No need for a national dialogue in Uganda

By Enock Kibuuka

Almost on a daily basis, there is talk among the politicians, religious leaders, Non-Government Organisations (NGOs), Civil Societies, some Donors and foreign Diplomats, calling for a national dialogue in Uganda, wanting to exert undue pressure on Government to cause a national dialogue.

These days, the call for a national dialogue has been intensified like never before. The New Vision of Monday, November 12, ran a story, "National Dialogue to cost sh11b" on page 13. Thenceforth, the breakdown for huge sh11b was laid out and according to the conveners of the highly anticipated national dialogue, this amount is justified, yet realistically, the taxpayer should not foot this unnecessary bill.

The anticipated national dialogue has been initiated by the Inter-Religious Council of Uganda (IRCU) and the Elders Forum of Uganda (EFU), ostensibly perceived as apolitical. Other conveners of the much anticipated national dialogue include the Interparty Organisation for Democracy (IPOD), National Consultative Forum (NCF), Citizens Coalition for Electoral Democracy in Uganda (CCEDU) and Uganda Women's Network (UWONET). Hence, the Uganda National Dialogue (UND) will be officially launched on November 21 by President Yoweri Museveni, while the Speaker of Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga is expected to preside over the closure. To that effect, I feel duty-bound to contribute to this discourse, more so, in a broader perspective.

The proliferation of national dialogues in the recent past has generated significant interest in such processes from political, military and civilian parties in contexts of conflict, political and social turmoil or political transition. Consequently, both local and international third parties have often been asked to provide expertise, support and/or facilitation before, during and after a national dialogue.

Responding to such requests, a central challenge for third parties has always been to determine how they can play a constructive role, while ensuring that the process remains nationally owned. National dialogues are nationwide and inclusive fora intended to initiate fundamental structural and political state reforms through a negotiation process.

A mandate, is usually provided by the incumbent government or included in a peace agreement, empowers the participants to decide upon necessary reforms. In contrast to exclusive negotiations, national dialogues are characterised by their intention to broaden participation. They provide access for parties and groups usually excluded from or under-represented in political negotiations, and thereby air out demands which could otherwise fuel future discontent if they are not addressed.

Consequently, religious, ethnic or tribal minorities, civil society, businesses, labour unions, women or youth are usually interested in such processes, as they see in national dialogues an opportunity to lobby for their interests. This makes national dialogues a popular tool for structural reforms. However, there is no blueprint for a national dialogue. A wide variety of national dialogues have been organised, with diverse mandates, rules of procedure, compositions and outcomes.

This diversity reflects the unique political experience and needs of the society and state for which they are designed. Several approaches have been used, from the formally mandated national dialogue, with clear responsibilities and relationships with state institutions, to more informal processes. In terms of inclusion, some processes have gathered only political parties, such as in Tunisia in 2013 when 21 political parties took part in the Dialogue National.

Other processes, such as in Niger in 1991, have included a wide diversity of participants, such as professional groups, students, religious leaders and civic associations. Facilitators and stakeholders such as the IRCU, IPOD, etc. should however keep in mind that a national dialogue is not a ‘one size-fits-all solution', nor a solution in itself. Other options exist for state reforms or transitions and the enthusiasm for national dialogues which followed the Arab Spring should not hide the fact that such processes are useful only in particular contexts and, if inadequate, can do more harm than good.

But why a national dialogue? National dialogues usually happen where protagonists feel that wider consultation is critical to enable legitimate and sustainable state reforms and, sometimes, when a large enough number of influential parties favour a wide forum to identify common ground for reforms. Parties often attempt wider consultations after exclusive, elite-based negotiation formats have failed or seem insufficient to prevent further instability. National dialogues can either replace or complement exclusive talks. A national dialogue is only a tool at the disposal of a society contemplating fundamental reforms.

To succeed, national dialogues must be accompanied by a series of steps to attenuate tensions. These can include confidence-building measures or providing relief to the civilian population through humanitarian assistance or development programmes, such as the Operation Wealth Creation (OWC) programme, especially where the dialogue is expected to last for a long time. In addition, a national dialogue should not be disconnected from existing institutions and political processes and can sometimes take place in parallel to competing processes, directly influencing its development.

Also, it is essential for national dialogues not to be perceived as ‘ivory towers' where participants are disconnected from the national and local reality. For instance, the chairperson of the Elders Forum, Justice James Ogoola revealed that formal and informal consultations have been done to that effect. Thus, the objective of these informal or formal consultations should be to feed more voices into the dialogue.

Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that any national dialogue will succeed, and a dialogue's context and objectives have a major impact on its development and outcome. In fact, numerous dialogues have failed. In Togo for example, in August 1991, President Eyadéma ordered the shut-down of radio and television broadcasts of the Conférence Nationale Souveraine when he found that delegates had started exploring ways of deposing him. In Guatemala, in 1989, the Grand National Dialogue was suspended due to increased safety concerns for its participants and the boycott of some key parties involved in the civil war.

