Inclusivity In National Dialogues - IPS Project
Inclusivity in National DialoguesGuaranteeing Social Integration or Preserving Old Power Hierarchies?1Katrin Planta, Vanessa Prinz and Luxshi Vimalarajah1Background PaperAbstractNational Dialogues attempt to bring together all relevant national stakeholders and actors (both stateand non-state), based on a broad mandate to foster nation-wide consensus on key conflict issues. Theyare increasingly seen per definitionem as the most participatory and inclusive tool for conflicttransformation. However, there is both the risk of overestimating National Dialogues’ ‘capacity ofinclusion’ as well as the transformative impact of an inclusive process design. Although we assume thatthe principle of inclusivity possesses intrinsic qualities (e.g. by increasing the prospects for conflicttransformation and reaching positive peace), in practice it might not necessarily be the case that moreinclusivity equals better outcomes. As a result, any discussion on ‘inclusivity’ must go beyond the valueattributed to the principle itself and also critically consider the challenges and dilemmas related toinclusivity. Analysing the role and meaning of inclusivity in the context of different National Dialogueprocesses around the world, this paper addresses five core dilemmas of National Dialogue processes,including tensions related to effectiveness, representation, legitimacy, power balances and ownership.The paper concludes by drawing a balance between the challenges and benefits of inclusivity in NationalDialogues.This paper is part of collaboration between the Berghof Foundation’s two programmes “Dialogue, Mediation & Peace Support Structures” and“Agents of Change for Inclusive Conflict Transformation”. The authors wish to thank Maren Sass for her thorough and diligent backgroundresearch for this paper and Krystal Renschler for proofreading.1 Berghof Foundation Operations GmbH – CINEP/PPP 2015. All rights reserved.
About the PublicationThis report is one of two background papers produced in the course of the collaborative research project ‘AvoidingConflict Relapse through Inclusive Political Settlements and State-building after Intra-State War’, running fromFebruary 2013 to June 2015. For further information, please contact the research coordinator, Dr. VéroniqueDudouet, at v.dudouet@berghof-foundation.org, or consult our project website: www.ips-project.org.About the AuthorsKatrin Planta is a project manager in the Berghof Foundation's programmes “Dialogue, Mediation and PeaceSupport Structures” and “Agents of Change for Inclusive Conflict Transformation”. She manages the BerghofFoundation’s Negotiation Support activities for Resistance and Liberation Movements and is a main researcher forthe project “Peaceful Coexistence? ‘Traditional’ and ‘Non-Traditional’ Conflict Resolution Mechanisms”. Katrinjoined the Berghof Foundation in 2009, when she started to work in the project “Resistance and LiberationMovements in Transition”. In 2012/13 she served as an interim coordinator for the Berghof Handbook for ConflictTransformation. Katrin graduated in Social Science from the Westfälische Wilhelms Universität in Münster, Germanyand the Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Lille in France, and holds an MA in Conflict Resolution from the University ofBradford, UK. She is a PhD candidate at the Free University Berlin and is writing her dissertation on the role of excombatants’ associations for peacebuilding in Colombia.Vanessa Prinz is a project manager in the programme “Dialogue, Mediation and Peace Support Structures”. Shecame to the Berghof Foundation in 2012 and focussed on Resistance and Liberation Movements as well as regionalprojects in Sri Lanka, Turkey and South-East Asia. Her current area of work includes both practice-oriented andconceptual projects. Prior to joining the Berghof Foundation, she worked in the field of asylum research anddocumentation as a country of origin information (COI) researcher and as a project coordinator at the Austrian RedCross. Vanessa holds Master’s degrees in Sociology and Communication Studies from the University of Vienna, andan MA in Peace and Security Studies from the University of Hamburg.Luxshi Vimalarajah is conceptually and practically involved in designing and facilitating dialogue processes andtraining and supporting negotiators, advisors and mediators in peace processes. Since 2006, Luxshi has managedannual negotiation meetings, where opposition armed movements are trained in negotiation skills. She is currentlydeveloping a handbook on National Dialogues for practitioners. A strong pillar of Luxshi’s work is providingsupport to third-party mediators with policy advice, capacity-building, and technical and thematic support. Luxshirepresents the Berghof Foundation in the Initiative Mediation Support, a consortium of 5 German organisationsadvising the Foreign Office on issues related to mediation. Luxshi joined the Berghof Foundation in 2003 and until2008 was responsible for the management of a variety of stakeholder dialogue programmes in Sri Lanka. From2008 until 2011, she managed a project on Diaspora and Conflict Transformation. In 2012, she helped set up theNational Dialogue Support Programme in Yemen. She has undertaken a number of consultancy assignments forbilateral and multilateral donors on mediation support. Luxshi Vimalarajah holds an MA in Political Science fromthe Free University in Berlin.This project has been funded with support from the International Development Research Center in Ottawa.To cite this paper: Katrin Planta, Vanessa Prinz and Luxshi Vimalarajah 2015. Inclusivity in National Dialogues– Guaranteeing Social Integration or Preserving Old Power Hierarchies? Inclusive Political SettlementsBackground Paper 1, November. Berlin: Berghof Foundation.Page 2 16
