March 1, 2007
Discussion Seminar:
Coexistence and Democracy-Building: What is the Connection?
Coexistence International, United Nations Development Program Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, and the Governance and Public Administration Branch of the United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs.
To read the full report of the seminar, click here.
On March 1, 2007 Coexistence International hosted a day-long seminar entitled Coexistence and Democracy-Building: What is the Connection? This event, organized in cooperation with UNDP Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery and the Governance and Public Administration Branch of UNDESA, was by invitation only and took place in New York City.
The seminar convened approximately 30 key individuals from UN agencies and international institutions to discuss practical ways to enhance the coexistence dimension of their democracy and governance agendas, particularly in societies divided by conflict.
The discussion seminar built upon initial secondary research undertaken by Coexistence International (CI) about the extent to which coexistence-sensitive programming (i.e. conflict management and peacebuilding processes) is incorporated into the policies and activities of organizations working on democracy and governance. The survey research was complemented by analysis of interviews that CI conducted with policymakers recognized as "coexistence champions" in several international non-governmental and inter-governmental agencies. This primary research explored how coexistence work is understood within these organizations, how it is shaped into coherent organizational policy, and how, if at all, it is mainstreamed into national and international agendas. The report analyzing the primary research is available here.
The March 1st discussion seminar offered an opportunity to reflect on the relationship between democracy-building efforts, coexistence, and peacebuilding initiatives in divided societies. Discussions highlighted the critical role of leadership in divided and post-conflict societies and explored various leadership styles and competencies that are required to effectively manage and guide democratic transition processes. Participants considered the conflict-inducing potential of such democratic "essentials" as electoral processes, constitutional reforms, and political party formation. The importance of inclusive and participatory processes at both the grassroots and the national level was emphasized by many participants who advise governments in transition. Discussions also underscored the contributions of grassroots coexistence efforts to the national task of building lasting peace and stable democracy.
Those meeting participants that had been profiled in CI's research discussed the challenges and opportunities faced in developing, mainstreaming, and implementing coexistence- and conflict-sensitive policies within their organizations, and specifically within the democracy and governance-focused programs. Among the effective approaches to mainstreaming such work within organizational programs, participants emphasized the importance of training and capacity building, creating the necessary entry points for organizational change through review of mandates and policy frameworks, and devising key strategies that link coexistence and democracy work in the most practical ways.
Another important focus of the conversations was about the need for collecting, documenting, and sharing the innovative and effective strategies that have been successfully tested and integrated across these agencies. Beyond the organizational context, one of the key challenges faced by "coexistence champions" manifests itself in working with the governments to institutionalize mechanisms for dialogue, inclusive and participatory processes, and to manage expectations that are raised by inclusive processes. One of the many approaches to this ubiquitous challenge includes using concrete examples and successful practices from other regions to illustrate vital linkages and influence policymakers and leaders to build and expand avenues for increased dialogue on strengthening democratic practice and fostering coexistence.
The discussion seminar also considered relevant and applicable lessons learned about mainstreaming coexistence- and conflict-sensitive approaches from other fields, such as development and gender work, which have an established track record of this type of infused, or holistic, approach. Participants collectively brainstormed strategies for overcoming fragmentation between disciplines, levels, and institutions; facilitating a more coherent, integrated complementary approach to coexistence work, and creating inclusive processes that have an impact.
The meeting provided an excellent opportunity for networking and learning among peers. Participants shared specific strategies for integrating the learning from this meeting into their current work and expressed commitment to move forward on future collective learning and collaboration.
The March 1st discussion seminar agenda, participant list, participant bios, and a list of suggested resources are linked here.
