Elected leaders need to use deep dialogue, rather than debate, to grow understanding and trust, so people dare to act together. (Photo by RODGER BOSCH/AFP via Getty Images)
Remarkable shifts have occurred in our politics in the last few weeks. It’s too early to celebrate but if someone like John Steenhuisen, after all he and his comrades have said in the past about their political opponents, realises that it’s time to act like adults, might we hope for a flicker of a new beginning?
Our president, Cyril Ramaphosa, and the ANC’s new tune that South Africa must come first, sounds like the theme song of Anthony Dvorák’s New World Symphony. In the post-election phase, the political choir is starting to sing together and perhaps they understand that being elected means to serve, not to be served.
But why only now? What has been, and perhaps still is, the problem with the political culture in which we were brought up and educated? Why do “honourables” criticise each other as enemies, sell-outs, traitors, political whores and conspirators with dark forces?
And what does it say when the so-called progressive caucus spits fire and threatens to derail the government of national unity (GNU), while gathering on the platform from which the train has already departed?
In my humble opinion, there are far too many dinosaur-like elements in political culture, attitudes and behaviour around the world. We must challenge and change this. (Yes, admittedly, I don’t understand the harsh realities of politics, but in my 42 years as a dialogue practitioner and mediator in various contexts, I’ve seen too many times how power-hunger and a lack of process wisdom lead to destructive conflict and suffering.)
First, where does the megalomania come from, the attitude that the winner must take all? Who said that because you, as the ruling party, got the most votes, you have the right to rule alone and as you wish? You listen to no advice, especially not from political opponents. Amid loud cheers from your caucus colleagues in parliament, you enjoy putting the opposition in their place. You use your majority to bully, to defend the indefensible fire pools, to protect leaders from votes of no confidence, to cover up and to insult.
Across the aisle, the opposition sits or jumps up and down. Opposition parties think it’s their duty to oppose everything, regardless of whether the government is doing good things or not. You rant, rave, disrupt and don’t give a penny’s credit. You specialise in handing out labels and demonising anyone who disagrees with you.
The mistrust in each other’s motives is so great that ideas, no matter how good, are shot down solely based on who proposed them.
Why do we still talk about ruling parties and opposition at all? Why can’t elected representatives talk to each other as governing partners? How does it help us when politicians fight all the time instead of seeking the best ideas together, regardless of where they come from?
When I worked in Guyana as a peace and development advisor for the UN, I learned something from one of our colleagues that I have never forgotten. Kala Seegopaul, a dedicated member of the Bahá’í faith, said that when decisions need to be made in meetings, everyone is invited to bring their best idea after serious reflection.
But here’s the ground rule — the moment you make the proposal, it’s no longer yours, but the group’s. If “your” proposal is accepted, you don’t need to boast, and if “your” proposal is not accepted, you don’t need to feel bad because the proposal is no longer yours. It belongs to the group. What a unique and mature approach to decision-making!
In our political culture, it so often revolves around who gets credit for decisions. It’s about winners and losers, not about the best collective ideas for the way forward.
The formation of the GNU has the potential to shift this part of the political culture, provided politicians realise how egos and a “let’s beat them up” mentality do more harm than good. It might be entertaining for some whose vision extends no further than the boxing ring ropes but it contributes nothing to taking our country forward.
It’s interesting that while the Democratic Alliance is so pleased with cabinet positions in the GNU, it continues to govern alone in the Western Cape. In the typical style of winners taking all, they have not made room for minority parties in the cabinet. At the national level, it’s okay to share power, but if you have an absolute majority in the Western Cape, the losers must ensure that decisions are made only by “us”.
Second, people don’t shift because they lose debates and court cases. They harden. No one likes to lose. Political competition is like boxing matches where the one who can land the knockout blow is admired and praised.
I call it the “red spaces”, where it’s about who is stronger, about winning and losing, about debate, about who is right. It’s adrenaline-driven, egocentric, blood-on-the-floor spaces where relationships sour to the extent that turning back is almost impossible … unless you lose power and then have to backtrack to “soften”, as happened after the recent elections.
I learned a lot from the chief negotiator for the National Party government during the negotiations to end apartheid, Roelf Meyer, when he came to help us start talks with the president and opposition on ending political violence in Guyana. He told the Guyanese politicians: “If the only spaces you have for interaction are spaces of contestation, you are in trouble. You also need spaces of collaboration.”
I call spaces for collaboration “green spaces”. It doesn’t come automatically. Like a garden, the soil must be prepared and continuously cared for. The values and ground rules are completely different from those of the red spaces. It’s not about who is more powerful (has power over) but about power with others, about seeking win-win rather than win-lose, about dialogue instead of debate, about listening more than speaking, about what is the right thing to do, not who is right or wrong.