Table of Contents1Introduction . 42Inclusivity as a Core Defining Feature of National Dialogues . 53Elements of Inclusivity in National Dialogues . 643.1.1Mandate . 73.1.2Composition and decision-making of the preparatory body . 83.1.3Participant selection methodology . 93.1.4Composition of delegates . 93.1.5Forms of participation . 103.1.6Decision-making process . 103.1.7Responsiveness of major texts . 113.1.8Representativeness of state institutions . 113.1.9Implementation of results . 11Central Dilemmas . 124.1.1Complexity vs. effectiveness . 124.1.2Inclusivity and representativeness . 124.1.3Inclusivity and legitimacy . 134.1.4Inclusivity and power: sufficient enough consensus? . 134.1.5Inclusivity and ownership . 135Conclusion . 146References . 15List of AcronymsANCAfrican National CongressAUAfrican UnionCARCentral African RepublicCLJConstitutional Loya JirgaCODESAConvention for a Democratic South AfricaGCCGulf Cooperation CouncilHPCHigh Preparatory CommissionIDPInternally Displaced PersonIGADIntergovernmental Authority on DevelopmentMPNPMulti-Party Negotiating ProcessMSPMediation Support ProjectNDNational DialoguePage 3 16
1 IntroductionInitiating, conducting and facilitating dialogue has become one of the key tools in peacebuilding and conflicttransformation. In support of the objectives of conflict transformation, comprehensive dialogues are seen asseminal for the transformation of relationships, the promotion of empathy, and the rapprochement of particulargroups after conflict. Within the broad range of dialogue formats, the concept of National Dialogue (ND) has beenreceiving growing attention from peacebuilding practitioners.National Dialogues attempt to bring together all relevant national stakeholders and actors (both state and nonstate), based on a broad mandate to foster nation-wide consensus with respect to key conflict issues. As such, theyoffer a useful approach in promoting public participation and helping develop a new social contract. Oftenfollowing severe national crises or open armed conflict, they are set in motion to move away from elite dealmaking, allow for broader societal participation and gather popular consent and support for fundamental politicalreforms and constitutional change in periods of political transition. Consequently, National Dialogues areincreasingly seen per definitionem as the most participatory and inclusive tool for conflict transformation.However, there are two caveats with regard to National Dialogues being presumed to be the most inclusiveinstruments in post-conflict settings.First, there is the risk of overestimating the ‘capacity of inclusion’ with National Dialogues. The frequentassumption that National Dialogue is the tool for inclusive processes still needs further assessment: What doesinclusivity in the context of National Dialogues mean? How is inclusivity defined and managed in differentprocesses? What are the commonalities and peculiarities of inclusivity in National Dialogues across cases? AreNational Dialogues per se inclusive or have they in some instances served elite deal-brokering with an inclusivefaçade? Do National Dialogues stand a chance of including marginalised social groups if they are set up against thebackdrop of highly exclusive socio-political contexts? Why are certain processes more inclusive than others? Whatchallenges have different processes faced regarding inclusivity and how have they dealt with them? What are thepitfalls, best practices and lessons learned with regards to inclusivity?Second, highlighting ‘inclusivity’ as a value in itself is a normative argument. Although we assume theprinciple of inclusivity possesses intrinsic qualities (e.g. by increasing the prospects for conflict transformation andreaching positive peace), in practice it might not be the case that more inclusivity necessarily equals betteroutcomes. As a result, any discussion on ‘inclusivity’ must go beyond the value attributed to the principle itself andalso critically consider the challenges and dilemmas that emerge with increased social inclusivity in negotiationand transformation processes (e.g. decreasing efficiency, inclusion of anti-democratic forces, the risk ofmanipulation by elites, cosmetic participation, etc.).Against this backdrop, this paper aims to analyse the role and meaning of inclusivity in the context of NationalDialogues. It offers a concise survey of past and on-going National Dialogue