The observer of the Arab world these days can say that the fall of dictators and corrupt regimes, and the fact that others have been compelled to start reforms they had refused for years, is only the tip of the iceberg. The transformations run deep in many Arab countries, and the popular uprisings are only one of their signs – even if they are the most important and exciting signs politically.

Perhaps reviewing some of the elements of this depth will aid the discovery of this iceberg. These elements include:

· The transformation of Arab demographics over past decades with massive urbanization. This transformation permitted daily interaction in uninterrupted arenas, which modified people’s ideas and allowed them to unite based on politics, interest or sentiment in a way not previously possible given geographical separation in the countryside and desert. (This is a separate issue from the ruralization of cities and its effects in more than one cultural and societal level.

· The evolution of some social values in middle-class circles, and the tendency of this class’s individuals toward living in smaller family units, not drowning in extended families as in the past. This liberated some of them from the daily economic relations and burdens that had controlled the details of their lives. It provided girls and women with free space (albeit limited) in which they could dispose of their time, interact with their surroundings, and enroll in different levels of education, as well as in some sectors of the labor market.

· The 15-30 age group surpassing the 30 percent mark of the region’s population. The majority of these are either studying (albeit at extremely varied levels), working or seeking work. A great number of them use the internet and mobile phones and record films on YouTube or upload them onto Facebook, globalizing what is theirs and becoming acquainted with what others have. Their interaction with one another expands at record speed, creating states of identification and audiovisual resemblance among them that traditional media channels and newspapers did not allow.

· The (re)construction of social and political ties that dictatorship had previously destroyed – a new construction that is difficult to control or prevent. These ties began in a “virtual” world (the internet), then charges of collective emotions (following Bouzai’s self-immolation in protest of humiliation in Tunisia, or the slogan “We are all Khaled Said” condemning the barbarous murder of a young man by police in Egypt) transformed them into real or “territorial” relations in protests, sit-ins, conferences and festivals. These launched a process of collective reclamation of the public domain and many of its functions.

All this is generating new feelings in the region: pride in liberation from fear and pride in the construction of citizenship. It is also generating excitement over the solidarity – human solidarity first, and national solidarity second – that now finds its daily and nightly expression in public spaces (after the screens).

All this too could generate a new conception of belonging to the Arab world, unrelated to outdated nationalist concepts or loyalty to movements or leaders. This is a sense of belonging to founding moments, in a region whose youth speaks one language, understands the difficulty of its conditions and experiences its oppressions. It is an affiliation with human concerns that unite them and all humanity: the issues of freedom, dignity and sustenance, which come before anything else…

“Among the great variety of developments that have occurred in the twentieth century, I did not, ultimately, have any difficulty in choosing one as the preeminent development of the period: the rise of democracy.“ — Amartya Sen

At the Kettering Foundation’s semiannual retreat last January, staff and associates discussed opportunities for—and challenges to—engaging our research in international contexts. Some proposals focused on new lines of research. Others identified existing areas of Kettering research that might be usefully illuminated through wider international experience. As always, we tried to identify critical problems that the particular strengths of the foundation’s research might speak to. What have we learned about what people in other countries see as the central challenges to their efforts to strengthen democracy?

Participants noted the problems resulting from viewing democracy as a Western import. Subsequent discussion quickly led to insights about the importance of thinking clearly about how international research into the challenges of “making democracy work” should be done. One unique strength of the foundation’s research is the result of what we call joint-learning agreements. How might a similar approach in the international research help alleviate the “Western import” problem?

In a widely cited article published in the Journal of Democracy (1999), Amartya Sen argues that the “recognition of democracy as a universally relevant system, which moves in the direction of its acceptance as a universal value, is a major revolution in thinking, and one of the main contributions of the twentieth century.” However, Sen notes a critical challenge to democratic experiments, one identified by the Kettering Foundation a decade ago—a thin notion of what democracy is and what it requires of people, communities, and institutions.

