OUR PARTNERS
Menu
This activity describes a hosted forum for the engagement between political parties, be it informal or formalized, as an internal conflict prevention mechanism and early response option, with the potential additional value of democracy development and advocacy and reform. They serve as a separate, more informal mechanism than parliamentary committees and caucuses (see programmatic option)
An Inter-Party Dialogue platform serves as a structured, impartial forum that facilitates engagement, collaboration, and dialogue between political parties, often across a wide spectrum of ideologies. These platforms aim to foster a cooperative environment where parties can engage in constructive discussions, develop policies collaboratively, and advocate for democratic reforms. By focusing on inclusivity, such platforms allow participation from all recognized parties, including those without elected officials, thereby providing a voice to underrepresented groups within the political landscape.
An Inter-Party Dialogue platform can serve as a vital conflict prevention mechanism within an early warning and early response (EWER) framework. In environments with rising tensions or polarized political landscapes, these platforms enable early detection of potential conflicts by fostering open lines of communication between political parties. By providing a structured yet flexible forum, they allow parties to addres
Political parties are the main drivers behind such dialogues, as they will be the main beneficiaries. Nonetheless, and particularly in polarized environments, external facilitators may support such processes. Where inter-party committees exist, they can facilitate dialogues and serve to institutionalize such efforts. Alternatively, national actors including Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) or think tanks can act as impartial facilitators. International partners including organizations such as the UN may support such efforts as well.
Within an early warning early response system, such dialogues may be initiated by those leading the system with the necessary buy in of political actors.
Transparency and Updates: Use various communication channels to provide regular updates on the platform’s activities to the public and involved parties, where considered relevant. Given that inter-party dialogues are often informal in nature, and serve to build trust amongst parties in more informal settings, parties may opt for keeping it out of the public eye.
Inclusive Language: Ensure that all communications use inclusive language that reflects the voices of all those involved in the dialogue.
Media Partnerships: Collaborate with media outlets to increase awareness and visibility of the platform’s goals and achievements. As a conflict prevention mechanism and early response tool, awareness raising around it may prove valuable to build trust in democratic processes.
Tap into existing dialogue platforms, where they exist: Work towards embedding the platform within the political system, possibly through formal recognition or partnerships with existing institutions.
Understand needs: Explore the underlying reasons why political parties may wish to participate in such dialogues, which may help you identify ways in which the platform may be maintained.
Costs might be paid by the political parties themselves, covered by government funds, or paid by donors as part of an early warning and early response system. The following should be considered:
Political Will: Establishing genuine political will across political parties to engage in the platform may prove challenging. Ideally, the dialogue was established and/or pushed for by the parties themselves. It is important for it to be an inclusive space, with as many parties participating as possible.
Representation Challenges: Small or localized political parties may not be able to support representation in a national platform, but such circumstances may be mitigated by “block” representatives.
External pressure: Where dialogue spaces depend on external funding, funders may do so with a political agenda in mind. While it may be considered a way for important sticky issues to be discussed, such as electoral reform, introducing outsiders’ priorities may hamper genuine dialogue and decrease the likelihood of parties taking the dialogue seriously.
<di
Political Party Dialogue: A Facilitator’s Guide (International IDEA, NIMD, The Oslo Center)
Description: the Guide provides a comprehensive guide on multiple approaches toward establishing political party dialogue. The Guide is broken into three sections broadly covering the General Characteristics, a detailed treatment of Dialogue in Practice with a range of considerations on structuring a dialogue process and managing the Inclusive dialogue process. The Guide provides a number of case studies including Bolivia, Ecuador, Mozambique, Nepal and Uganda. A list of considerations are also attached in annex, with associated checklists of questions. https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/political-party-dialogue-a-facilitators-guide.pdf
<di
Description: the website for the Center for Multiparty Democracy (CMD) in Malawi that has been registered as a membership organization since 2005.
For more informations contact : [email protected]
follow us on Twitter