Competition will and must always be there but it cannot be the only characteristic of politics. Here and there, we now see signs that green spaces are growing. The new energy after the recent lekgotla is green — former opponents have begun to prioritise unity and cooperation.
The transformation that happens in green spaces enhances the quality of future negotiations and competitions, the red spaces. You must be very thick-skinned and stony if green spaces, where deep dialogue is the norm, don’t change you. When my story and your story become our story, things happen.
This brings me to the third point. We must be clearer about exactly what we are doing and what we are working for. For example, we talk carelessly about dialogue, but then we mean negotiation, consultation, mediation and debate and expect specific outcomes. To illustrate this, I give three examples:
- After the protest marches and anger over Brett Murray’s The Spear painting in 2012, Jacob Zuma, who was then president, said: “I’m calling for a national dialogue.” I was initially excited but then he added: “This debate will be about …” He didn’t understand the difference between dialogue and debate.
This “dialogue” then happened as a one-off, two-day consultation when political leaders made speeches from the stage and people talked in groups the next day. The politicians enjoyed their meals and refreshments in the VIP tent, while ordinary people had to stand in line for food in polystyrene containers.
- In a South American country, indigenous activists blocked a road in protest against the destruction of their forests. The police shot people dead and unrest increased. When a journalist asked the president if he had tried dialogue, his answer was: “Yes, I sent my officials to tell them what to do.”
- In Guyana, we couldn’t talk about dialogue because dialogue was associated with failed attempts by external mediators to bring parties together. In the course of our social cohesion project, we talked about “conversations to move Guyana forward”. The goal was to get people and the government talking about issues that Guyanese felt strongly about. This happened in 143 communities and 10 regions and on a national level.
What do I mean by dialogue? Dialogue is a process of respectful interaction where people in safe and uncomfortable spaces listen deeply enough to each other to be changed by what they have learned.
This change happens because people think together, analyse together, appreciate complexity and, in the process, begin to better understand each other’s motives and intentions. As understanding and trust grow, relationships shift so people dare to act together.
Of course, there are risks but not doing anything poses a greater risk. The challenge lies in hanging up preconceived perceptions and beliefs like a winter coat on a rack as we enter and going in with an open mind and willingness to truly put ourselves in each other’s proverbial shoes, searching together for the world we dream of.
As Rumi said, it’s not about right or wrong, because beyond right and wrong there is a field where we can meet each other. If people truly listen to understand rather than to be understood, they will realise that when they try to put on that winter coat again at the door, it won’t fit as comfortably.
Dialogue doesn’t need specific, predictable outcomes because outcomes emerge as the dialogue progresses. Antonio Machado said, “Traveller, there is no path. The path is made by walking. By walking you make a path and turning, you look back at a way you will never tread again.” What emerges beyond the mountain of misunderstanding, we will only discover once we have climbed that mountain together.
Perhaps we shouldn’t speak of dialogue but of sustained listening conversations. Yet, I still believe we can dust off the original meaning of dialogue: dia (between) + legein (to speak, to gather). It simply involves what happens between and among people when they exchange ideas, about seeking the wisdom within, around and between us, as John Paul Lederach says.
Dialogue is not a one-time opportunity. It’s a process that takes as long as necessary. Because dialogue is about shared understanding and action, it is not dependent on whether there is conflict or not. But, when it’s necessary to come together in tense times, dialogue doesn’t even need to start when there’s already proverbial, or literal, blood on the ground.
Research shows that dialogue happens throughout the stages of exploration, preparation, conflict and even war. The earlier sincere, deep dialogue as described here occurs, the better the chance it can prevent destructive conflict.
The process for convening an inclusive national dialogue in South Africa is in full swing. It’s an important initiative, sometimes likened to the next Codesa. There is a great danger that, like Codesa, it could become a one-off negotiation, or consultation, without fostering a culture of genuine dialogue at the grassroots level in the long term.
My plea to the conveners of the national dialogue is that they use a wide-angle lens, a telescope and a rear-view mirror.
Look wider than the GNU and political parties. See the possibilities for true inclusivity, so that in every community people will know their voices are heard.
Look beyond the current moment in our history to create a mechanism for future generations with a mandate to get people talking, and keep them talking, about whatever matters.
Look back to once again appreciate how the National Peace Secretariat from 1991 to 1994, in less than three years, successfully established a culture of dialogue, mediated conflicts and inspired people to dream of, and work for, a better South Africa.
The national dialogue cannot merely be an exercise in discussing the “what” without a sustainable “how”. Our future depends on it. It is possible if we step forward together with renewed energy towards a new order, dancing to the tune of new music as we shift towards a new political culture.
Chris Spies is a founding director of the Unyoke Foundation. He has decades of experience as a trainer, facilitator, accompanier and peacebuilder in South Africa and internationally. His passion is to accompany young people, so that a viable and strong web of peacebuilders can grow, first in Africa, and then internationally.