International Research Opportunities: Research through Joint-learning Agreements

By Randall Nielsen

“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.

Promoting the Spread of Democracy: The Public’s Thinking

By John Doble and Carol Selton

In Coming to Public Judgment, Daniel Yankelovich draws a distinction between people’s top-of-the-head opinions and their considered, worked-through judgments. Poll results, Yankelovich writes, are often mistakenly thought to be people’s final judgments, as opposed to their initial opinions.

Evidence of Yankelovich’s distinction can be seen in comparing poll and forum results on the promotion of democracy, the subject of the “Americans’ Role in the World” forums held in 2003 and 2004. In post-forum questionnaires, participants strongly endorsed the promotion of democracy—for example, a resounding 83 percent agreed that American “support of emerging democracies will, in the long run, enhance our own national security.” Furthermore, majorities of 60 percent or higher believed that “working to spread and maintain democracy in other countries will increase stability in the world” and that Americans “should help citizens of other countries develop stable democracies.” National surveys have echoed these findings. Taken in isolation, these findings appear to demonstrate that Americans endorse this country’s vigorous promotion of democracy across the globe.

But a different impression emerges when one listens to participants in the “Americans’ Role” forums. Most participants focused on one aspect: Should the United States “impose” democracy on other countries through the use of force? This question was answered with a resounding “no.” An Air Force serviceman in Panama City, Florida, said, “We can’t force our values on other people.” Participants in Carroll County, Maryland, said the idea amounted to “cultural imperialism.” A man in Austin, Texas, said, “I’m comfortable with promoting the spread of democracy as long as it doesn’t mean foist.”

Participants gave varying reasons for their views. Many worried about the costs of military intervention, in particular, the loss of life among service personnel and foreign civilians. Others expressed concern about offending foreigners’ cultural sensitivities. Some talked about the need for international approval; others said that, since the United States is far from perfect, it would be hypocritical for it to impose its system elsewhere.

The discussion was dominated by the current U.S. military action in Iraq. Although participants reached common ground on many aspects, Iraq proved divisive and, at times, polarizing. Some saw the war as necessary, saying that democratizing Iraq would reduce the threat of terrorism, that the war was an ethical response to a tyrant who had massacred countless innocents. Others disagreed, saying that democratizing Iraq was unrealistic, that it was being waged without international sanction, and that it was diverting resources from combating the real threat, Al Qaeda.

When discussions went further—that is, beyond the question of imposing democracy by force—most participants favored the United States taking pro-democracy steps. One view was that U.S. leaders should speak out in support of democratic values. In a forum in New Orleans, Louisiana, people supported former Secretary of State Powell’s criticism of Russia for closing down newspapers critical of the government. One man commented, “I do think we have a right to say, ‘you’re doing it wrong and we don’t like it, Mr. Putin.’” Many believed that democracy could be promoted through an exchange of ideas. One New Jersey man stated, “If we know about other countries and they know about us, they’ll know we’re not out to hurt them.” A woman from New Orleans noted the long-term benefits of “the many people from other countries who come here and get educated. . . . They take it back to their countries and start programs there.”

Travel and educational exchanges also drew strong support at the 2003 National Issues Convention in Philadelphia. Several participants commented that Americans are too isolated and know little about other peoples and cultures. Some favored working directly with citizens and citizen groups, saying “we’ve got to start with the grassroots and work up, [because] we’re not going to succeed by [military] might.” In forums on terrorism in 2002–2003, people expressed the desire for increased understanding of other nations, especially in the Middle East.

As a rule, however, when people talked about democracy, they thought only in terms of an American style of democracy, with similar procedures and institutions. People’s conception of democracy was mostly mechanical, including a constitution and bill of rights, checks and balances, and the separation of powers. Few people thought about democracy in terms of public deliberation in which citizens of other nations, as forum participants were doing, attend public forums to consider issues affecting their lives, community, and country.

Many participants expressed misgiv¬ings about the long-term consequences of U.S. ties to non-democratic countries. One man in a Memphis, Tennessee, forum said, “It’s like Iran—we propped up the Shah of Iran for a long time. . . . And [when] the [Ayatollah] took over, we were on the outs.” Participants were divided on this point: in questionnaires completed after the “Americans’ Role” forums, 42 percent favored and 48 percent opposed the United States cutting ties with foreign dictators.