Sen identifies one symptom of the problem: the tendency to equate democracy with the mechanics and structures of majority rule in elections. This implies that democracy is largely a technical challenge and can be exported—or even imposed—by creating formal institutions that structure repre¬sentative voting. As such, democracy is correctly seen as a Western concept. In many countries, this makes experiments with democracy harder to legitimize, and therefore less secure under the inevitable tensions brought on by change.

We may be witnessing the impact of that “thin notion” in Latin America. A recent report issued by the U.N. Development Program (UNDP) found that over 50 percent of Latin Americans say they would support an authoritarian regime over democratic government if authoritarian rule could restore order and resolve their economic problems. If democracy is viewed principally as a means of choosing officeholders, it may not seem like much to give up.

The foundation’s research is based on a deeper, more general vision of democracy. It is grounded in a focus on the roles people need to play as problem-solving actors in democratic politics. As such, democracy is seen not as a destination—which when reached will deliver particular outcomes—but as the ongoing journey of people struggling with challenges to their collective ability to rule themselves. The challenges to citizen self-rule are not fixed; they emerge from changes in technology, demographics, and global political forces. Kettering research thus emphasizes the study of practices—ways that citizens, communities, and institutions can work together—that hold the promise of increasing the ability of people to act in concert on problems they share. It also recognizes that because circumstances change, constant study and refinement of the ways those practices work is required.

Seen that way, democracy is not a thing that can be granted to people, exported to people, or imposed. Democracy has to be made to work by the people who make up the citizenry of a place. What does that paradigm suggest about alternatives to “exporting democracy”?

One way the foundation develops and tests insights is through learning agreements with organizations that have their own reasons for attempting to “make democracy work as it should.” These organizations have chosen to explore how they can facilitate the public engagement of issues. Furthermore, they hope to learn from their efforts and share that learning systematically. The foundation’s joint-learning agreements do not fund the organization’s activity, but rather support the costs of documenting and sharing what is learned about mutually agreed-upon lines of questions.

The Kettering Foundation has two general goals for the joint-learning projects. First and most obvious is to develop our practical understanding of how to make public life work better, and report findings in ways that can inform other organizations struggling with similar challenges under different conditions. Kettering realizes that organizations exploring their impact on civic life need to learn their way to more effective practice. Learning is also necessary for efforts to continue to grow through time. The development and growth of effective democratic practice does not come from building on success so much as from learning from experience. Although it is difficult for any organization to reflect on unsuccessful efforts, it is exactly those “failures” that provide some of the best opportunities for shared learning.

However, we also know that many organizations lack the capacity to interrogate their experiences in productive ways. Most are set up to do things, not to reflect on and record what they are learning in ways that allow findings to be shared. The foundation’s shared-learning relationships deliberately intend to address that dilemma. When successful, they have the long-term effect of changing the way organizations see themselves as civic actors, especially through the development of their capacity to learn and document what they are learning and thus continue to innovate in practice.

Recent meetings with international organizations revealed some intriguing possibilities for shared-learning agreements. As described in Ileana Marin’s article, an increasing number of organizations around the world are coming to see the potential of deliberately exploring how to interact with citizens in public life. Some have recognized that, although there are no simple techniques for doing so, lessons from experience can be derived and shared so that efforts can complement and build on each other. There are clearly more opportunities for international shared-learning agreements now than ever before.

However, these meetings also reinforced our understanding of the challenges to doing international research through joint-learning agreements. By far the biggest obstacle is in distinguishing the goals of the foundation as a research organization from those of grantmaking organizations. Many of the standard protocols that tie organizations in other countries to U.S. grantmaking foundations are in direct tension with the development of joint-learning relationships. Joint-learning relationships depend on keeping the responsibility for the work, and the learning that results, located in the organizations and their communities. Extensive experience with grant evaluations, however, has taught many organizations to document instru¬mental activities rather than record their reflections on experiments.

