|
 |
|
The Dialogue Process
The process of dialogue amongst stakeholders was as important to the WD-SA as the research findings. The WD-SA did not reflect or promote any one agenda or position. Its intention was not to force consensus, but to engender what has been referred to as "confrontative dialogue". Confrontative dialogue aims for better understanding between stakeholders with unequal relationships, significant conceptual gaps, and a high degree of mistrust. It aims to "make diverging values and interests visible and understandable and to illuminate political alternatives" (Abrahamsson, 2004). This stands in contrast to the increasingly popular use of “dialogue” to describe a range of processes. |
|
Click to see enlarged version |
Drawing on interviews with Working Group members, the overall WD-SA process is described and analysed in a Process Recording Report written by Penny Urquhart with an epilogue by Warren Banks. Many members emphasised the importance of the agreed Code of Conduct and after the project was completed, key values and principles were identified.
What can be learned from The Water Dialogues’ process of dialogue?
Instead of forcing a consensus or using a participatory process to mask a dominant position, WD-SA stakeholders created trust and respect that made it possible to explore and listen to other perspectives. The dialogue showed the value of acknowledging and confronting differences in perspective and conviction. It entailed working with integrity to identify the root causes of those differences, and finding ways to move forward together, beyond polarisation, towards constructive resolution of the problems, based on a shared understanding and analysis – in ways that do not disrespect or negate different perspectives.
Our own process of dialogue shows that there is deep commitment, across a diverse range of stakeholders, to achieve better services, particularly for those living in poverty. Through acknowledging this commitment, there can be more honest assessment of what is working, which can be strengthened, and what is not, which must be changed. This dialogue builds a strong platform for taking and implementing decisions that are inclusive and respected by all. For example, Neil Macleod of eThekwini Metro attributes his decision to increase the free water allocation to his engagement with civil society as part of The Water Dialogues process.
It is the conviction of WD-SA participants that this approach can be used effectively at the local level and in national debate to find ways to strengthen services provision, and build municipal delivery mechanisms that serve the needs of users.”
Examples of Confrontative Dialogue
Click each to download PDF
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
