CD HOWE PAPER
Citizen Engagement in Conflict Resolution: Lessons for Canada in International Experience
by Janice Gross Stein, David Cameron, and Richard Simeon, Alan Alexandroff
CD HOWE PAPER
Citizen Engagement in Conflict Resolution: Lessons for Canada in International Experience
by Janice Gross Stein, David Cameron, and Richard Simeon, Alan Alexandroff
Canadians are engaged in a conflict of identities that, if unsettled, will have enormously adverse consequences for the well-being of all. Successive attempts to resolve the national unity crisis have only deepened it. It is time to explore new approaches, drawing on the experience of other countries that have faced similar divisions.
The key techniques from which we can learn involve deeper, more sustained citizen engagement in interactive conflict resolution at two levels. First is the involvement of influential leading citizens outside formal politics, but with close links both to the political leadership and to the wider society. Using carefully prepared workshops, they could explore the dimensions of the conflict, the consequences of failure, and a range of outcomes outside the existing 'envelope', and then inject the resulting ideas into the public and political process.
The second level is the engagement of 'ordinary citizens' as individuals and through voluntary associations, in processes designed to increase mutual understanding, encourage citizen 'ownership' of the issues, and increase awareness of the compromises and tradeoffs that must be made. In both cases, reconciliation can be encouraged by independent facilitation, high levels of information, and open, fair, and nonthreatening procedures. The goal is not any particular outcome, but rather a process that will maximize the likelihood of peaceful resolution.
The debates over the future of Montreal and over the appropriate rules to govern any future sovereignty referendum are dimensions of the conflict where the need for resolution is urgent, and where the techniques described may offer a way out of the impasse.
Press Release from CD HOWE - June 19, 1997
International experience with citizen involvement in conflict resolution may help solve national unity crisis, suggest political scientists
Canadians should apply other countries’ experience with conflict resolution to solving the national unity crisis, concludes a C.D. Howe Institute Commentary released today. In particular, the authors of the study say, new approaches need to be found for resolving two of the most urgent and contentious current issues: the postreferendum escalation of linguistic tensions in Montreal, and the deep differences about the appropriate rules that should govern any new referendum in Quebec. In both cases, the authors argue, the stakes are high, all parties have a strong interest in finding a resolution, and existing processes are unable to do so.
The study, Citizen Engagement in Conflict Resolution: Lessons for Canada in International Experience, was written by University of Toronto political scientists Janice Gross Stein, David R. Cameron, and Richard Simeon, with Alan Alexandroff.
The authors note that the crisis of Canadian unity is rooted fundamentally in a conflict of identities. Such conflicts have occurred in many countries throughout the world and are especially difficult to resolve because they engage deep-seated questions of identity, recognition, respect, and representation, and because they are expressed in highly symbolic, zero-sum language.
In order to address their own conflicts of identity, the authors say, Canadians can learn from the experience of other countries that have developed unofficial processes of interactive conflict resolution. These approaches consist of deeper, more sustained citizen engagement in interactive conflict resolution at two levels: the involvement of influential leading citizens outside formal politics, but with close links both to the political leadership and to the wider society; and the engagement of "ordinary citizens" as individuals and through voluntary associations.
The authors note that Canadians have debated their country’s future in a wide variety of public forums over the past decade. But such forums have failed to provide a full opportunity for effective, sustained deliberation because they have been ad hoc, sporadic, bound by tight deadlines, and government sponsored. An approach with greater chances of success, the authors argue, is one that would involve influential citizens and community leaders, on the one hand, and ordinary citizens as individuals and in their community associations, on the other.
Influential citizens are those with strong roots and respect in the community, together with access to the political leadership. Through workshops and dialogues, they can analyze the sources of the conflict and the obstacles to its resolution, build confidence and trust, devise possible solutions outside the existing envelope, and communicate them both to political leaders and to the wider society. Other citizens, by participating in initiatives within their communities and associations, can seek to come to mutual understandings, to encourage citizen "ownership" of the issues, and to increase awareness of the compromises and tradeoffs that must be made.
