OUR PARTNERS
Dialogue initiatives aim to open lines of communication between (conflicting) actors on contentious issues in order to promote peace. They may exist or be initiated at various levels and include different actors. This programmatic option lays out the various ways in which such dialogues can be supported, including how they may serve as response options in an electoral early warning and early response system.
Dialogue initiatives aim to open lines of communication between (conflicting) actors on contentious issues in order to promote peace. Various actors may facilitate or initiate dialogue at various levels, including at the grassroots level to address issues of local concern to citizens. Such local-level efforts can build a foundation for peacebuilding initiatives at the regional or national levels.
In an election context, dialogue efforts may target local areas where electoral violence has taken place or where significant tensions have been identified. In these areas, actors may identify perceived conflict actors and issues of contention that may spark violence during elections. Political players can use such contentious issues during the run-up to elections to sow division and galvanize their supporters. Dialogue can help specific communities to counter these narratives and become peace actors, rather than drivers of conflict.
Dialogues as part of electoral early warning and early response systems
Dialogues can also serve as responsive mechanisms that are directly triggered by an early warning system. When potential conflicts are detected, especially in the context of elections, these dialogues can be activated to address the specific issues identified by the early warning system, allowing for rapid, focused intervention. By bringing together key stakeholders to address immediate concerns, such dialogues can help de-escalate tensions and create channels for peaceful conflict resolution before violence can unfold. This approach is particularly valuable in volatile electoral periods, as it enables political actors and community leaders to engage proactively, discuss grievances and agree on peaceful measures to address them, thus preventing potential outbreaks of violence.
To be effective, such dialogue should be initiated significantly prior to the elections – at least 12 months prior and ideally even earlier. Such a timeframe is necessary to build trustful relationships between communities that can resist conflict dynamics. In situations where dialogue forums already exist, that infrastructure can be adapted for use during an election period. Similarly, dialogue forums that form during elections can be used in the inter-election periods to build trust and address ongoing issues of contention, including issues that act as underlying causes for electoral violence.
Electoral violence prevention dialogues can take various forms, each designed to address specific issues related to the electoral process and the potential for conflict. Here are some different (non-exhaustive) types of dialogues aimed at preventing electoral violence:
Description: These are grassroots-level discussions that bring together community members, local leaders and stakeholders to address tensions related to upcoming elections.
Purpose: To foster understanding among diverse groups, identify local grievances and create collective strategies to promote peaceful participation in the electoral process.
Format: Often facilitated by local NGOs, these sessions may include workshops, focus groups or town hall meetings.
Description: Structured discussions between representatives of competing political actors/parties, aiming to build consensus on election conduct and agree on mechanisms to resolve disputes peacefully.
Purpose: To reduce hostility between actors/parties, promote cooperation and develop joint commitments to non-violence during the electoral process.
Format: This can include formal meetings, retreats or facilitated negotiations, often supported by neutral third parties or mediators.
Description: Targeted dialogues that engage young people either among themselves or with people from older generations in discussions about electoral participation, citizenship and the consequences of electoral violence.
Purpose: To facilitate understanding between generations and to empower youth as peace ambassadors, encourage their civic engagement and provide them with the tools to counteract violent narratives.
Format: These forums may involve workshops, debates, role-playing exercises and social-media campaigns designed to resonate with younger audiences.
Description: Dialogues that specifically address the unique challenges and experiences of women in the electoral process, aiming to promote gender equity and inclusion.
Purpose: These dialogues ensure women’s voices are heard and that their concerns about electoral violence are recognized and addressed. These dialogues also seek to involve men as allies in promoting gender-sensitive electoral practices.
Format: These dialogues can include women’s roundtables, focus groups or community outreach events, often involving discussions on safety, representation and advocacy.
Description: These dialogues bring together a diverse range of stakeholders, including political parties, civil society, law enforcement and local authorities.
Purpose: To create a platform for collaborative problem-solving, where stakeholders can discuss their concerns and develop joint strategies to prevent electoral violence.
Format: These dialogues often take the form of roundtable discussions or working groups that meet regularly to address ongoing issues and monitor the electoral environment.
Early identification of conflict actors and key issues is crucial to tailor efforts. Assessing local dynamics allows for more targeted and effective dialogue that addresses specific sources of tension.
In the end, it all comes down to the facilitation being done by an individual or organization that is trusted by those partaking in the dialogue. Ideally, the person or organization would also carry weight to ensure the dialogue process is taken seriously.
