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.

Lire en français

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

Seis formas de ayudar a mantener las negociaciones en Venezuela

Seis formas de ayudar a mantener las negociaciones en Venezuela

Wednesday, January 11, 2023

By: Mark Feierstein;  Keith Mines;  Nicolas Devia-Valbuena

A fines del año pasado, la Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela, controlada por la oposición, votó a favor de disolver el “gobierno interino” encabezado por Juan Guaidó, un proyecto de cuatro años diseñado para sustituir al gobernante del país, Nicolás Maduro. Este voto se produce en medio de un panorama regional cambiante, con gobiernos de izquierda recién elegidos en los vecinos Brasil y Colombia que apoyan una solución negociada al conflicto y un enfoque más moderado por parte de muchos de los aliados tradicionales en el exterior de la oposición. La clave para el progreso en el próximo año será mantener negociaciones consistentes, que siguen siendo el lugar más eficiente para tomar decisiones clave, como sobre el futuro de las elecciones y la relación entre el chavismo y la oposición. Hay varias formas clave de ayudar a nutrir y sostener estas conversaciones, así como parta hacerlas más efectivas en pro de lograr mejoras a corto plazo en la vida de los venezolanos.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Democracy & GovernanceMediation, Negotiation & Dialogue

Six Ways to Help Sustain Venezuela’s Negotiations

Six Ways to Help Sustain Venezuela’s Negotiations

Wednesday, January 11, 2023

By: Mark Feierstein;  Keith Mines;  Nicolas Devia-Valbuena

At the end of last year, Venezuela’s opposition-controlled National Assembly voted to disband the “interim government,” led by Juan Guaidó, a four-year project designed to displace the country’s ruler, Nicolas Maduro. This comes amid a shifting regional landscape, with newly elected leftist governments in neighboring Brazil and Colombia supporting a negotiated solution to the conflict, and a more nuanced approach from many of the opposition’s traditional international supporters. The key to progress in the year ahead will be maintaining consistent negotiations, which remain the most efficient venue for key decisions, such as on elections, and engagement. There are several key ways to help nurture and sustain these talks, and to make them more impactful in achieving short-term improvements in the lives of the Venezuelan people.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Democracy & GovernanceMediation, Negotiation & Dialogue

Colombia’s Renewed Peace Talks with ELN Rebels Provide Historic Opportunity

Colombia’s Renewed Peace Talks with ELN Rebels Provide Historic Opportunity

Thursday, December 15, 2022

By: Steve Hege

As part of its ambitious “Total Peace” agenda, the new Colombian government recently restarted peace talks with the National Liberation Army (ELN), marking the first new negotiations since January 2019. And while this cycle of talks adopted the same agenda and process framework as the previous efforts, current President Gustavo Petro appointed a diverse and broad negotiations team in the hopes of generating early momentum and support. Petro intends to advance on partial accords as quickly as possible — building up to a comprehensive agreement before his brief four-year term in office is complete.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Mediation, Negotiation & DialoguePeace Processes

View All Publications