Reimagining Community Dialogue

I recently attended a workshop organized by the Berghof Foundation on Emergent Dialogues, which aimed to redefine "community dialogue" and develop innovative new formats in a changing world.

The workshop brought together a small group of "creators" from various cultural, political, and professional backgrounds in an event designed to be "undesigned." Organizers had pre-prepared activities and questions but encouraged participants to co-create new dialogue formats inspired by their professional practices.

Held at the beautiful Berghof Center building in Berlin, I enthusiastically accepted to participate in the workshop for two reasons: first, to contribute to the thought process of a foundation that I highly respect for its efforts to promote peace worldwide; and second, to make out of it an opportunity to rethink my own practice in community dialogues for the last two decades, after experiencing failures in several countries and particularly in the MENA region.

I was particularly intrigued by observing people's behavior in a less structured setting with a wide range of expectations, experiences, cultural, and professional backgrounds.

The workshop's format generated tension at interpersonal, cultural, and political levels. The first day, which some participants found too conceptual, was followed on the second day by a more structured training session on conflict. The need for some to stay at a "meta" level while others preferred a more "practical" approach also contributed to tension between participants, creating opportunities to simulate complex, multidimensional conflicts that reflect reality.

In this piece, I share my initial reflections on the workshop, focusing on deconstructing the concept of community dialogue, the assumptions that might be shaping those dialogues, some key principles to consider in any dialogue process, and potential iterations of the most commonly used dialogue formats I have experienced. It is important to highlight my bias in this piece, as my experience has been mostly in fragile states in the global south, and thus my reflections stem from this particular lens.

?

Deconstructing the Positivist Approach to Community Dialogue

One humorous anecdote about consultants seems applicable to peacebuilders in conflict situations: a consultant approaches a shepherd and says, "If I tell you how many sheep you have, will you give me one?" The shepherd agrees. The consultant calculates the exact number and claims a sheep, only to be told by the shepherd that if he can guess the consultant's profession, the sheep will be returned. The consultant agrees, and the shepherd accurately identifies him as a consultant. When asked how he knew, the shepherd replies, "You came without me asking, you told me something I already knew, and you took a dog thinking it was a sheep."

Peacebuilders often arrive without being asked, preaching peace to those they assume are unaware of it, while knowing little about the community's context and culture.

One effective starting point to deconstruct community dialogue is the definition of community dialogue according to Berghof Foundation literature: "A face-to-face interaction between people with different backgrounds, convictions, and opinions, in which they respect each other as human beings and are prepared to listen to – and learn from – each other deeply enough to inspire a change of attitudes."

Examining the definition and the overall workshop narrative reveals a predominantly positivist approach to dialogue. This assumption implies that dialogue processes and outcomes are inherently positive, actors in conflict want peace, and without much consideration given to potential negative consequences of any dialogue.

For instance, one case study discussed during the workshop involved climate change activists creating street tensions in Berlin. This example illustrated how dialogue could potentially compromise the activists' cause, as they sought to raise tensions and generate public debate in order to pressure the government to change its climate policies. A dialogue aimed at reducing street tensions might lead to more community peace but could also diminish the much-needed pressure on the government. In this case, the negative outcome of dialogue could outweigh its positive implications, at least from the perspective of climate change activists and advocates.

Another interesting case was comparing the war in Ukraine to conflicts in Sudan and other countries in the global south. While the war in Ukraine is often framed as a struggle between an oppressor and the oppressed, advocating for the militarization of Ukraine seems legitimate, but the same may not apply to similar situations in the global south. When I asked one participant the reasons behind this duality in stances, his answer was: “the war in Ukraine affects us (Europeans) directly, but in Sudan, it doesn’t." This made me think about how often dialogue prioritizes peace over justice, driven by political interests rather than local peace.

Also, another concept to deconstruct is "community." A community is, by definition, a group to which one belongs. Belonging strengthens one's sense of identity, which can often be exclusive to those who believe they share common characteristics. As one participant noted: "dialogue could present an opportunity to shift power dynamics within a community, to possibly replace the current oppressor with a new one."

I do not intend to demonize "community dialogue" with these arguments but rather challenge the positivist narrative as a prelude to reimagining it.

?