In the forums on terrorism, people discussed the reasons for Arab and Muslim enmity toward the United States. Many said Middle-Eastern rage stems from U.S. support for unpopular governments that act contrary to the interests of their people. A man in a Missoula, Montana, forum said anti-American feelings are a result of the United States being “so closely aligned with dictatorial governments who could care less about religious freedoms, women’s rights, and other things the American people strongly believe in.”

Despite concerns about imposing democracy, broad agreement existed that the United States should promote human rights around the globe. In Lafayette, Indiana, people were concerned about the rights of Afghani women; students at Hofstra University and Virginia Tech discussed civil liberties and the rights of women and children; and in Overland Park, Kansas, people focused on genocide. An Englewood, New Jersey, woman said, “We need to support [people] when [their] human rights are being violated.”

People at an “Americans’ Role” forum in Philadelphia favored using force to prevent genocide or in humanitarian emergencies. Some argued that the United States should draw a line; a New Jersey woman said, “As long as they’re not killing their people, dismembering their people . . . [we should] let them run their own country.”

Overall, these findings suggest that participants are of mixed opinions and have not completed the working through necessary to a considered judgment. Although they favor promoting democracy and believe this could promote stability throughout the world, most were opposed to using force to accomplish that end. At the same time, participants assigned a high priority to safeguarding human rights; many were willing, especially with international support, to intervene militarily to prevent genocide.

Sustained Dialogue: A Product of Experience

By Harold H. Saunders

Sustained Dialogue is a systematic process for political, social, and economic change. Its distinguishing characteristic is that it focuses on transforming the relationships that block collaboration. Sustained Dialogue is best suited to those situations not ready for formal mediation and negotiation; it is so, because it addresses the strained relationships that prevent people from talking in the rea¬soned ways mediation and negotiation require.
Sustained Dialogue conceptualizes three decades of experience with adver¬saries and what they do when they sit down repeatedly to address what divides them. Sustained Dialogue has its roots in my experience as a U.S. diplomat in the Arab-Israeli peace process after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. The first lesson of that experience is that a continuous process has the power to transform seemingly intractable relationships—as demonstrat¬ed in the grueling work that produced five Arab-Israeli agreements from 1974 to 1979. The second lesson is the importance of engaging the human dimension of conflict, which in the Arab-Israeli setting included Israelis who had survived the Holocaust and Palestinians who had lost their homes to Israeli military action in 1948.

After leaving government service in 1981, I became associated with the Kettering Foundation’s Dartmouth Conference, the longest continuous bilateral dialogue between American and Soviet citizens, which started in 1960. After the November 1981 gathering, I was asked to be the U.S. co-chair of the newly established Regional Conflicts Task Force (RCTF). Its purpose was to improve understanding of the overall Soviet-U.S. relationship by probing interactions between the countries in regions where the superpowers competed through local proxies.

This task force met 18 times in the 1980s. We learned that bringing the same group together regularly created four opportunities: (1) It built a cumulative agenda—questions left unanswered in one meeting could be placed on the agenda for the next. (2) It built a common body of knowledge, both about each other’s analysis and about each superpower’s interest in these distant conflicts. (3) We gradually learned to talk analytically rather than engage in polemics. (4) Ultimately, we learned to work together.
As experience with unofficial dialogue accumulated, two concepts emerged:

First, relationship was defined by five components:
(1) Identity, the life experience that has brought a person or group to the present.

(2) Interests, both concrete and psychological, that bring people to a sense of their dependence on one another to achieve their goals.

(3) Power, defined not only as “control over superior resources and the actions of others” but as “the capacity of citizens acting together to influ¬ence the course of events without great material resources.”

(4) Perceptions, misperceptions, and stereotypes.

(5) Patterns of interaction, including respect for certain limits on behavior.

Second, we recognized from our semiannual meetings over a decade that, when people come together repeatedly in dialogue over time, one can discern a pattern in the evolution of their relationships.