processes from the perspective ofinclusivity. Our analysis will be based both on a critical review of the state-of-the-art literature on NationalDialogues and on anecdotal evidence from actual cases, including Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq and South Africa.The paper pursues the following structure: After a thorough definition of National Dialogues and an assessment ofthe position and significance of the concept of inclusivity therein, we will outline the various elements of inclusivityin National Dialogue designs and processes. Inquiring how different processes manage inclusivity, we compare ourcase studies by their varying degrees and types of inclusivity in different phases of National Dialogue, the roles ofdifferent political, societal and international actors in enhancing inclusive processes, and the ranges of tensionbetween inclusivity and effectiveness. Subsequently, we assess five central dilemmas pertaining to inclusivity inNational Dialogues, including tensions related to effectiveness, representation, legitimacy, power balances andownership. In our concluding remarks, we draw a balance between the challenges and benefits of inclusivity inNational Dialogues.Page 4 16
2 Inclusivity as a Core Defining Feature of National DialoguesPolitical negotiations over a war’s end were long considered as – and readily accepted to be – elite bargaining.However, recent peace processes are characterised by an ever-growing demand for public participation in decisionmaking.As defined by Dudouet and Lundström (2015), ‘inclusivity’ (or its synonymous ‘inclusiveness’) refers to thedegree of access to the various arenas of political settlements for all sectors of society beyond the most powerful(pre-war) elites, either by participating – directly or indirectly – in decision-making (‘process inclusivity’), or byhaving their concerns addressed by the state (‘outcome inclusivity’). Comparative research has identified andraised awareness for the long-term benefits of more inclusive negotiation or dialogue formats, such as enablingmore social groups to contribute to the process and follow the negotiations, increasing transparency and with itpublic understanding and potential support for the peace process, and helping establish a more democratic cultureof debate and dialogue as a reaction to conflict (Barnes 2002, 7). Within the scope of peace processes, inclusivitycan strengthen the sustainability of an agreement by allowing important groups and the public to buy in. It can alsocontribute to exerting pressure on the negotiation parties to reach common ground. Furthermore, it offersknowledge and expertise, enhances legitimacy and representation, and creates greater diversity by providingaccess to difficult-to-reach constituencies. Lastly, inclusivity creates accountability and eases the monitoring of theagreement’s implementation (AU and HD Centre 2013, 41ff). In the words of John Packer, Constitutions andProcess Design Expert with the UN Standby Team of Mediation Experts:Ultimately, inclusive processes are better processes – facilitating more informed deliberations, broader anddeeper concurrence, resulting in more implementable and sustainable agreements. This allows situations totransition from violence through ‘negative’ peace (i.e. absence of war) to ‘positive’ peace (i.e. self-generating,resilient societies and sustainable development). (2013, 4)Widely considered a negotiation instrument that allows for the broad inclusion of social groups and political actors,National Dialogues have been defined as “mechanisms for promoting broad social participation and fostering thesense of citizen ownership in the definition and operation of public policies and institutions” (IDEA and WorldBank 2000, 1).For the purpose of this paper, we will understand National Dialogues as self-organised political processesaimed at generating (or re-establishing) consensus among (preferably all) major national stakeholders in times ofdeep political crisis, in post-war situations or during far-reaching regime change and political transition. While theyare often specifically associated with post-conflict peacebuilding, the effective use of National Dialogues is notrestricted to open conflict, but can also be used in situations where established political rules and procedures havelost their legitimacy (‘crisis of representation’) and capacity to act. In addition, National Dialogue processes havefrequently taken place outside of the political mechanisms for conflict resolution designated by existing legalframeworks or the constitution (in contrast, for example, to referenda or extra-ordinary parliamentary sessions) andare therefore extra-ordinary measures not necessarily based on democratic de jure but de facto representation.Ideally, a National Dialogue should serve as a common platform for trust-building, learning, reflection anddecision-making with the aim of developing a new social contract. Set up as a temporary and time-bound initiative,they may precede, complement or accompany formal negotiations – for example, they may address constitutionalmatters or support the implementation of later negotiations. They aim to bring in the various and diverginginterests of all stakeholders during processes of political transition, thus creating a kind of “creative space” withinwhich ideas of national unity, reconciliation and peacebuilding can prosper. Although National Dialogues cannotreplace the need for democratic elections and an effective constitution, they can provide a normative and practicalframework conducive to building trust and enhancing confidence in the conflict-stricken state (Berghof Foundation2014, 1).Page 5 16
