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

Nurturing and Sustaining Facilitator Networks: Key Considerations for Support Organizations

Nurturing and Sustaining Facilitator Networks: Key Considerations for Support Organizations

Tuesday, September 21, 2021

By: Ruben Grangaard; Carlisle Levine

As more emphasis is placed on the role of national and local efforts in peacebuilding, support organizations may increasingly look for opportunities to bolster national and local facilitator networks. This report shares findings from a meta-review commissioned by the United States Institute of Peace that examined networks it supported in Afghanistan, Colombia, Iraq, Pakistan, and Tunisia. It provides recommendations for creating and sustaining networks that successfully operate with the resources and technical assistance available.

Type: Peaceworks

Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue

Making Sense of North Korea’s Missile Test

Making Sense of North Korea’s Missile Test

Tuesday, September 14, 2021

By: Frank Aum

North Korea announced on September 13 that it had tested long-range cruise missiles over the weekend. It described the missiles as a “strategic weapon of great significance.” The test caused alarm in North Korea’s neighbors — South Korea and Japan, both U.S. allies — as the revelation now puts both countries within striking distance. But despite the test, a spokesperson for the Biden administration said the United States remains prepared to engage with North Korea. USIP’s Frank Aum discusses the significance of the tests, the arms race on the Korean Peninsula, and what signals North Korean leader Kim Jong Un may be sending to the United States with this latest test. 

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue

Is there a Negotiated Path to Democratic Coexistence in Venezuela?

Is there a Negotiated Path to Democratic Coexistence in Venezuela?

Monday, August 2, 2021

By: Keith Mines

The scale of the Venezuela crisis is unique in recent history, with wartime indicators of hunger, refugees, and human rights abuses but conventional violent conflict largely absent. At the heart of the crisis is a 20-year struggle between the Chavista regime and the democratic opposition, characterized for most of these two decades by each side attempting to eliminate the other from the political map. Negotiations are seen by most outside observers as the only way the conflict will definitively end and there have been consistent efforts to bring the two sides to the table, most recently in Barbados and Oslo in 2019.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue

Nonviolent Action and Transitions to Democracy: The Impact of Inclusive Dialogue and Negotiation

Nonviolent Action and Transitions to Democracy: The Impact of Inclusive Dialogue and Negotiation

Tuesday, July 6, 2021

By: Véronique Dudouet; Jonathan Pinckney, Ph.D.

Significant dialogue and negotiation processes have taken place in almost all democratic transitions, but these processes alone do not have a significant impact on future democracy. This report presents statistical analysis of all political transitions after nonviolent action campaigns and case studies of transitions in Egypt, Tunisia, and Ukraine to show the importance of inclusion—and in particular the participation of women—to ensure both successful dialogue and that the outcome of that dialogue is a stable democracy.

Type: Peaceworks

Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue

View All Publications