Depending on the level at which the dialogue is taking place, civil society organizations and/or community and religious leaders are well suited to lead these initiatives. Their deep community ties and understanding of local issues lend credibility and effectiveness.
International organizations can play an important role in supporting dialogue initiatives aimed at promoting peace, especially during electoral periods. Their added value lies in their perceived impartiality and in providing technical assistance and expertise, engaging national and local governments and addressing transnational issues.
Initiatives should be culturally sensitive and responsive to local needs. This involves adapting dialogue formats and topics to reflect community-specific concerns and values for greater relevance.
Actively involving youth as facilitators or participants enhances the process. Youth bring fresh perspectives and are key to fostering long-term peace, as they can influence peers and shape future generations.
It is important to ensure gender balance in dialogue settings, providing safe spaces for women and addressing gender-specific concerns. Training facilitators on gender sensitivity can help achieve this inclusivity. Participation of local gender champions can ensure women’s perspectives are voiced during the dialogue.
Use multiple formats to reach diverse audiences, such as community meetings, local radio broadcasts and digital channels. Clear and accessible communication raises awareness and encourages community participation.
However, depending on the type of dialogue and its level, it may be necessary to limit public communication about the process. Here are key considerations for managing this confidentiality:
In these situations, selective communication strategies can provide general updates or high-level outcomes without revealing sensitive details, helping to maintain the integrity of the dialogue while fostering transparency.
Strengthening impact through synergy: It is important to align grassroots efforts with regional and national efforts to ensure consistency and strengthen impact. This coherence ensures that community-level dialogues are not only addressing local issues but also contributing to broader national peacebuilding objectives. Consistent messaging helps unify efforts across different levels, reducing the risk of conflicting narratives that can undermine trust.
Leveraging existing dialogue forums and networks: Regional and national bodies often have established dialogue forums and networks that can serve as valuable platforms for grassroots initiatives. By linking local dialogues to these larger frameworks, grassroots efforts can gain access to wider audiences, including policymakers and influential stakeholders. This connection also helps facilitate the sharing of best practices and lessons learned, enhancing the overall quality of dialogue processes.
For long-term impact, establish or utilize forums that continue between election cycles. Sustained dialogue addresses underlying causes of conflict and builds lasting trust.
Expenses include:
Managing these costs is essential to maintain quality and effectiveness.
Mistrust among stakeholders: Deep-rooted historical grievances can lead to skepticism and reluctance to engage in dialogue, undermining its effectiveness.
Limited participation: Key groups, particularly marginalized communities or opposing political factions, may be excluded, resulting in an incomplete understanding of the issues and reduced legitimacy.
Superficial engagement: Dialogues may be viewed as mere formalities or ‘talking shop’ without meaningful commitment from participants, limiting their impact on actual behaviours and attitudes.
Security risks: In volatile contexts, participating in dialogues may expose individuals to threats or violence, particularly from extremist groups or political rivals.
Lack of follow-up: Without mechanisms for ongoing engagement and accountability, dialogue outcomes may not translate into sustained action or change.
Political interference: External political agendas or pressures can distort the dialogue process, leading to biased discussions that favour certain groups over others.
Resource limitations: Insufficient funding, training or organizational capacity can hinder the quality and reach of dialogue initiatives, reducing their effectiveness.
Cultural sensitivity: Failure to adequately address local cultural dynamics and norms may alienate participants and hinder open communication.
Dialogue and Mediation: A Practitioner’s Guide, WANEP, 2012
As part of the ‘Building Effective Responses for Peaceful Elections in Kenya’ project implemented by Saferworld prior to the 2017 elections, dialogue was promoted at the grassroots level to establish positive relationships between communities considered to be adversaries. For example, in Trans-Nzoia county, the Catholic Justice and Peace Commission brought together boda-boda (motorcycle taxi) drivers, who were seen to fuel electoral violence, together with representatives of security agencies, to discuss how they could share information to jointly promote peace and security during the election period. Through a series of dialogue sessions at the grassroots level, the boda-boda drivers recognized their role in promoting peaceful elections, and the security agencies began to see boda-boda drivers as a source of useful information to prevent conflict. Despite challenges, the communities established relationships and lines of communication between each other, which were useful during the election period, including after the annulation of results, to mitigate electoral violence.
For more informations contact : [email protected]
follow us on Twitter