Political Change

Concept

From Cairo to New York, Tunis to London, in Athens, Barcelona and Rome, wherever one looks, one sees dissatisfaction with politics and with the way politicians have mismanaged economies and societies and have betrayed the trust bestowed on them by citizens. On the other hand, even those politicians who are driven not by self-interest but by a genuine desire to serve their societies are at a loss as to what is to be done to confront the complex problems at hand. Miscommunication is rampant, short-term thinking is predominant, and habits of spin and politically-correct speech only serve to obfuscate problems and obscure the possibilities of finding creative solutions.

The disillusion with politics is even more severe in authoritarian regime. The repressions of an authoritarian era invariably leave a nation without either strong institutions of pluralistic deliberation or the practice of dialogue among political elites. Typically, participatory structures of governance are weakened, civil society and the independent media have faced repression and the independence of the judiciary has been threatened.

In the vacuum created by the collapse of such regimes there are grave risks that one authoritarian regime would be followed by another.  Reformers compete with those who have benefited from autocracy; and there are competing views of the destination of change and differences on how to get there. The political scene remains volatile, divisive, fragmented and dispersed. There is invariably an urgent need to introduce alternative means of conducting political business.

At the same time, a plethora of different groups form or re-form, each with its own view on the way ahead. They have studies, consultations, diagnoses and action plans drawn up while in exile or in opposition on which to rely; they may even command wide popular support. But they may lack the means to forge these approaches into a common agenda.

The immediate goal in this situation is to develop a platform founded on minimum common principles and standards, as a base from which to develop a new political settlement inclusive and representative of the many components of the nation and its social fabric.

The challenge, whether in disgruntled democratic polities or in suppressed autocratic ones, is to create the space and provide the tools for the various political groups to reach a consensus on new rules for the game; and then facilitate them to produce a political discourse capable of shaping a range of realistic options. What is require is a non-ambiguous demonstration that new political orders can be created in the interests of all citizens, at all levels of society.

Application

‘Early interventions can reduce the likelihood of prolonged instability and suffering and prevent the need for a more expensive solution’ as the UK Strategic Defence and Security Review states. The SDSR cites the case of Macedonia as one of the successes of conflict prevention.  In 2001, the Ohrid Framework Agreement brought to an end the conflict between the ethnic Albanian National Liberation Army and Macedonian security forces.

However, by 2007/8 the political consensus at the national level was breaking down, famously with a fist-fight in Parliament between competing Albanian parties caught on live TV. Parliament was paralysed as there was no agreement on procedures. The gains of Ohrid were at risk as the political tensions mounted again.

At the urgent request of the European Commission, with the backing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Chris Langdon directed a workshop at Wilton Park in January 2008 with the full support of the Speaker of the Macedonian Parliament, engaging him, the heads of all the parliamentary party factions, key Committee Chairs and rank and file MPs. The Prime Minister was also personally engaged by phone. In three days of intensive participatory strategic planning led by Ahmed Badawi, MPs produced an agreed document on how to progress on reforming procedures. The consensus reached culminated in a final agreement on a new rule book in 2010.

‘The Conference resulted in a viable Action Plan on the enhancement of the legislative and controlling functions, and the building of the financial independence of the Assembly,’ as Marjan Madzovski, Secretary of the Speaker’s cabinet said.  ‘Three years on, the Parliament is a very different place, thanks in large part to the action plan developed at Wilton Park. MPs and officials still recall that event with fondness’, Alex Romaniuc, Europe Director of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, said in January 2011. As subsequent events in Macedonia show, the situation remains challenging.

Following this workshop, and drawing on relevant other activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, the Balkans and the former Communist bloc, Chris Langdon, David French and Ahmed Badawi developed an approach for political dialogue embedding KUMI at the centre of a comprehensive six stage process which can be particularly useful at moments of national crisis or change such as:

• Following the overthrow an authoritarian regime or the death of a powerful ruler, when an opportunity may exist to support a process of engagement and structured dialogue to achieve a long term change in the political status quo.
• As the result of focusing events such as economic crises, natural disasters, or a major terrorist attack which may exert pressure on the ruling elite to introduce change.
• In response to underlying tensions which are caused by factors such as widespread inequalities in the distribution of power, identity-related grievances or a sense by sections of the population that some of their basic human needs are left unfulfilled.

In any of these settings an intervention incorporating KUMI can be undertaken with leaders and influencers at any level of society – national, sub-national and sectoral – provided it is grounded in a comprehensive understanding of the country context, incentives for change and the likely obstacles to progress.

Adapted to these contexts, this transformational process aims to be an operational bridge between peacebuilding, state building and governance programmes.  It is capable of drawing on political economy analyses where they exist, and on the perceptions of current issues as seen by the full range of local actors – who are central to this method.  It acknowledges local norms and traditions which have significant local legitimacy, and is structured to be part of a longer term process of external intervention.

The six stage process runs as follows:

Assessment and engagement:

1. Initial assessment of the potential to facilitate change at the required levels.
2. Detailed on-the-ground assessment, working with local partners to develop a deep picture of the political landscape and key actors, and to enable relationships of trust to be formed and bona fides to be established.
3. Engagement throughout the assessment process with local leaders and partners, negotiating the scope of a programme.

Workshops:

1. Workshop series, the fulcrum of the programme the timing of which is to be determined by local counterparts, bringing together political leaders and experts with the purpose of reaching agreement on

• their collective vision for the future, either on big picture issues or on specific problems identified by them
• the obstacles that are preventing them from reaching this vision
• the strategies they need to adopt in order to overcome the obstacles, and
• the plan of action they need in order to implement the strategies.

Following up:

1. Help in creating a national dialogue, using a range of communications tools and working with local communications specialists, to ensure that agreements reached at national level are informed by and/or feed into national, sub-national or sectoral debate and dialogue.
2. Follow up meetings, to review the results of the communications process and also to consolidate progress and deal with any new issues and potential conflicts which may have arisen.

Conversations are currently being held with a number of potential partners to develop opportunities to test this approach in a real-life setting.

For more information, contact David French david@transform-centre.org.