Conventional practices of evaluation often hinder effective, self-generated learning, perhaps more so in international contexts. Still, we have reason to believe that the challenge can be dealt with successfully. At a recent meeting with organizations from various countries, one participant argued that he saw no tension between acting and learning in his organization’s protocols. He noted that organizations that proceed without reflection inevitably fail. Successful organizations are constantly learning. The challenge, he noted, is in capturing the learning in ways that can be shared with others. Although that challenge may be more difficult when dealing with organizations in other countries, the growing recognition of the potential of shared-learning agreements gives reason for hope.

Randall Nielsen is a program officer at the Kettering Foundation.

We live in a time when many Americans have retreated from politics and public life, and many civic-minded organizations and public leaders seek to reengage them,” Richard Harwood writes in his article “The Engagement Path.” These words could easily have become the succinct motto for what many of us—formally or not so formally affiliated with nongovernmental organizations, universities, and other types of institutes all over the world—are struggling with.

And when I write “many of us,” I have in mind the international network that, simply to have an appropriate denomination, we refer to as the International Civil Society Consortium for Public Deliberation. At last count, this network included 250 international partners representing NGOs, universities, and individuals from Eastern and Central Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Central and South America, Asia, and the United States. Despite its obviously heterogeneous character, this international network, created over a number of years, is very strong.

This expanding group draws strength from a special link, the main thread of which is the body of ideas that stand behind the larger concept of deliberative democracy. The group’s members continuously seek better ways to communicate and collaborate among themselves. It would be wrong to conclude that this network is too loose, given the great encounters that have occurred over the past years.

The Kettering Foundation (KF) has been the more or less “invisible entity” that, in many circumstances, made possible and then perfected this special link. However, through their work, the members from this impressive number of institutions have mingled before and after their connections via KF. Many of them have been using a deliberative democratic approach in their work for a long time. One of the best parts of KF’s role probably has been helping people give a name to the techniques they’ve been using and frame them in a more structured manner. Furthermore, KF has encouraged an appreciation of the contacts they have developed inside a network created, at times, in a rather ad-hoc manner

If I were to go back to Harwood’s article, it would be to note that, commonly, “people reach a critical juncture; their engagement will either move forward, be derailed, or simply get stuck.” The path through this, as many have observed, is to pose and respond to the right probing questions. In my mind, Kettering has continuously been the entity that always tries to pose the right questions. Furthermore, Kettering has, whenever possible and appropriate, offered a space for people—from the United States or other countries—to figure out what it is that they are really talking about and to describe it collectively using their own language, based on their own ideas, beliefs, and experience.

Through years of compiling information for the international newsletters (available, for those interested, on www.icscpd.org), I have had many experiences in gathering information and details on the work of my colleagues and friends from around the world. I learned through my work that, while getting to know people is wonderful and while meeting those who share the same interests is a life-enriching experience, it nonetheless is a great challenge to stay in touch and to keep up to date on both work and other matters. That is probably one of the reasons why many ideas, contacts, and relationships get lost in this big world. Although we do share a lot through our work, and our connections may sometimes be invisible, they nonetheless bring a great deal of joy on one hand, and plenty of interesting and useful knowledge on the other hand.

It continues to be a little difficult for some (particularly our U.S. colleagues at Kettering) to stay in touch with others in the international network, particularly those who come from universities, NGOs, or institutions that are narrowly purposeful and have, for the most part, very practical concerns in communities where needs are clear and sometimes desperate.

It seems that the “message” that stands behind deliberative democracy fits extremely well in those environments the civic or public problem is fundamentally settled; that is, democratic, and even cultivated or middle-class communities. The United States represents the most eloquent example, but in a paradoxical way, even some Eastern-European countries and some of the former Soviet countries fit the description of ordered societies a central or underlying concern is always the greater engagement of citizens in the command of their own lives.

This is what, for instance, one of our Russian colleagues said “I think that this practice (deliberative democracy) is very helpful and useful for the Russian NGOs in the discussion of hot issues, and also for those who believe that effective civil society and democracy require public involvement in the decision-making process. The skills and habits of public participation and initiative are lacking. Due to the absence of a real civic experience under the authoritarian communist regime, people are missing the skills for public dialogue and for reaching common ground on those public-policy issues that concern them. Thus, in my opinion, deliberation is a rightful and successful thing in order to reach this goal.”

