Dialogue is one of the primary components within the broader definition of peacebuilding. The goal of Dialogue is to develop joint approaches to conflict resolution, as well as improve relationships, understanding, and trust between individuals or groups in conflict with one another. Dialogue processes consist of bringing together actors from across the conflict divide with in order to develop an improved understanding of the concerns, interests, and needs of the other side.

The confidence building measures are a crucial component of a dialogue process. Confidence building measures are aimed at providing a safe and neutral space for parties to be able to engage with each other on issues related to a particular conflict. Confidence building measures are aimed at reducing tensions, creating mutual understanding and identifying entry points and channels for possible cooperation across conflict divides.

 

How Will GPPAC Work on the Issue?

• Dialogue / Confidence Building Measures (CBM) have been selected by GPPAC as one of the key areas for exchanging ideas and lessons learned across the network. GPPAC's work from 2011-2015 could proceed in the following ways:
• GPPAC, as a global network and neutral entity has the capacity to provide regional partners with politically neutral and safe spaces for dialogue.
• GPPAC's regional networks have the cultural and political insight to initiate dialogue processes relating to specific conflicts at regional and local levels. Drawing upon these connections GPPAC is in a position to act as a legitimate body to engage and facilitate these processes.
• Having developed strong ties with key international policy-making institutions, the GPPAC has the channels to facilitate communication between the conflict affected communities representing the dialogue/ cbm processes and international organisations, IGOs and RIGOs.
• GPPAC will act as a knowledge-sharing body, providing the platform for experience exchange from a number of regional Dialogue/ CBM processes, thus directly contributing to more effective local strategies for conflict prevention.

Following a conflict assessment, Dialogue and CBM can be a part of a Preventive Action plan developed by GPPAC members to respond to current/ potential violent conflicts.

 

How Will GPPAC South Asia Approach the Issue?

Dialogue

The art of active listening and the ability to respectfully articulate one's own perspective without increasing the acrimony are key elements of a dialogue process. Dialogue involves "a process of genuine interaction through which human beings listen to each other deeply enough to be changed by what they learn. Each makes a serious effort to take the others' concerns into her or his own picture, even when disagreement persists. No participant gives up her or his identity, but each recognizes enough of the others' valid human claims that he or she will act differently toward the other."[1]

A dialogue must not be started just for its own sake and should be initiated when people are affected by an issue and they believe that by coming together they can do something to change the situation. It should come with the recognition by all the parties of the existence of the other and be willing to engage in a conversation with their conflict partner.

Dialogue can also be seen as a mutual truth-seeking exercise where conflictants are mindful of the fact that there is no "one" truth and that the dialogue process might generate multiple truths. They are open to accepting this reality. A dialogue process is successful when, as peace scholar Johan Galtung puts it, "the exclamatory mark at the end of our statement becomes a question mark". This signals a change in our position: we become open to the idea of changing our perspective based on what our conflict partner has shared.

Elements of dialogue should be seen as central to mediation processes. Yet, while the former envisages a changed relationship, the latter strives towards an agreement of some sort. A key goal in a mediation process is often to satisfy material interests through jointly agreed arrangements. The outcome of dialogue is to create new human and political capacities to solve problems.[2]

Dialogue is not alien to South Asian traditions. In many regions across South Asia, one finds the notion ofSamvaad which is described as a conversation where the conflict parties:

• share their feelings and fears,
• are open to listening to the other party's needs,
• are willing to be changed by what they hear , and
• are open to the idea of being vulnerable.

Mediation

Mohandas Gandhi, in his autobiography The Story of My Experiments with Truth, says, "The true function of a lawyer is to unite parties driven asunder". This statement captures the essence of mediation.

According to the Delhi Mediation Centre, a pilot project of the Supreme Court of India, "mediation is a negotiation process in which a neutral third party assists the disputing parties in resolving their conflicts. A mediator uses special negotiation and communication techniques to help the parties arrive at a settlement. The parties can appoint a mediator with their mutual consent or the Court, in a pending litigation, can appoint a mediator. Mediation always leaves the decision making power with the parties. A mediator does not decide what is fair or right, does not apportion blame, nor renders any opinion on the merits or chances of success if the case is litigated. Rather, a mediator acts as a catalyst to bring the two disputing parties together by defining issues and limiting obstacles to communication and settlement."[3]

While the above description captures the key elements of mediation, there is no doubt that definitions will vary depending on the nature of the conflict and the societal and political context. Two points are important here: the identity of the mediator and the power that the mediator brings to the negotiation table. With reference to the first, the mediator must be a person of integrity who is accepted by all the parties involved. If any of the warring parties doubt the neutrality or the capability of the mediator, the process is bound to encounter obstacles. Second, mediators are not supposed to hold decision-making power. Their power lies in their communicative abilities and skills, which (in an ideal situation) should facilitate active listening, a common understanding of issues, and a decision on the part of the conflictants to move towards a solution.   

Mediation approaches used in urbanized, individualized societies are often different from those employed in societies that are more traditional and community-oriented. In the former, the preferred process is rational and formal conducted within a preordained structure. It is more akin to a transaction where an agreement is sealed by a linear contract. In a traditional, community-oriented culture, social controls, rather than the law, determine the process. The process is informal; understandings and agreements are reached by social trust and assumptions. The preservation of relationships is a key goal of the process. The identity of the mediator also varies. While in a traditional culture, the mediator is an "insider", a member of the community having a relationship with the disputants, in an urban-individualized setting, the mediator is a professional from outside the community.[4]  

Yet, regardless of cultural and political contexts, mediation allows disputants to:[5]

• Ventilate anger and frustration in a free, open and therapeutic fashion.
• Receive an increased sense of power and personal worth.
• Gain access to a readily available, quick and inexpensive forum (in comparison to litigation).

Equalize interpersonal power struggles by promoting an egalitarian ethic.

The regional network's understanding of dialogue is "different parties coming together to speak/exchange on conflicts between them." Its understanding of mediation is the facilitation of dialogues. Mapping of experiences and developing lessons learned is seen as an important aspect that would fall under the Action Learning strategy.

[1]  Harold Saunders, A Public Peace Process (New York: Palgrave, 1999), p.82-85.

[2]Harold Saunders, A Public Peace Process (New York: Palgrave-MacMillian Press, 1999) p. 82-85.

[3]Website of the Delhi Mediation Centre www.delhimediationcentre.gov.in Accessed on: March 8, 2011.

[4]David Augsburger, Conflict Mediation across Cultures (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), p.202

[5]Ibid, p.195