At their best, national dialogues hold the promise of adding critical momentum in the drive to transform conflict inclusively. This report examines dialogues in six countries—the Central African Republic, Kenya, Lebanon, Senegal, Tunisia, and Yemen. These diverse processes show the possibilities for fostering dialogue, forging agreements, and driving toward peace; and the report offers extensive guidance on the possibilities and practicalities for those considering convening a national dialogue.

Clerics vote during a press conference held in Sana’a, Yemen, on September 26, 2013, in response to issues raised in Yemen’s national dialogue. (Hani Mohammed/AP)
Clerics vote during a press conference held in Sana’a, Yemen, on September 26, 2013, in response to issues raised in Yemen’s national dialogue. (Hani Mohammed/AP)

Summary

The proliferation of national dialogues in the early 2010s prompted the United States Institute of Peace to explore diverse experiences—in the Central African Republic, Kenya, Lebanon, Senegal, Tunisia, and Yemen—to draw lessons for practitioners and policy-makers from those case studies to design future dialogues that most effectively advance peacebuilding. 

A national dialogue can be a useful approach along the path toward sustainable peace. In line with the foundational principles of peacebuilding, the shape, form, and structure of any national dialogue need to be tailored to the specific context. The temptation is to look to national dialogues as the transformative step in a peace agreement. Expectations are high: achieve inclusion; broaden participation; advance justice; and resolve fundamental issues of identity, forms of governance, constitutional priorities, and political reform. National dialogues, however, are not a panacea. They are best conceived as part of a broader continuum of mutually reinforcing local, subnational, and national efforts that foster dialogue, forge agreements, and drive toward peace. 

In all national dialogues, the decisions made during the preparatory phase set the tone for the process and affect its ultimate legitimacy in the eyes of political forces and the public. A clear mandate for the dialogue, whether derived formally or informally, from a national process or an international process, can help buffer interference and maintain momentum. The selection of a convener—whether an individual, group, or organization—also affects public perceptions of the dialogue. Although national conveners can increase ownership and buy-in to a process, bias is a risk, particularly when a dialogue is convened by a sitting leader. 

National dialogues with hundreds of delegates and broad agendas offer the possibility of bringing traditionally underrepresented groups to the table for a conversation and problem-solving about the drivers of conflict in a country. At the same time, these broad processes may become bogged down by disagreement or complex structures or produce an untenable number of recommendations. Smaller dialogues can allow for more in-depth conversations, particularly around sensitive issues, but may reinforce existing power structures. 

Dialogues are far more likely to engender meaningful change when they are backed by a credible coalition that can work toward implementation of the dialogue through law or policy. A clear implementation plan prior to the dialogue’s inception is also critical to provide strategic momentum beyond the final conference or report. International partners can play an important role in keeping attention and resources focused on implementation. In earlier phases, international engagement needs to be measured to encourage genuine national ownership.

About the Report

In response to requests for advice and support from international organizations and policymakers in countries considering national dialogues, the United States Institute of Peace presents this report examining six markedly different dialogues in the Central African Republic, Kenya, Lebanon, Senegal, Tunisia, and Yemen. Through the case studies, comparisons of the processes, explanations of lessons learned, and sets of detailed questions, it offers guidance and tools for practitioners and policymakers.

About the Editors

Elizabeth Murray is a senior program officer in the Africa program at USIP, where she manages programming in the Central Africa region. Susan Stigant is the director of Africa programs at USIP, where she leads programming in the Greater Horn of Africa, on the Red Sea, and with the African Union and regional partners.

Related Publications

How to calm violent crises? Nigeria has an idea.

How to calm violent crises? Nigeria has an idea.

Friday, June 4, 2021

By: Darren Kew

If U.S. and international policymakers hope to see Africa stabilize amid the world’s crises of violence, record human displacement and the COVID pandemic, Nigeria must be center stage. This demographic giant, home to one in five sub-Saharan Africans, now faces a perfect storm of violent conflicts that pose an existential challenge. Yet Nigeria also offers its own solutions for stabilization—including a low-cost innovation worthy of international support: peacebuilding agencies operated by governments in three of the country’s 36 states. This timely model offers localized approaches to the roots of violence and is relevant to nations worldwide.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Global Policy; Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue

Nigeria’s State Peacebuilding Institutions: Early Success and Continuing Challenges

Nigeria’s State Peacebuilding Institutions: Early Success and Continuing Challenges

Friday, June 4, 2021

By: Darren Kew

Three states in Nigeria's conflict-prone Middle Belt—Plateau, Kaduna, and Adamawa—have established peace institutions in recent years. Although the young agencies have made strides toward organizing improved initiatives to quell religious, ethnic, and farmer-herder conflicts in the region, all three face daunting funding and structural challenges. This report provides recommendations for increasing the agencies’ financial stability and organizational independence, helping them build peace in their own states and serve as a model for other states to launch their own peace institutes.

Type: Special Report

Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue

Iran Nuclear Talks Open a Window for Broader Middle East Security

Iran Nuclear Talks Open a Window for Broader Middle East Security

Thursday, April 29, 2021

By: Ambassador Hesham Youssef

Since the end of World War II, there have been several attempts that ultimately failed to establish a regional security framework in the Middle East. These attempts have historically fallen short, undermined by distrust, power politics and conflict. Today, a new window of opportunity may be emerging to establish a stable, broadly accepted mechanism for deescalating conflicts, setting norms and building confidence and cooperation between states in the region. World powers should consider the ongoing Vienna talks — aimed at reviving the Iran nuclear deal that the Trump administration withdrew from — the first step in this direction. 

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue

The Case for Maximizing Engagement with North Korea

The Case for Maximizing Engagement with North Korea

Tuesday, April 20, 2021

By: Frank Aum; Daniel Jasper

As the Biden administration’s North Korea policy review nears completion, there is growing worry that it could dig in its heels on previous U.S. efforts to change North Korea’s behavior through isolation and pressure. Early signals indicate the Biden team is prioritizing pressure among many options. Several experts, however, believe this approach will continue to fail because it incorrectly assumes North Korea will yield to coercive tactics and that China will cooperate in this effort.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue; Conflict Analysis & Prevention

View All Publications