National Dialogue formats have been applied in multiple settings since the 1990s 2. Examples include nationalconferences in francophone Africa in the 1990s (Benin, Congo-Brazzaville, Togo, Mali, Niger, Zaire, Chad), multiparty negotiations such as in South Africa (CODESA), national roundtables (e.g. Poland, Germany’s unificationprocess), constituent assemblies such as in Bolivia or Afghanistan 3, the current National Dialogue processes in theArab World (e.g. Bahrain, Yemen, Tunisia, Lebanon) and beyond, as in Myanmar. Although these processesdiffered substantially in their specific mandate, the background against which they were established in and theirindividual size and duration, they share a number of common elements, including their national scope, a broadlydefined mandate, their dialogue/consensus-oriented methodology and their claim to be highly inclusive andrepresentative of the whole of society.3 Elements of Inclusivity in National DialoguesWhile there is consensus among scholars and practitioners about the importance of inclusivity in National Dialogueprocesses, the term remains oddly undefined and unclear when looking at specifics: When and where doesinclusivity become relevant in the process of planning, establishing and conducting National Dialogues, or inimplementing its results? Does inclusivity mean that the process itself, or rather its outcomes should be inclusive?Should the notion of inclusivity assure the inclusion of as many political parties as possible, and/or shouldrepresentatives from all social layers and groups (women, youth, businesspeople, etc.) be included? How does onego about defining and selecting the latter?Looking at such questions, two things become apparent: First, despite often being used in a rather staticfashion, inclusivity is a dynamic, complex and multi-layered concept in and of itself. Second, this concept needs tobe delicately woven into the design, process and outcomes of any National Dialogue.Thus, approaching inclusivity fro
inclusivity. Our analysis will be based both on a critical review of the state-of-the-art literature on National Dialogues and on anecdotal evidence from actual cases, including Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq and South Africa. The paper pursues the following structure: After a thorough definition of National Dialogues and an assessment of
IPS Style IPS e.max IPS Ivocolor universel glaçure individualiser Essence IPS d.SIGN polyvalent souple esthétique IPS InLine améliorer IPS d.SIGN Zenostar JOB
The DRI Responsive Dialogues Toolkit outlines activities and steps needed to commission, design, plan and run Responsive Dialogues, and develop the ideas and solutions into policies and strategies that address AMR. Responsive Dialogues involve a series of at least
2 Network IPS Appliances: IBM Security. The best practice is to use zero configuration networking and then to use IPS Setup, the web-based configuration wizard, to configure network settings for the IPS system. Find specific information on this method in the Installation Guide, Chapter 2. "Configuring network settings for the Network IPS system,"
Cisco ASA Series Firewall CLI Configuration Guide 31 Configuring the ASA IPS Module This chapter describes how to configure the ASA IPS module. The ASA IPS module might be a hardware module or a software module, depending on your ASA model. For a list of supported ASA IPS modules per ASA model, see the Cisco ASA Compatibility Matrix:
Dengan mempelajari materi Konsep dasar IPS ini, diharapkan mahasiswa dapat menjelaskan konsep-konsep IPS yang berpengaruh terhadap kehidupan masa kini dan masa yang akan datang secara kritis dan kreatif. Sebagai calon guru SD hendaknya menguasai materi IPS sebagai program pendidikan. Untuk membantu menguasai materi tersebut maka dalam Konsep .
A. Hakikat Pembelajaran IPS . 1. Pengertian IPS Istilah pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial (IPS) pertama kali digunakan . gedung, metode belajar, dan tugas rumah), faktor masyarakat (meliputi : kegiatan siswa dalam masyarakat, media massa, teman bergaul, dan bentuk kehidupan
didik, guru IPS, guru Bimbingan Konseling dan Kepala Sekolah. Observasi dilakukan pada proses pembelajaran IPS di dalam kelas. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa (1) pembelajaran IPS yang menggunakan metode ceramah menjadi metode pembelajaran berbasis masalah menuntut siswa untuk belajar secara mandiri.
BAR and BAN List – Topeka Housing Authority – March 8, 2021 A. Abbey, Shanetta Allen, Sherri A. Ackward, Antonio D. Alejos, Evan Ackward, Word D. Jr. Adams .
