Negotiating conditions for dialogue
A Scenario
Summary
When trust is lacking between parties to a large societal problem it may require a skilful negotiation process in order to get them to agree to “enter into the room”. This pattern describes a way to approach this problem.
The challenge
How can you get parties into the room in the first place and how do you enable them to attend without feeling threatened?
The context
Dialogue on complex societal problems has very little chance of succeeding in large groups. Smaller groups of representatives for various perspectives are more conducive to a fruitful dialogue. The level of trust may be low or there may be obvious tension between groups. They need to talk but agreeing to do so is not self-evident.
The problem this pattern resolves
When there is resistance or even refusal to participate in dialogue because there is no trust between parties, this presents a serious obstacle. Either the parties refuse to be part of the dialogue or they “enter the room” with a defensive or aggressive attitude.
The design element
Getting the parties into the room may require some form of negotiation. Refusal to participate may be met with the response along these lines: right now, you are not willing to enter into the dialogue. What is behind your unwillingness? And would you need in order to change your mind? This conversation will help to identify the reason for a party’s reticence to engage in dialogue and then give them a chance to suggest conditions they would need in order to feel comfortable (and safe) to do so.
Listening without judging and with an attitude of empathetic presence (see Listening) is essential in order to explore what is behind the refusal to engage in dialogue. The listener needs to build trust through the quality of their listening. Unless this trust is established, the question following is unlikely to lead to the stating of clear conditions.
Of course, you would need to approach the other parties with the set of conditions and check with them whether they could agree to them. They might in turn have their own conditions and these would need to be checked with the other parties. This (somewhat cumbersome) process is worth the time it takes. Providing a sense of safety is essential to a productive dialogue – and of course without the key players the dialogue will not be effective. Following this course of action also sends a clear signal to parties that they are able to contribute to both the form and the content of the dialogue.
An example of such a negotiation: In a conflict following the closure of the maternity section of a rural hospital, activists occupied the foyer of the hospital. After more than two years of continuous occupation, the authorities finally proposed dialogue as a possible solution. However, several years of refusing to meet those opposing the closure led to an atmosphere of distrust on the part of the activists. Even the authorities were dubious as there had occurred threats and a great deal of hateful comments on social media platforms. The activists were initially very sceptical about the idea of dialogue. When asked what would help them to agree to speaking to the authorities, they wanted assurances that the dialogue would be honest and open and that the (for them) central issues needed to be addressed. The negotiations preceding the first meeting took several weeks and an agreement to enter into dialogue was reached. The first meeting dealt entirely with the conditions both parties required for a constructive dialogue.