hun-dreds of thousands of years ago. Whatappears new and transformational isthat we are placing dialogue at theheart of many of our human relation-ships, as well as refining and evolvingthe art of dialogue.

The authors have taken dialo-gue several steps further in its evo-lution. As a result, they have gathe-red a significant amount of experien-ce and knowledge and now offer us anew model of transformational commu-nication. In this new model, we aretaken from ‘’nice talk’’ to ‘’generativedialogue.’’ However, in many war-tornsocieties, ‘’hate and anger talk’’ iswhat fuels the conflict. It is genera-tive dialogue that promises to beco-me a tool for peaceful conflict trans-formation.

Pruitt and Kaüfer acknowledgethat they are also engaged in a pro-cess of knowledge creation. Findinga language powerful enough tointervene or facilitate the emergenceof peaceful conflict transformationholds promise. I believe that they arealmost there. The version of dialoguethey propose has the possibility offacilitating human transformation.

As a longtime student and practi-tioner of language and conversations,I am glad to see dialogue getting more

attention and support as a tool forsolving our conflicts and transfor-ming society. Our Western culture,dominated by the Cartesian legacyand the rationalistic tradition, hasdevalued the role of emotions and thecentral role of language in our lives.Social philosophers like RichardRorty and Humberto Maturanachallenge the rationalistic traditionand remind us to use language andconversations as tools for shaping ourhuman relationships. Maturanaexplains, ‘’We human beings exist inlanguage and conversations.’’ By fo-cusing on dialogue, Pruitt and Kaüferremind us that we are linguisticbeings and that we can bring forth apeaceful future through transforma-tional conversations.

The civic scenarios and the An-tigua workshop demonstrate thepossibility for conflict transformationthat dialogue can create. As a mem-ber of the facilitator team, I observedand listened to participants from manycountries express their frustration,their emotions, their solidarity, andtheir hopes and visions for makingtheir countries peaceful and humanesocieties. We can make a differencewith these transformational tools ifwe choose to share our knowledge,work in partnerships, and createknowledge together.

Commentary

by Manuel Manga

MANUEL MANGA

International Consultant


However, as Pruitt and Kaüferacknowledge, although many typesof dialogue are being used in differentcountries as tools for peaceful con-flict resolution, a single, powerfullanguage of dialogue seems to bemissing. They also recognize thatdialogue is only one tool in the pro-cess of social transformation. Eventhe best civic scenarios, those thatproduce great visions of the future,are limited in their capacity to trans-form a society if institutions and thepopulation at large do not take otheractions. Beyond dialogue, what isalso needed are the visionaries or

evolutionary leaders at all levels ofsociety, those who can take the pro-cess from dialogue to action. Theseleaders can mobilize the people andthe institutions toward the scenarioof choice and build a new socialreality.

As a result of this new model oftransformational communication, Ican imagine a metamodel of societaltransformation that includes dialo-gue, civic scenarios, systems thinking,and institutional transformation. Letus be generous with our knowledgeand contribute toward a more peace-ful world.


The UN Development Program (UNDP)in Latin America and the Caribbeanhas had extensive experience duringthe past decade with facilitating theuse of dialogue as a tool for multi-stakeholder consensus building incountries such as Panama, Guatema-la, and Bolivia. When the time cameto codify these experiences, the prin-cipal adviser to our Guatemala pro-ject, Adam Kahane, helped to connectus to the Society for OrganizationalLearning (SoL) and to Bettye Pruittand Katrin Kaüfer.

Using the SoL “learning histo-ry’’ methodology, we were able tobegin the process of codification byexamining three of the many civic-scenario projects implemented duringthe 1990s-Mont Fleur, Destino Co-lombia, and Visión Guatemala. Ourplan is to continue this process byapplying the same methodology toother dialogue experiences, both tothose in which UNDP has played asupportive role and to others wherewe have not been directly involved.The goal is to be able to give UNDP’sglobal network of country offices andits clients in government and civilsociety a menu of tools for using dia-logue to resolve difficult problemsand to avoid violent conflict.

We consider this research to beextremely important because we do

not currently understand very wellwhy multistakeholder dialogue oftenfails to bring about positive change.Conversely, on those occasions whenconflict is averted or a new societalconsensus is formed, it is very diffi-cult to link these positive develop-ments directly to the dialogue pro-cess. By learning more about how tomake this connection, we can helpfuture practitioners to improve thequality of dialogue (toward a “gene-rative’’ dialogue, as described in thearticle) both within our countries butalso, we hope, within UNDP’s own ma-nagement processes.

For most countries in Latin Ame-rica, the main challenge is not thecreation of a modern representativedemocracy with universal suffrage-what Robert Dahl calls “polyarchaldemocracy’’ (Dahl, 1971) –becausemost of our countries have by nowobtained all the formal trappings ofdemocracy such as elections, courts,and so on. The problem instead is thatnone of these institutions actuallywork. In other words, the ‘’rules of thegame’’ for social relationships (as Dou-glass North has broadly and influen-tially defined institutions [North, 1990])are not clear. And no amount of effortto strengthen individual organiza-tions will have much impact untilthis broader framework is addressed.

Commentary

by Elena Martínez

ELENA MARTÍNEZ

Assistant Administrator andRegional

Director UNDP Latin Americanand Caribbean Bureau

[email protected]


What is perhaps most distur-bing is that the political culture inmost of our countries does not under-stand the complexity of deep dialo-gue and its crucial role in the cons-truction of consensus. Argentinatoday is only one of the recent exam-ples of the costs borne by Latin Ame-rican society because of the unwillin-gness or inability of the political classto undertake the hard work of buil-ding consensus. Politicians and civicleaders alike throughout the regioncontinue to defend their own narrowinterests, showing little or no under-standing of the nature of the “whole,’’that is, how the shared interests ofsociety, the economic sectors, andminorities can come together into aworkable vision of the future.

How can we help leaders inLatin America and other regionsmove beyond debate to real dialogue?How can we call our countries “de-mocracies’’ until this is done? Theonly solution is to change the politi-cal culture. And one way UNDP andothers can help do this is to bringtogether the theorists and practitio-ners of “transformative’’ dialogue.What we want to do is precisely whatPruitt and Kaüfer have captured: wewant to offer our clients in govern-ment and civil society the “state ofthe art’’ in democratic dialogue, thatis, a choice of options for addressingwith precision how dialogue can helpto transform conflict into positivechange.

We will never, of course, be ableto offer ‘’10 Easy Steps to Transfor-mative Dialogue,’’ because it willnever be easy and we shouldn’t tryto mask this fact. But we should beable to further develop the theory tohelp leaders find their own solutions,using their own political acumen,while getting the fundamentals right.As the authors acknowledge, the‘’meta-issue’’ is the hard-to-measurelink between dialogue and action.How can dialogue be channeledeffectively to influence policy deci-sions, while at the same time preser-ving the independence and “sanc-tity’’ of the dialogue process? Dialo-gue for the sake of dialogue will neversucceed in bringing change.

As we move ahead with thisproject, we recognize that what weare doing has no beginning or end.We are just beginning here. In thecoming months, we will continue toconsult many others who have chosenthe difficult path of dialogue overconfrontation. There are many cases,and so much still to learn.

References

Dahl, R. Polyarchy: Participation andOpposition (New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press, 1971).

North, D. Institutions, InstitutionalChange and Economic Performance(Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1990).

The edition of Dialogue as a Tool for Peaceful Conflict Transformationwas printed by Magna Terra editores in october 2004.

El Diálogo como herramienta para la transformación pacífica de conflictos

Documents

Transcript of El Diálogo como herramienta para la transformación pacífica de conflictos