|
February 2003
Vol. IX, No. 2
The Art of Dialogue
  
Top: Harold Saunders and Randa Slim. Left: Howard Wolpe. Right: Christopher Mitchell |
The Institute's "summit on the state of the art" yields the best practices for facilitating dialogues.
Facilitating a conversation aimed at building peace among belligerents is an art; it is a craft. Leading scholars and other experts shared the secrets of their craft at an Institute symposium in November.
"Conducting Dialogues for Peace: A Best Practices Symposium" was organized by the Institute's Professional Training Program and focused on building skills among groups involved in conflict, including the use of methods such as conflict analysis, problem-solving strategies, and facilitated dialogue. Case studies included conflict resolution in Tajikistan, interfaith dialogue in the Balkans, dialogue and analysis in Moldova, a regionally sponsored peace process in Burundi, and interethnic coexistence in Kosovo.
Christopher Mitchell of George Mason University summed up areas of consensus, highlighting some of the vital elements of facilitation brought to light by the group.
- The facilitation team should be diverse and balanced in skills, approaches, personalities, and experience. Including members on the team with linguistic and subject area expertise is important. Facilitators must avoid the impression of bias in their relations among parties to conflict. However, this does not mandate that facilitators operate without values, said Howard Wolpe of the Woodrow Wilson Center and former special envoy to the Great Lakes Region of Africa. It means that they must be perceived as "honest brokers."
- Participants and location must be carefully selected. Critical to success at all levels is the inclusion of stakeholders whose cooperation is needed for concrete implementation of any agreements reached. Many practitioners have tried to expand inclusiveness, particularly of women. However, inclusiveness is not an end in itself. George Ward of the Institute's Professional Training Program and Daniel Serwer of the Institute's Balkans Initiative emphasized that dialogues that include civil society, media representatives, and political leaders are helpful for holding politicians to the prom-ises they make.
- A critical set of issues involves managing the process. Sustained commitment to ongoing meetings is required for building trust and transforming previously hostile relationships. This was confirmed by Harold Saunders of the Kettering Foundation and Randa M. Slim, director of Slim and Associates. Andrew Williams, University of Kent, United Kingdom, warned that facilitators who attempt to dictate agendas and insist on goals disable the dialogue. Flexibility is imperative. Participants in a dialogue often redefine their aims as processes evolve. Story-telling must be deftly moderated and often acts as a catharsis before analysis and problem-solving—and reconciliation—can begin.
- Robust follow-through and institutionalization of agreements reached through dialogue are crucial. One example is to establish non-governmental organizations to sustain, expand, and implement results of dialogue. Another example, provided by David Steele, Center for Strategic and International Studies, involves training local staff to maintain connections among participants between meetings. Yet another example is to embed follow-up mechanisms into declarations of intent. This requires facilitators to monitor implementation.
- Ronald J. Fisher, American University, stressed the need for practitioners to catalogue and assess—that is, to keep a record. This raw material will generate a more informed discussion among both practitioners and academics. Mitchell emphasized that improved coordination is necessary for documentation and sharing to occur. As the conflict resolution field expands, it is critical for practitioners to complement and build upon each other's work.
