OUR PARTNERS
This activity describes a hosted forum for the engagement between political parties, be it informal or formalized, as an internal conflict prevention mechanism and early response option, with the potential additional value of democracy development and advocacy and reform. They serve as a separate, more informal mechanism than parliamentary committees and caucuses
An inter-party dialogue platform serves as a structured, impartial forum that facilitates engagement, collaboration and dialogue between political parties, often across a wide spectrum of ideologies. These platforms aim to foster a cooperative environment where parties can engage in constructive discussions, develop policies collaboratively and advocate for democratic reforms. By focusing on inclusivity, such platforms allow participation from all recognized parties, including those without elected officials, thereby providing a voice to underrepresented groups within the political landscape.
An inter-party dialogue platform can serve as a vital conflict prevention mechanism within an early warning and early response (EWER) framework. In environments with rising tensions or polarized political landscapes, these platforms enable early detection of potential conflicts by fostering open lines of communication between political parties. By providing a structured yet flexible forum, they allow parties to address contentious issues before they escalate, promoting a proactive rather than reactive approach to conflict management.
The role of inter-party dialogue platforms within an EWER system is to facilitate timely intervention by creating a safe space where political actors can raise and discuss emerging threats or grievances. Through dialogue, parties can collaboratively identify risk factors and agree on preventive measures, such as mediation or joint statements, to mitigate tensions. This function is particularly critical during volatile periods, such as pre-election or post-election phases, where political rivalries and disagreements can easily spiral into larger conflicts. By creating a platform for early engagement, political parties can de-escalate conflicts informally and more swiftly than through formal parliamentary procedures.
These dialogue platforms also complement other EWER tools, such as data monitoring and community engagement, by providing the political buy-in needed to implement early responses. Through their role in building trust and fostering collaboration, they help ensure that political actors are prepared to work together on shared security challenges, increasing the political system’s resilience as a whole. By doing so, inter-party dialogue platforms not only contribute to immediate conflict prevention but also strengthen democratic governance in the long term by promoting a culture of cooperation and mutual accountability among political parties.
While political party engagement traditionally occurs within the formal setting of parliaments, where elected representatives debate and legislate, inter-party dialogue platforms offer an alternative by facilitating interaction in more informal, flexible settings. Beyond parliamentary committees or caucuses (see programmatic option), institutionalized or informal dialogues may be supported. These (more) informal platforms allow parties to discuss issues outside the constraints and public scrutiny of parliamentary procedures, creating a space for open and candid discussions. This can be particularly beneficial for addressing sensitive topics that may be difficult to tackle within formal legislative frameworks due to procedural limitations or partisan pressures. In (more) informal settings, party representatives can explore common ground, develop mutual understanding and experiment with new ideas in a collaborative and non-adversarial environment.
Beyond fostering dialogue, these platforms also facilitate various capacity-building activities, enabling political parties to strengthen their organizational and policymaking capabilities. This can include training in political skills, such as negotiation, communication and governance, as well as peer-to-peer learning opportunities where parties can share experiences and best practices. Through these activities, parties are better equipped to engage with each other constructively and to respond to the evolving political landscape effectively.
Moreover, inter-party dialogue platforms often serve as incubators for political party reform and innovation. By providing a space for research and analysis, they can help parties identify key issues affecting their development and explore potential solutions. This can lead to the initiation of reforms aimed at improving party governance, increasing accountability and promoting inclusivity within party structures.
Political parties are the main drivers behind such dialogues, as they will be the main beneficiaries. Nonetheless, and particularly in polarized environments, external facilitators may support such processes. Where inter-party committees exist, they can facilitate dialogues and serve to institutionalize such efforts. Alternatively, national actors including civil society organizations (CSOs) or think tanks can act as impartial facilitators. International partners including organizations such as the United Nations may support such efforts as well.
Within an early warning and early response system, such dialogues may be initiated by those leading the system with the necessary buy-in of political actors.
Transparency and updates: Use various communication channels to provide regular updates on the platform’s activities to the public and involved parties, where considered relevant. Given that inter-party dialogues are often informal in nature and serve to build trust among parties in more informal settings, parties may opt for keeping it out of the public eye.
Inclusive language: Ensure that all communications use inclusive language that reflects the voices of all those involved in the dialogue.
Media partnerships: Collaborate with media outlets to increase awareness and visibility of the platform’s goals and achievements. As a conflict prevention mechanism and early response tool, awareness-raising around it may prove valuable to build trust in democratic processes.
Establish clear operational structures: Define roles, responsibilities and protocols. Where institutionalization is opted for, or where included as an early response mechanism, use MOUs to formalize the relationship and clarify commitments, responsibilities and expectations. This can provide a solid foundation for cooperation and help prevent conflicts.
Regular coordination meetings: Schedule routine meetings with key stakeholders to maintain alignment and address any coordination challenges. External actors may be invited to sessions to contribute insights based on their expertise on specific topics.
Clearly define the roles and responsibilities of external actors, whether they are funders, technical experts or advisory partners. This ensures that all parties understand their contributions to the platform. It is essential to maintain the platform’s political neutrality. Ensure that all interactions and support from external actors do not influence or appear to influence the platform’s impartiality.
Transparent reporting: Particularly in polarized environments, agree on what information may be shared with the public, if at all. It is also important to clarify the role of such dialogues as opposed to what happens in parliament. Assign dedicated focal points within the platform to manage interactions with external actors. This helps streamline communication and provides consistency in messaging and relationship management.
Tap into existing dialogue platforms, where they exist: Work towards embedding the platform within the political system, possibly through formal recognition or partnerships with existing institutions.
Understand needs: Explore the underlying reasons why political parties may wish to participate in such dialogues, which may help you identify ways in which the platform may be maintained.
Costs might be paid by the political parties themselves, covered by government funds or paid by donors as part of an early warning and early response system. The following should be considered:
Political will: Establishing genuine political will across political parties to engage in the platform may prove challenging. Ideally, the dialogue was established and/or pushed for by the parties themselves. It is important for it to be an inclusive space, with as many parties participating as possible.
Representation challenges: Small or localized political parties may not be able to support representation in a national platform, but such circumstances may be mitigated by ‘block’ representatives.
External pressure: Where dialogue spaces depend on external funding, funders may do so with a political agenda in mind. While it may be considered a way for important sticky issues to be discussed, such as electoral reform, introducing outsiders’ priorities may hamper genuine dialogue and decrease the likelihood of parties taking the dialogue seriously.
Political Party Dialogue: A Facilitator’s Guide (International IDEA, NIMD, The Oslo Center)
Description: This comprehensive guide outlines multiple approaches towards establishing political party dialogue. The guide is broken into three sections broadly covering the general characteristics, a detailed treatment of dialogue in practice with a range of considerations on structuring a dialogue process and managing the inclusive dialogue process. The guide provides a number of case studies including Bolivia, Ecuador, Mozambique, Nepal and Uganda. A list of considerations is also attached in an annex, with associated checklists of questions.
The Center for Multiparty Democracy (CMD) in Malawi serves as an inter-party dialogue forum.
For more informations contact : [email protected]
follow us on Twitter