From that insight came the conceptualization of Sustained Dialogue as a five-stage process—an analytical and working framework to permit moderators and participants alike to understand the progression of relationships as they grow together in dialogue.

Stage One: People in conflict decide to engage in dialogue—often with great difficulty—because they feel compelled to build a relationship to resolve problems.

Stage Two: Together they map and name the elements of those problems and the relationships responsible for creating and responding to them. At first, they vent their grievances and anger with each other. This venting provides both the ingredients for an ultimate agenda and an opportunity for moderators to analyze the dynamics of the relationships. This stage ends when someone says, “What we really need to focus on is . . .”

Stage Three: In much more analytical exchanges, participants probe the specific problem they have identified: (1) to name that problem in a way that reflects the concerns of all those affected by it; (2) to probe the dynamics of the relationships underlying that problem; (3) to broadly lay out possible ways to enter into those relationships in order to change them; (4) to weigh those possible approaches and to come to a sense of direction to guide the next steps; (5) to weigh the consequences of moving in that direction against the consequences of inaction; and (6) to decide whether to try designing such change.

Stage Four: Together they design a scenario of steps to be taken to change troublesome relationships and to precipitate practical actions. They sequence those steps so that they interact—one building on another, generating participa¬tion and momentum.

Stage Five: They devise ways to put that scenario into the hands of those who can act on it.

When the Soviet Union dissolved, RCTF members made three decisions: (1) They would focus on the new Russian-U.S. relationship. (2) They would complete the conceptualization of the process of dialogue they had learned together. (3) They would test that conceptualization by applying the process to one of the conflicts that had broken out in the territory of the former Soviet Union. They chose the Republic of Tajikistan, where a vicious civil war had broken out shortly after independence. The first meeting took place in March 1993.

In the 12 years since, Sustained Dialogue in Tajikistan has moved from peacemaking to peacebuilding. Tajikistani participants named themselves the “Inter-Tajik Dialogue in the Framework of the Dartmouth Conference.” In its first year, when Sustained Dialogue was the only channel between the government and the opposition, it helped begin a negotiation. In the next three years, they worked on a nonofficial track parallel to the formal UN-mediated negotiations. They injected important ideas that were incorporated in the Peace Agreement of 1997. That agreement established the National Reconciliation Commission to implement the Peace Agreement, with five Dialogue participants as members. In 2000, Dialogue participants formed their own NGO, the Public Committee for Democratic Processes.

In the summer of 2002, David Mathews, Kettering’s president, proposed moving Sustained Dialogue from the Kettering program to a space of its own to allow for fuller development. As Mathews said, the deliberative process is Kettering’s answer for strengthening peaceful communities; Sustained Dialogue is an answer to 9/11.

As a result, the International Institute for Sustained Dialogue was incorporated in the fall of 2002.

It works on five tracks: (1) It continues with its partners in the Dartmouth Regional Conflicts Task Force and independently to conduct dialogues on its own. The Tajiks are conducting dialogues in seven regions of their country, and there is prospect of a revival of the Inter-Tajik Dialogue itself. We are also conducting a dialogue among inhabitants of Armenia-Azerbaijan-Nagorno Karabakh, where a conflict has been stalemated for more than a decade. We are conducting a dialogue with individuals from the Muslim-Arab heartland, Western Europe, and the United States. (2) We are working with established NGOs in South Africa, New Zealand, and the Western Hemisphere to help them incorporate Sustained Dialogue in their programs. (3) In April 2005, our second annual collegiate conference drew 130 participants from 18 universities and high schools to learn how they as citizens can help heal relationships that block democratic collaboration. (4) Through a collaboration between Kettering and the Fielding Graduate Institute, we co-teach with Fielding faculty a course in dialogue, deliberation, and public engagement. (5) We are exploring the opportunities for transforming working relationships in the corporate world.

We are engaged in developing the substantive base for our work through practice and experiment and systema-tizing our knowledge in publications and training manuals. As with any unendowed organization, we are struggling to regular¬ize a long-term financial foundation.

Harold H. Saunders is the director of international affairs at the Kettering Foundation.