By Kyle Naidu

In 2017, as part of a Pan-African civil society delegation, I was sent on a solidarity mission to The Gambia in the wake of the previous year’s elections, resulting in incumbent president Yahya Jammeh refusing to step down from power. There was a fear of widespread violence, and thousands of people were fleeing across the borders into Senegal.

Days before the president-elect was to be inaugurated, we gathered and listened to civil society actors from all sectors: NGO’s, religious groups, youth groups, trade unions and many others. This was the only time these groups were brought together to take part in a conversation about the current state of their country. For the first time, they could sit down and listen to each other about their different approaches to stopping the country from slipping into a civil war.

After attending the Nansen Centre for Peace and Dialogue (NCPD) training on dialogue in November 2021, I was left thinking about the value of dialogue in my experiences with civil society, both internally and in relation to conflicts with the state.

Dialogue is necessary at all levels

The role that civil society can play in pre-conflict, during conflict and post-conflict situations is, I believe, invaluable. Civil society is often seen as a set of non-governmental entities that act as a counterbalance against the state. Alternatively, Mary Kaldor, a scholar on the subject of conflict and civil society, states that it is “the medium through which social contracts or bargains between the individuals and the centres of political and economic power are negotiated, discussed and mediated”.

Given the spaces civil society operate in, dialogue can be a decisive method to build trust, relationships, and understanding between the state and its citizens. This is because dialogue is an inclusive process that brings parties together to begin a process of understanding based on respect and openness. When communication breaks down, conflicts escalate, and more trust is needed to bring the parties back to the conversation. Moreover, the value of dialogue is not limited to conflicts between the state and the people. As a tool, dialogue is an integral part of building social cohesion at all levels of society and even within civil society itself.

The importance of communication in times of conflict

The training at the Nansen Center provided us with specific tools such as conflict mapping, conflict analysis and role play, but also an overall approach to dialogue. After the training I reflected upon the meeting with the Gambian civil society organisations and I still wonder what sort of progress could have been made if we were able to dig deeper into the positions, interests and needs of the stakeholders or even map out the conflict.

Although the meeting in The Gambia was not set up with a dialogical methodology, it did demonstrate that in times of conflict when communication comes to a halt, conversations that allow us to listen to each other’s perspective and positions are of great necessity.

Listening is necessary for a common understanding

I witnessed how the act of listening and understanding each other helped develop a more complete view of the efforts being undertaken by each group. In the end, the participants of the conversation left feeling energised, and an air of camaraderie was felt by many as they came together in a mutual understanding. The participants went on to combine their efforts and launched an SMS task force aimed at sending mass cell phone messages to military higher-ups to stand down and respect the election results. The Gambia is a small nation, so it only took a moment to find someone at the meeting with a cousin who had a general’s phone number.

Having worked extensively with civil society across Africa, it is clear to me that dialogue can be a vital tool in stemming some of the misunderstandings that often happen between state entities and CSO’s, but also amongst CSO’s themselves.

Unveiling the needs and interests beneath the surface

Within grassroots movements and civil society organisations in general, we are often used to conducting our meetings and operations with a slightly argumentative rhetoric. This can include systems such as internal voting, debates, agenda-setting and even as we identify the goals of our organisation. We often spend little to no time further understanding the interests and needs that lie beneath the surface of our outward-facing positions as we focus more on our deliverable or servicing our community.

A dialogical approach to running an organisation or movement can allow for a broader and deeper understanding of the problems that face the organisation or community and elucidate more effective ways of implementing ideas through the inclusive process of dialogue.

Conflicts are a part of life

We all encounter misunderstandings, conflicts, divisions, or disagreements in our lives. Some of these realities remain on a manageable level, and we often manage them unconsciously. Other times, these natural processes become escalated and difficult to navigate or manage. As John Paul Lederach, one of the foremost thinkers in the field of peacebuilding, states, “conflict is continuously present ”, but it must be managed to ensure that the worst outcomes are avoided. The same can be said for conflicts between groups at all levels of society.

Civil society actors like myself need to embrace dialogue as a tool to better understand ourselves, the people we aim to serve, and those that we are critical of. Moreover, we should recognise that its value is not only limited to conflict but should sink into the very core of our functions.

As we touched upon in the training, conflict is not inherently bad; however, if neglected, conflicts often become untenable, and the harmful aspects of conflict can begin to take root. Therefore, the need for understanding becomes imperative to mitigate conflict escalation.

That is where dialogue can be a tool for peace.

Naidu is a South African grassroots peacebuilder, conflict resolution practitioner and researcher with experience working with civil society and activists from across Africa. Naidu holds a master’s degree in Advanced Peacebuilding and Conflict Resolution from the University of Bradford and attended the Nansen training – Dialogue in Conflict in November 2021.

-The breaking moment was when I stopped seeing the online space as something that is replacing physical meetings, says Betka Wójcik.

She was a bit sceptical when the Coronavirus forced communication all over the world to go online, including the dialogue activities of Nansen Center for Peace and Dialogue (NCPD) – where she had been participating in training and meetings.

The sceptic attitude changed when she started focusing on the opportunities.

-I started to think about online dialogue as a different space and different way of communication, which has challenges but also opportunities. I started to think – how can I use all the advantages, says Wójcik.