That, after all, is the goal of deliberative practice. Reaching that goal must present a particular challenge in societies that have experienced extreme instability or where the problems to be addressed are as basic as access to the immediate necessities of life and social organization itself.

Ileana Marin was a program officer at the time with World Learning for International Development and a Kettering Associate.

This article was published in the Kettering Foundation’s Summer/Fall 2005 Connections.

Introduction and Background

HIV/AIDS is a reality, and it impacts everyone in Africa. At bus stops and street corners, in restaurants, parks, schools, universities, cities, and villages, talk is about a friend who has just been infected or has passed away: a municipal councilor, a politician, a musician, a soccer player, a teacher, a father, or a mother. Everyone is affected. What does it mean to face the constant lurking threat of HIV infection? What does it mean to be surrounded by death—of friends and family—from AIDS? These are just two of the profoundly compelling questions people have grappled with in forums in South Africa over the past two years. Those forums were organized by the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (IDASA). Other forums have been held in Botswana under the sponsorship of the International Women’s Democracy Center.

Two facts about HIV/AIDS stand out. First, the disease disproportionately affects sub-Saharan Africa. This region, with 10 percent of the world’s population, currently has 70 percent of the 40 million individuals suffering from this disease worldwide. Second, the disease most strongly affects the most economically productive layers of society. Commonly, disease finds its victims among the weak, the elderly, and the economically less productive. HIV/AIDS, however, commonly strikes those aged 15–49, the years during which people are contributing most to the economy of their households and their countries, as well as raising their children.

As a result, HIV/AIDS has a crucial impact on security in Africa. Security, however, refers not to the ability of state power to maintain law and order, but to what the well-being of members of society requires. The United Nations Human Development Report identifies the components of human security as economic security, food security, personal security, community security, and political security. HIV/AIDS impacts all of these. Its devastating effects undermine state functions like education, health, and social development, leaving behind millions of vulner¬able orphans with no means of support, causing economic crises, and threatening political stability. A weak society and a weak state (like those of most African nations) are vulnerable to political conflict, and this, in turn, creates a fertile ground for the further spread of the pandemic.
What Is the Issue?

The issue book HIV/AIDS: What Should Be Done provides people with a framework for deliberative discussion on the issue. The framework takes people through the consideration of three different approaches, or perspectives, regarding the issue:

Approach 1: Focus on the people living with HIV/AIDS

Approach 2: Improvement of quality of life

Approach 3: Prevention through education

What we have observed and learned in the forums, both in Botswana and South Africa, is that most of the people who came to these forums did so because the issue was personally relevant. They expressed this through the stories they told. Tellingly, most people who attended these forums were young and well aware that the pandemic takes its toll on their age group. At the very beginning of the forum, this intense personal connection to the issue set a serious tone for the owner¬ship of the issue that characterized the deliberation process. Interestingly, mod¬erators were impressed with the contrast between the opening discussions—which were emotional, serious, and often intense—and the relief participants later expressed at being able to talk about the issue and to consider choices.

The forums asked the question “What bothers you about HIV/AIDS?” Many acknowledged and recognized the pandemic as a problem and mentioned other concerns associated with it, but most still refuse to accept the reality of HIV/AIDS. Instead, some people blamed the sickness on witchcraft, on punishment from God, or on ancestors’ punishment (against people who have moved away from traditional practices). Some blamed it on infrastructural development (new tarred roads that connect distant rural areas and cities in Botswana), on poverty, or on the government. In South Africa, some participants could not understand why the government has been unable to find a cure for AIDS when technology and medical research is so advanced; others thought it a strategy by governments to reduce the population.