Assumptions about Community Dialogue

In addition to the long-standing assumption about community dialogue being a positive concept, here are other assumptions that might drive some current dialogue formats:

• People are inherently good, and if they are educated about peace, they will choose it in their daily life: what if people are neutral by nature, and they choose whatever helps them survive in a harsh context?
• Communities are vulnerable, and dialogue will empower them: what if a dialogue process compromises the most vulnerable position in defending their rights?
• It is in vulnerable communities' interest to dialogue for peace rather than fight for justice: what if a dialogue for peace serves the interests of the sponsor, a foreign state or actor, rather than the community itself?
• Competing interests in a community can be resolved if people have good values: what if a conflict cannot be resolved unless one party prevails over another?
• Building a peaceful community is inherently inclusive of diversity: what if community cohesion builds a common identity or sub-identity that could evolve into exclusionary and violent behavior towards the "other"?
• Bringing local actors in conflict into a dialogue leads to local peace: what if local actors are often proxies for geopolitical actors' interests, and peace is only a result of the negotiations between those actors?

?

I would like to highlight one example of competing interests: what if Europe's commitment to a sustainability agenda requires competing for natural resources in Africa to ensure renewable energy, even if it means provoking wars to access them?

Most community dialogues have collateral damage. Therefore, the key question is: what price are we willing to pay for any community dialogue process?

?

Principles for Meaningful Community Dialogue

The following seven principles are suggestions to facilitate more meaningful community dialogues, inspired by the dynamics between workshop participants and my experiences in community dialogues during the last two decades:

1.????Tailored Formats as No Size Fits All: each context deserves a unique community dialogue format and process, as various factors affect it differently due to cultural, historical, and geographical realities.

2.????A Mix of Structured and Agile Dialogue Design: to cater to differing human behaviors, dialogue formats need clear structures to provide safety and predictability for participants, yet also allow freedom and flexibility for ownership and creativity.

3.????Psychological Safety as an Intentional Exercise: initiating a dialogue should be preceded by an exercise to create psychological safety, which often requires intentionality to establish trust between participants.

4.????Cultural Factors as Essential Determinants: cultural values, norms, and behaviors affect dialogue formats and processes on emotional, cognitive, and social levels; therefore, an in-depth understanding of the community's cultural factors is crucial.

5.????Shift Power Dynamics While Avoiding the Void: a dialogue process often shifts power structures between parties in conflict, particularly when vulnerable groups are involved as a form of empowerment. However, change in power dynamics can create a void in power that could be manipulated by internal or external factors to trigger conflicts.

6.????Complex Realities of Multidimensional Conflicts: realities are never simple but also fluid, with many interpersonal, social, cultural, political, and ideological differences that often generate multidimensional conflicts that must be addressed simultaneously for sustainable dialogue outcomes.

7.????Changing the Narrative as One Ultimate Impact: sometimes, the result of a dialogue process is not peace but could be justice or discord. Thus, one ultimate impact is changing the narrative between actors about the conflict itself might be more important than peace as an outcome.

?

Iterations on Community Dialogue Formats

I don't claim to have developed a groundbreaking dialogue format for a changing world, but here are three suggestions to iterate some elements of the dialogue format I have practiced, using technology as a means to improve conventional formats:

Knowledge Prior to Positions

Often, people participate in a dialogue with preconceived positions regarding the subject or others. As mediators, we tend to focus on understanding actors' positions to better design a dialogue process. In a world of accessible information via the web, and in times of disinformation, polarization, and identity politics, assessing participants' knowledge about the context, the subject of conflict, and others before understanding their positions is crucial. Informational sessions, educational campaigns, and online knowledge sharing activities could be achieved in preparation for a dialogue process, in order to avoid that parties in conflict take a position prior to being well informed.

Representation in a Dialogue Process

Mediators often struggle to include the most vulnerable in dialogue formats and ensure their representation, as they might be unorganized. The tendency is to select representatives who may not be the most representative of that community or lack credibility for the role. It might be helpful to include a representation process, prior to any dialogue. Existing digital platforms could be used, of course when possible, to engage vulnerable groups in selecting their representatives. Although it may be laborious and risky, this process could ensure better representation and inclusivity.

Cooperation in a Competitive World

One of the biggest challenges is encouraging parties to cooperate in implementing dialogue outcomes for sustainability. The difficulty lies in fostering cooperation in a competitive world order. Thorough follow-up mechanisms with incentives and levers to push actors to focus on cooperation rather than competition are critical to avoid recurrent failures of dialogue outcome implementation. These incentives and levers could even include money, power, or interests to navigate a competitive world and to incentivize more cooperation.

?

There is no doubt that community dialogues need to be reimagined, and such workshops can eventually generate innovative ideas and formats. The world demographic growth, the limited natural resources, the climate change crisis, the fast technological developments, and the shift in economic powers require reimagining dialogue formats, and Berghof Foundation is one credible organization to facilitate such conversations.

I am aware that this piece might be too long or conceptual for some readers. Feel free to disregard it or reach out to continue the conversation and discuss real-life examples.