Role of facilitators and reasons for failed dialogue

By Shrawan Sharma

Present society is full of conflict. Dispute over the resource use and development of society if we understand superlatively, nation building has become a major contradictory synthesis in the mind of different communities, beliefs and philosophy-follower has created situations to initiate and begin conflicts. In the third world, where wealth is insufficient to be distributed equally, and where the distribution systems are under the control of limited power broker groups conflict has become a common phenomenon to challenge the discrimination and exploitation (Neither conflict an enemy nor a friend, it depends on the course that conflict follows its path to reach to the envisioned goals). Coercive method of conflict resolution cannot work effectively if the conflict is deep rooted, involvement of the public in the conflicting parties is highly ranked and there is at least truth that dissidents are raising genuine cases. Nepal has obtained an example the coercive method used in conflict resolution has failed. Nepal first deputed the police to cope with the conflict and then armed police; and finally the army, situation after the deployment of army in mitigating the conflict has become more vulnerable, rebels are getting more strength, and more people are being dragged into the conflict. Sri-Lanka, Somalia, South Africa, Rwanda and Guatemala have experiences that the coercive method could increase the hate and enmity rather resolves the conflict

Human psychology intends to have better opportunity, exposure and secured future. The ratio of the involvement of the public in the conflict relies on the demands and slogan that have been presented by the parties in competition. Enmity and hostilities among the warring parties strengthen their own position that leads to dangerous war, which is the case in Nepal. However, experiences of brutal past, from the rebels and government authority leave some positive factors that might be used to influence the minds of the majority to sit and solve the war. A professional, intelligent and excellent facilitator could use these factors that play a role for building relationship, which could drag people to a table. Security will be the main focused sector during conflict. In situation of armed conflict, people seek security by identifying with something close to their experience and over which they have some control. Facilitator must help the team members of dialogue focus on need of the people when dialogues are going on.

Facilitators

Basically facilitation is designed and operates to open the forums for discussion on challenging agenda, future plan and present grievances. The main objective of the facilitation is to help the disputants to understand each other, to empathy competitor, to listen others genuine cases and cause. While a good and excellent facilitator gather the enmities in a place where they acquaint each other, exchange their ideas in a separate time during lunch, dinner and tea break. Good facilitator use even a minute too for the success of the dialogue. For this he could provoke the parties' representatives, raise issues and hide himself from a debating scenario at informal meeting. The process of informal discussion would slowly and gradually strengthen the relation among them. They forget the situation what is happening but they focus on what should happen and sometimes situation is more critical in dialogue room, however facilitators exercise best for negotiated agreement. He/she helps them to divert from more disputable agenda to least controversial subjects that is to keep the team intact in discussion. The situation may occur frequently during the facilitation of politicians meeting and dialogue. Facilitating dialogue among politicians is an example of formal mediation practiced by the mediation network. When facilitating political dialogue; the mediator should concentrate on creating the right atmosphere.

Facilitator must understand the way the decision is being made. Facilitator is not an authorized and appropriate person to take part in decision-making but an ally to help in taking good decision, which could positively impact the situation that has hampered peoples' life. Facilitation is a process to a negotiated agreement that builds the confidence of key actors that provide shared opportunity in the future. Facilitator helps to build capabilities of the team members of dialogue to identify the future place for coexistence, common future for all parties involved in conflict. Facilitator tracks a road to solution from a stalemate that is agreed of all participants in the meeting. The meeting and dialogue team could reach an agreed phenomenon of future security, demilitarizing of community, strengthen the relationship amongst vulnerable parties and community, mutual responsibility even in the brutal past and for the shared future, ownership of activities that has taken during dialogue, common point of view on violence and human right crisis. These important issues and agendas must be identified in dialogue. Bringing party into agreement on above mentioned points is a one step success of facilitators and dialogue team members to visualize the future shared socio-political-economical atmosphere. Resolving protracted sociopolitical conflicts is extremely difficult, given such enduring problems as economic and technological underdevelopment and inequitable social and political systems.