Many expressed concern that the government is not doing more to combat the sickness. One example cited was the slow delivery of anti-retroviral drugs and other medical care to those living with the virus, especially pregnant mothers and children. At the same time, there was an acknowledgement that the media, government, and many institutions working on HIV/AIDS issues have managed to provide clear messages and extensive information about the disease. People know the facts; millions of condoms are available in public places; but people are continually surprised by the enormous and ever increasing numbers of newly infected cases. Many conclude that the message is not taken seriously. There is a sense that “it will not happen to me.”

Poverty and lack of education also contribute to ignorance. Many people die in silence, unwilling to come out and talk about what the pandemic does to them emotionally, spiritually, economically, and so on. Participants viewed this as a very complicated problem that affects various aspect of life, labelling it “the wicked issue.” Many acknowledged the epidemic, yet talking about it is avoided, and no one, especially the elderly, is prepared to reveal the true cause of sickness or death when it happens in the family. Sex and sexuality are still considered taboo topics in most African communities. “If we are not careful, our nation will soon perish. We must break the silence and tell the young people to do something positive to prevent the further spread of this killer disease,” said a 79-year-old man. This HIV/AIDS issue has brought feelings of fear, despair, depression, and defeat to many of the participants. At the same time, we discovered that it is not easy for people to deliberate on their experiences freely because of stigmatization.

The level of discussion and the quality of deliberation are largely determined by the level of education and standard of living. In poor communities, there is less ability to think critically and thoroughly about issues. It seems that the level of education has a real impact on the way people comprehend and frame these critical issues. As an example, people are concerned about the sickness and the deaths but cannot make a drastic change in behavior to prevent the disease from escalating. As such, the perception in most forums was that HIV/AIDS is a personal and individual problem, involving neither the government nor the community. Thus, people tend to keep it to themselves.

Many participants urged that people take responsibility for their lives. In their minds, the change of behavior is central to reducing the pandemic. Many others, noting that poverty, poor diet, and lack of medical care appear to be factors in the onset of the illness, urged the government to accelerate improvements in quality of life. Others urged the education of young people, truck drivers, refugees, and migrant workers.

Many people were apparently confused by the current debate among medical doctors, scientists, and professionals about HIV/AIDS. The debate is focused on the causes of HIV/AIDS, the efficacy of condoms, and the safety of anti-retrovirals. Disagreements continue between various stakeholders, including medical practitioners, pharmaceutical companies, governments, and HIV/AIDS activists and advocacy groups. This sense of confusion surrounding the facts about the disease has been exacerbated by the failure of governments and elected officials, especially in South Africa, to acknowledge and speak publicly about the scourge of HIV/AIDS. Some par¬ticipants noted that some government officials and high-profile members of the community had died, yet the true cause of their sickness and death remains unknown, only speculated. This often leaves citizens wondering whether HIV/AIDS is real or not.

As mentioned earlier, the deliberations on HIV/AIDS vary from forum to forum. In the discussions, many of those who are infected and therefore most affected by the disease often stated that the government should address their present pressing needs. They advocated the immediate provision of such basic necessities as food, water, shelter, and medical care. The reality of the pandemic and death compels them to act as with full rights, by demanding that the government meet its obligation by providing for their needs and protecting their right to life.

A strong sense emerged from the deliberations that unless the government considers HIV/AIDS an emergency—that is, by committing enough resources to procure treatment and to render sup-port and care for the poor—the future appears grim. As a result, HIV/AIDS is seen as a developmental problem of great complexity, requiring strong leadership and political commitment to reduce its effect.

In contrast, some participants, especially those from civil society organizations, argued that the HIV/AIDS issue is not simply about a virus that requires only medical intervention. Rather, they contend that the problem requires a rights-based approach, which significantly extends the responsibilities of the actors engaged in prevention and treatment. A rights-based approach means determining the needs of those infected and affected by HIV/AIDS and ensuring that their human rights are asserted and respected, what-ever their community’s or government’s view of the disease might be. The belief is that using a human rights framework to understand and analyze HIV/AIDS increases the scope of responses to the pandemic.