A way to include more people

2020 was the year when dialogue escaped into the digital room, and the trend seems to continue in 2021. After the outbreak of the Coronavirus in March last year, the staff at NCPD immediately started to increase the activities in digital meeting rooms. At the end of the year, the center had gained much experience with the digital tools related to dialogue.

-In the digital way we can include participants from around the world, as far as they have an internet connection and a device. On the positive side is also that the conversations are slower and that the cost is low, says Christiane Seehausen, Senior Advisor at NCPD.

Seehausen has been organizing and facilitating a great number of dialogues online, including training courses for field workers in Syria and Irak, and for NGOs in Poland. She sees both possibilities and limitations with online dialogue.

-In the digital world we are connected, but in the same way disconnected and alone. It is difficult to really get in contact with people and we miss spontaneous responses like body language, all these small human reactions are not visible, Seehausen says.

She points at the fact that building trust is a key stone in dialogue, and trust is hard to create via a screen. This seems to be one of the serious drawbacks with dialogue over video.

Risky to comment on sensitive topics

The Afghanistan Week conference is held every other year in Oslo, with NCPD as organizer together with Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), Chr. Michelsens Institute (CMI) and Norwegian Afghanistan Committee (NAC). This year everything was happening online.

-The week was turned into a public conversation that was shown live on YouTube, says Norunn Grande, Acting Director at NCPD.

Grande was leading a session where people working with dialogue at the grassroots in Afghanistan participated, via a mobile phone or laptop from their own community.

-The digital dialogue has the potential to bring out the grassroot voices and we can reach a larger audience. Because everything was happening online, Afghans living in different parts of Afghanistan could participate equally with people in front of the screen in Lillehammer and Oslo, says Grande.

The Afghanistan Week is available via Youtube, and such open access has advantages, but also challenges.

-This year it was more risky to comment on sensitive topics, says Grande.

In dialogue, it is important to create a safe space, where people feel confident to express their opinions. Creating a trustful and safe space is much more challenging in a digital room than in physical meetings, regardless of whether the conversations are posted online or not.

-People adjust their expressions to the feeling of safety. In a physical room we can have a public dialogue meeting with up to 100 participants, and we can more easily create the feeling of safety. Digital dialogue certainly has potential, but requires a very good structure, says Grande.

A democratic tool

-This tool is very democratic, it enables people from different corners of the world to meet with few preparations, says Alfredo Zamudio – currently on leave from his position as director at NCPD, to lead a dialogue process in Chile.

During the past year, he facilitated a dialogue process in Chile – which for the most part was done through digital meetings.

-Digital meeting space is an excellent tool, although it does not replace human interaction, such as showing affection, empathy and solidarity. When sharing the same physical room we can listen or be in silence – together. A digital meeting space does not fully manage to be a full replacement for a physical space, but is much better than not meeting at all, Zamudio says.

-It is also worth saying that it is easier, cheaper and allows great flexibility. With our experience in Chile during last year, we can certainly say that a dialogue process can be done digitally. We will be happy to share our experiences with colleagues who are interested, Zamudio concludes.

Important and meaningful

Christiane Seehausen points out that the digital meetings get better when the participants have met physically before.

-Digital meetings limit our work, but if the participants have met before and had the chance to build a foundation including trust, the dialogues will be better, more open and honest, she says.

Betka Wójcik experienced a great benefit from the online dialogues where she participated, facilitated by Christiane Seehausen.

-It was very important and meaningful for me to take part in the net based dialogues. I felt very inspired and encouraged, and I was very thankful for having this opportunity and possibility to talk about those important topics in those challenging times. It gave me a lot of hope and space and time to reflect on important issues, Wójcik says.

-For sure it is much more difficult to establish relationships and trust online, to really feel we are communicating with other „real” people. I think this requires much more time than with physical meetings. I experienced that it is possible also online, but we need to pay more attention to it and find methods to help people to feel it, Wójcik says.

One of the things she values most about dialogue is the inclusiveness, and how different people with different experiences can communicate equally.

-I experienced this much more difficult online, she says.

Needed in times of uncertainty

Also Agata Urbanik participated in the online dialogues in Poland.

-Virtual dialogues are more structured and less spontaneous. The order of speaking has to be followed carefully and it is difficult to go in new directions. People were fragmentized, their voices sometimes distorted. Nevertheless, we created a sense of intimacy and closeness, a true sharing space, Urbanik says.

Digital dialogue has the potential to include more people, but Urbanik points at the fact that going digital also can exclude.

-A risk with this kind of dialogue is digital exclusion. Which often intersects with other exclusion dimensions like age, material situation, health, social and ethnic background. We should think about providing necessary assistance for those who are not able to participate in online meetings, she says.

-It is possible to engage in meaningful contact online and we should practice it. Dialogue is needed in times of great uncertainty, like now. And it is fairly easy to organize, Urbanik says.

Text and photo: Kai Nygaard
Published: January 11th 2021

How to make a great net based dialogue:

-Good preparations
-A brief introduction
-Clear rules
-Participants should sign up beforehand and it should not be possible to join if you are late
-Short sessions – around two hours is often enough
-Clarity on expectations
-Conversations in smaller groups could be useful
-Have more than one person organizing. One should facilitate, one administer the digital tool and keep track of the talking list, and one to report (if need)
-Close each session with reflections from the facilitator based on what has been said during the session
-Using an experienced facilitator is recommended