Facilitation is not a (quick shot solution) that cures and takes care of every thing, every problem and that could not remove the difficulties if the partners are not ready to understand the real cause underlying in a society. It needs strong support of participants and outsider and sometimes of bystanders specifically for whom the facilitator is working. Political conflict is considered comparatively easy to settle because there may have several alternatives to perform and use. The centripetal political system like in Nepal has nurtured the hate and dissidences that has fuelled the conflict. We have witnessed the fail of centripetalism in Papua New Guinea that would be a good example to depict during the dialogue in political aspects. Representative democracy in Papua New Guinea has increasingly come to be characterized by diffuse and fragmented party system, high candidacy rates, very low support level for some successful candidates, vote splitting, low party identification on the part of the electorate, high turnover of politicians from one election to the next, frequent party-hopping on the part of parliamentarians and as a consequence, weak and unstable executive government is it not an amicable example that is applied in Nepal. Frequent change in government, immoral activities of parliamentarians and split in political parties have fuelled the conflict in Nepal. Facilitation for political dialogue should have incorporated the challenges that are created by the mismanagement of political activities.

Professional facilitator seriously ponder the issues emerged in dialogue and profess the issues' potentiality in developing the theory. Facilitation as considered in Nepal, and as was witnessed during the last talks between the government and the Maoist did not play significant role in peace building and consensus building. An excellent facilitator with eccentric knowledge about the subject and team spirit attempts to restrain the clients until the common points could be identified. That is a scope and result of facilitation. The facilitators who were present in the dialogue chamber were more of observers than facilitators because they could not display any effective presence before, during or after the dialogues.

Reasons for failed dialogue

a) Avoidance of major key actors: The major political parties were excluded from the power before the ceasefire was announced in 2003. After the royal take over of political power in the country it was widely believed that the dialogue will take place and reach a success in the due course of time. The role of facilitator was to persuade the government and even monarch to include the political parties in the peace process. An efficient facilitator never ignores the major force of conflict while developing the conflict resolution theory and mechanism. A good facilitator should try to persuade the parties in direct war not to ignore the stakeholders of conflict. The exclusion of the mainstream political parties from the peace dialogue is a severe threat to the over all process since the excluded parties are all potential spoilers of the peace process. That was the major mistake committed by the parties in dialogue and the facilitators. My intention is not to accuse them, but there was a golden opportunity; ceasefire was agreed, talks were going on, people behind the scene; specifically civil society was pressurizing the parties in war for negotiation. In such a condition a good facilitator could have done better than what we had observed.

b) Power imbalance: After the royal take over of civilian government the power balance condition had been changed. Famous conflict resolution scientist John Galtung has contributed a few sentences about Nepal's conflict and political situation in the country. I would like to use this forum to depict his sharp analysis of Nepalese conflict. "The country is facing a turning point: either toward opportunity (i.e. peace) or danger (i.e. the resort to violence in tougher terms and the collapse of the whole system). From one side there is a "basic change oriented party that uses direct violence", while on the other side there is a "status quo" oriented party upholding major structural violence, adding direct violence". The others are "scared, apathetic, inactive, waiting" great emphasis is put on this third party depicted as " vast amorphous, overwhelmingly majoritarian underappreciated by violence-oriented journalists more inclined to report violence than to report peace" whose components are the mainstream political parties, the civil society, the advocates of democracy and constitutionality, the population. The Maoist and the King dominate the situation since the third party is weak and internally divided."

There were selected government not elected, king has executive power; political parties were in Ratnapark for protest. Political agitation was slowly and gradually taking its course against the royal take over, international community, supporter of Nepal were in the position of "wait and see". In such situation facilitation was really a difficult job to perform. The Chand and Thapa government was in the position that had not the decisive power to reach to a negotiated agreement. The King Gyanendra's appointment of PM Surya Bahadur Thapa proved highly divisive and confirmed the mainstream political parties' fears about a king willing to retain control of the government and reluctant to yield the basic rules of democratic constitutionalism. The king's position on the matter was quite unclear except his announcement that he wants peace in the country. But the king never proclaimed that how the peace could be initiated? What is the form of peace establishment in the country? No Nepali is able to know that the roadmap of the king that leads Nepal to a sustainable peace and democratic country. On the other side the political parties kept behind the political power were extremely reluctant to the peace process because they have no substantive role to perform and implement. In this positional bargaining phase facilitation was entirely a critical work there were many stalemate, barricades and constraints. Even having these constraints if the facilitators had used their role effectively the process might be continued for sometime, they had had to present reality to the PM and even to the King because they were the official facilitators. A major obstacle of peace facilitation is the different view of the team members as an individual and as a responsible member of his party. In private talk he/she absolutely accept the real situation but in a group they generally have their own petty interest about the conflict formation.

Headline | Opinion | Dateline | 5 Question  | Editorial | Letter | 2nd Impression | Views | International | Past