The forums provided participants with an opportunity to appreciate the broader implications of HIV/AIDS. Among other things, participants thought that the pandemic challenged them to consider extraordinary ways and means of dealing with it. At the core of this initiative is an emphasis on why and how political institutions, civil society organizations, and businesses should take the lead in combating the disease. It is clear that civil society and development professionals believe that the commitment to fight HIV/AIDS must emanate from leaders who are dedicated to human rights and who endorse sound policies and implement them justly and effectively. Everyone must take the initiative. Those who are HIV negative must continue to lead healthy lives and minimize their risk of HIV infection, and those who are positive must be counselled about risk reduction and ways of living positively with their HIV condition.

At the End of the Forum

Many people left the forums with the belief that something could be done. Many thought they had found a place where people were willing to talk and listen to them about this most personal and complicated issue. Most important, they saw the need to continue talking about HIV/AIDS in clubs and churches and with their friends.
Future Plans

IDASA plans to hold a number of forums in South Africa in disadvantaged and underprivileged communities, in high schools, and with Citizen Leader groups with whom we work. We have recently been invited again by the Washington-based International Women’s Democracy Center (Barbara Ferris) to continue with the work in Botswana, teaching issue framing, naming, and moderation, as well as holding some forums.

Mpho Putu works with the Institute for Democracy in South Africa.

Although Colombian journalists are die-hard traditionalists and remain attached to old journalistic routines, the time has come for them to face their fear of change and begin the job of creating new visions for their audiences.

For many years, public life in my country has been seen as the exclusive province of political parties, traditional organizations, and government officials. And, on the whole, Colombian citizens have long been disinclined to involve themselves in politics and public life. But some Colombian citizens are tired of being treated as ignorant or as victims of the events that sweep over them; they want to be seen as participants and intelligent members of the public life. They are ready to make connections; they are learning the importance of deliberation; and, step-by-step, they are losing their fear of participating in public affairs.

Moreover, citizen audiences no longer see TV news reports as isolated dots in an empty space. Rather, they perceive them as threads in a complex net — connected, intersected, and superimposed. Events in Colombia have a past and a future, causes and consequences. They have visible and invisible faces. Television journalists in Colombia should take an active role in this process. They must begin thinking of their audiences as citizens in order to help convince them that they are citizens. Narratives and news reports should begin making the important connections, help create a better environment for public discussion, and reflect the agendas of the citizens they serve.

If journalism sees citizens as participants in public affairs, it can see them as participants in a bilateral communication process as well. In fact, citizens are participants from the beginning: they turn off their television sets, switch channels, and make choices about the programs they watch.

As a consequence, journalists should begin incorporating and promoting public deliberation in their own practices and in the affairs of the community. Although skeptics may ask whether Colombians are ready to deliberate, in fact, Colombian culture is full of discussions, conversations, and meetings. Colombians love to get together to converse with friends, coworkers, or neighbors. They have a great sense of local community. Colombians love to debate. They are, however, quick to impose their views on others and have difficulty with tolerance and respect for other people’s points of view.

These exchanges, however, take place in private. Colombian citizens are extremely wary of participating publicly because they believe that politics is reserved for government officials; street protests are for revolutionaries; and they, as common people, are too ignorant to take any public action.

It is here that journalism has a role — to help citizens acquire the skills of public deliberation and to provide spaces to make visible and audible their local conversations, concerns, and initiatives. Television journalism should be full of images and voices that are connected with citizens’ lives and narratives that give citizens the sense of having something to say.

In short, to think of their audiences as citizens, TV journalism in Colombia must pay more attention to what the public is thinking. Colombian television should use its images and sound bites to promote public judgment among Colombians. It must give Colombians ways to prioritize their problems, suggest alternatives for solving them, and create new visions for the country. The solution to the country’s crisis can come from this effort.

Catalina Arango, a Colombian journalist, spent six months at the Kettering Foundation last year as a Fanning International Fellow in Journalism and Democracy.