Other dialogues, first praised as successful, were followed by disastrous instability or even war. In 2013-2014, the Yemeni National Dialogue Conference was praised for its inclusiveness and technical quality, but its recommendations were not implemented and the country now faces a violent conflict and deep humanitarian crisis. This example should remind every third party involved in a national dialogue that the participants' willingness and the technical quality of the process do not guarantee a positive outcome.

Still, other national dialogues have repeatedly reconvened before reaching a successful solution. In South Africa, for example, three national dialogues were organised between December 1991 and November 1993 before parties agreed on a Constitution for the Transition which eventually led to the first non-racial elections.

In what context do national dialogues take place? National dialogues are not isolated events. They take place within a broader context: at the end of an armed conflict which led to the ousting of a government such as in Afghanistan (2002), within a post-authoritarian transition such as in Yemen (2013-2014), or following the de facto failure of an autocratic state, such as in Benin (1990).

National dialogues are organised in countries with contested, weak or failed institutions, or where institutions are deemed not inclusive enough and require reforms to increase their legitimacy. I strongly bet if Uganda is in this state to warrant a national dialogue, apart from the deliberate and intentional indiscipline of some of our politicians whose objective is sabotage and creating an impression that Uganda is on fire.

Otherwise, the development of a national dialogue in such an unstable and sometimes violent context constitutes a challenge to the process. In Iraq in 2004, for example, the presence of American troops and officials during the National Dialogue Conference was denounced as directly affecting the legitimacy and independence of the process and led some parties to boycott it.

During the 1989 Grand National Dialogue in Guatemala, the threats, kidnapping and torture committed against some participants, as well as the quickly deteriorating security situation, limited the participants' willingness to engage openly in the dialogue and eventually led to the termination of the unfinished conference. National dialogues must be preceded by formal or informal agreements such as a peace settlement, a ceasefire agreement, or confidence-building measures such as the release of political prisoners or amendments to the existing legislation.

For example, the Inter-Congolese Dialogue in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) was preceded by the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement of July 1999, which in its article III-19 stipulated that a national dialogue was to be organised for a "new political dispensation and national reconciliation in the DRC." Even before a national dialogue is decided upon, a mediator or facilitator working on ceasefire or demilitarisation, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) negotiations might thus be requested to explore the possibility of using a national dialogue.

What are the objectives of a national dialogue? The objectives of a national dialogue reflect the interests of the parties involved. Facilitators can assist parties in setting realistic objectives which can be achieved within a limited timeframe. National dialogues should ideally be chosen when they are the most appropriate tool for achieving the following objectives.

1) To carry out constructive and inclusive consultations to forge consensus. A national dialogue can represent a unique opportunity for actors who have not been politically represented in the past to express their concerns, interests and grievances. In Benin for example, the multi-party system was introduced in December 1989, only two months prior to the convening of the Conférence Nationale. The national dialogue thus represented an opportunity for the so-called forces vives de la nation to express themselves, to galvanise the support of constituencies and diffuse concerns they might have. Such a process can directly improve the quality of debates by broadening participation but can also trigger resistance from conflict parties and powerful actors or render the debates more complex. A national dialogue enables a direct conversation between conflict parties and civil society, which other negotiation formats cannot easily offer. Third parties can help determine whether the format chosen for parties to express their interest is adequate and make sure that it does not risk creating spoilers by generating frustration. Ideally, a national dialogue should be a platform not just for expressing grievances but rather for constructive exchanges.

2) To negotiate reforms or determine the process through which reforms will take place. In Yemen, for example, the dialogue led participants to agree on the need for the state to adopt a federal political system. National reforms can be constitutional but can also result in legislation which broadens the inclusivity of state institutions or establishes transitional institutions. Additionally, national dialogues may lay the groundwork for legislative or presidential elections, sometimes after a decision to disband the national assembly. It is therefore in the interest of stakeholders to take part in the debates defining the terms and timetable of elections but also, more broadly, to have their interests taken into account in the outcome of the national dialogue.

3) To initiate a reconciliation process. National dialogues do not definitively solve conflicts. The exchange and socialisation elements of the process through which values and norms are being shared and assimilated, as well as the expression of past and present grievances, can work as a catharsis and, as such, may be excellent conflict-management tools. However, the gathering of hundreds of individuals with intense emotional links to the past can potentially undermine and complicate a process. In Yemen, discussions on transitional justice were particularly exhausting but eventually resulted in consensus. There is a risk that national dialogues become accusatory bodies, used in retaliation against a regime's repression or crimes committed by parties, thereby generating counterproductive reactions. For example, in Togo the eagerness of the political opposition to press legal action against President Eyadéma certainly contributed to the President's decision to stop the Conférence Nationale Souveraine in August 1991. Naturally, the declared objectives of a national dialogue are not necessarily reflective of the actual objectives of parties. The latter often seek to reinforce their power, push their desired reforms, obtain amnesty for past crimes or gain reparations. In Benin for example, according to some commentators, and despite a mandate to bring about ‘a new democratic system', President Kérékou intended for the Conférence Nationale to discuss economic issues only.

Writer is a teacher at Gayaza High School