The authors maintain that successful conflict resolution at either level requires high-quality, balanced information, the presence of nonpartisan facilitators, an open agenda, opportu-nities for sustained dialogue, and deliberative processes that are inclusive, fair, respectful, and not biased toward any particular outcome. They also require linkages that allow their results to be communicated to the political leadership and the wider society. The goal, the authors say, is not any particular outcome, but rather a process that will maximize the likelihood of peaceful resolution.
This publication continues the C.D. Howe Institute’s postreferendum research agenda, which comprises two Commentary series. The first series, "The Canadian Union Papers," focuses on ways to enhance Canada’s political, economic, and social union. Papers already published in the series have examined some of Ottawa’s legal and constitutional options for strengthening the economic union, ways to enhance Canadians’ common economic citizenship rights, and a critique of decentralization and the incremental approach to constitutional reform. Complementing this effort is another Commentary series called "The Secession Papers," which examines issues relating to the following areas:
The papers are guided by the following principles: respect for democratic norms and the rule of law; the necessity for an authoritative decision and a stable outcome; and minimizing the social and economic costs of any transition. In the light of the results of the 1995 referendum in Quebec, "The Secession Papers" aim to assist Canadians to "think about the unthinkable."
- the terms and conditions of a possible future referendum on Quebec sovereignty;
- the circumstances which the country might confront after a Yes vote, together with the processes by which the secession of Quebec might be addressed;
- the means by which a new Canada without Quebec might be established, should Quebec leave Confederation.
Both series are being published under the supervision of David Cameron, a political scientist at the University of Toronto.
Main Findings of the Commentary
- The crisis of Canadian unity is rooted fundamentally in a conflict of identities. Such conflicts have occurred in many countries throughout the world.
- These conflicts are especially difficult to resolve because they engage deep-seated questions of identity, recognition, respect, and representation, and because they are expressed in highly symbolic, zero-sum language.
- In order to address their own conflicts of identity, Canadians can learn from the experience of other countries that have developed unofficial processes of inter-active conflict resolution that bring the contending parties together to increase mutual understanding, underline common and competing interests, assess the costs of continuing the conflict, build mutual trust, and explore the possibilities for agreement.
- These examples suggest a model that has a high potential for improving the quality of the Canadian debate and, in particular, for resolving two of the most urgent and contentious current issues: the postreferendum escalation of linguistic tensions in Montreal, and the deep differences about the appropriate rules that should govern any new referendum in Quebec.
- In both cases, the stakes are high, all parties have a strong interest in finding a resolution, and existing processes are unable to do so.
- Interactive conflict resolution assigns a key role to citizens and to relationships within civil society, but they are not designed to displace the formal political process; rather, they open a broader public space within which solutions may be found and political leadership exercised.
- Canadians have debated their country’s future in a wide variety of public forums over the past decade. But such forums have failed to provide a full opportunity for effective, sustained deliberation because they have been ad hoc, sporadic, bound by tight deadlines, and government sponsored.
- Successful citizen engagement takes two related forms: processes involving influential citizens and community leaders, and those involving ordinary citizens as individuals and in their community associations.
- Influential citizens are those with strong roots and respect in the community, together with access to the political leadership. Through workshops and dialogues, they can analyze the sources of the conflict and the obstacles to its resolution, build confidence and trust, devise possible solutions outside the existing envelope, and communicate them both to political leaders and to the wider society.
- Other citizens engage through deliberative polling and through interaction in the networks and associations of civil society in order to come to mutual understandings, to encourage citizen "ownership" of the issues, and to increase awareness of the compromises and tradeoffs that must be made.
- Successful conflict resolution at either level requires high-quality information, the presence of nonpartisan facilitators, an open agenda, opportunities for sustained dialogue, and deliberative processes that are inclusive, fair, respectful, and not biased toward any particular outcome. They also require linkages that allow their results to be communicated to the political leadership and the wider society.
Full text of the paper, (in .pdf format), or hard copies, may be obtained from the CD HOWE INSTITUTE