A national dialogue is an investment in returning to the foundations of nation-building. As we embark on this ambitious project, it is important to pause, think about and question some of the unspoken assumptions that shape our thinking. I’ve already used two words that hint at the deeply internalised assumptions about managing change. The words are “building” and “project”; a third is “management”.
These project management, engineering ways of engaging the world have shaped our thinking in ways that we have come to take for granted. They are tried and tested and have proven their effectiveness in delivering the major advances in human development.
In the early formation phase of the national dialogue, the management and planning logic is apparent and central. At the heart of it is an intention to refocus the effectiveness of the nation by identifying and prioritising broadly agreed goals and objectives.
These will become the basis for the national plan for collaborative action and accountability, also providing the ability to monitor and manage the process.
There is a laudable emphasis on the need for the process to be “bottom up” to ensure that the priorities are shaped by those with the greatest needs and not captured by elites. There is an assumption that once a plan which can be monitored is in place, trust will be built and resources will be applied with greater effectiveness and efficiency.
Despite the proven logic of the approach, it is difficult to see how those tasked with rolling out the dialogue are going to get the nation excited about it. This is particularly so for the majority of citizens whose needs are intended to shape and inform the process.
The risk is great of further deepening the disappointment, frustration and mistrust resulting from past experiences of consultations that raise expectations, but don’t deliver.
Looking more broadly at the global scene, there is little justification for optimism. Just like here, with few exceptions, the ultimate outcome of the combined best efforts of nations are resulting in increasing impoverishment of both human and other natural ecosystems.
Everyone already has their version of “knowing” what is needed. They also have a clear target of who or what is to blame for delivery not happening. There is little evidence to suggest that the institutions of business, government and civil society are any more excited at the opportunity provided to re-think and re-form their relationships with one another, towards being more effective together.
Good planning and management practices are vital for the delivery of goods and services to the people who need them most.
However, I question whether using a national dialogue as an information-gathering exercise for a grand plan is an effective use of the nation’s co-creative spirit. The consequences of further squandering this vital yet fragile national resource are dire.
Different assumptions
I propose a different set of assumptions and way of thinking. Science is increasingly showing that organised groups of human individuals are not best understood or engaged with as a mechanistic structure that can be built, engineered, or indeed managed.
Even though nation states have been politically created and engineered over centuries, they are better understood as infinitely complex and interrelated living organisms, as organs of human society.
In this theory of complexity, human society itself is understood as but one interconnected and interdependent part of all organisms, forces and processes that together support life.
In living systems, the quality of life is a function of the nature of the relationships within and between the parts that come together to form interlinked living wholes.
This more organic and systemic understanding is confirming the interdependent relational nature of life, long understood by indigenous knowledge systems like Ubuntu. It is of particular value if there is an intention for the dialogue to achieve more than the old proverbial re-arranging of deckchairs on a sinking ship.
We have long used the term transformation to describe the type of change our nation has aspired to. This kind of systemic change is not planned and project managed, but emerges from the interactions and adaptations of individual parts of the infinitely interconnected system. It is the result of self-organisation, not external management or control.
Emergent change is facilitated by networks of diverse perspectives coming together in relationships of ongoing exchange, learning and experimentation.
Along with learning, a caring orientation is crucial. The capacity to care adds practical value as it results in being interested in constantly learning about the impact of one's actions on others.
The emphasis on “bottom up” in the early conceptualisation of the national dialogue falls short of capturing the dynamic forces that drive emergent change. Top-down and bottom-up are significant interrelated tensions in the power dynamics of human society.
However, one needs to add inside-out and outside-in to get closer to a meaningful understanding of how change actually happens in complex living systems. The forces working inwards from the broader global context of which a nation is a small part, as well as the forces inside it working outwards, are major forces in the entangled process of emergent change.
The institutionalisation of a national dialogue has the potential to build a culture and practice of ongoing learning, unlearning, and experimenting informed by care.
Applying the thinking
I offer a few thoughts towards translating these assumptions and approaches into a way forward.
The starting point is understanding that the purpose of the dialogue is no longer to update the master plan. The intention is to tap into and facilitate the coming together of the existing and growing energies and forces for change more productively by applying the principle of self-organisation.
The design of social process is every bit as complex and demanding as any technical innovation. We need to start by assembling our very best social process designers in a design laboratory.
Foremost among their tasks is to develop a set of questions that provide the focus and cohesion to the process. The questions should lead individuals and groupings on an inward journey of taking responsibility for their contribution, taking stock, identifying and celebrating what has been achieved, what is working and what needs to be let go of.
The questions should surface practical visions of improved systems and identify respondents’ understanding of their roles and responsibilities in making them work.
The limited number of leading questions should be made available with an open invitation to any interested body (individual or collective) to come together in their own ways in their communities of interest to address the questions. By applying the principle of self-organisation, individuals and groups are encouraged to find ways of percolating up and cascading down their conclusions to tap into more of the energies for change and strengthen their voice and contribution.
The tech industry has the capacity to contribute to informing and shaping a national dialogue in ways previously unimaginable. Through our devices and the internet, there now exist national and local networks of communities and communications that are akin to the nervous system in a human body.
An AI-powered platform to collect, distribute and make meaning of conclusions arrived at, and the linkages between them, is needed.
All cultural creatives, documenters and analysts could be invited to draw conclusions and tell the stories from the learnings that emerge.
A regular rhythm, perhaps every five years, of coordinated “show and tell” should be built into the ongoing process – a creative process for organisations and institutions to share what they have learnt, what they have achieved, and how their relationships and collaborations have developed.
Contemplating the challenge
Technological economic and social advances have shaped human society to the point where the relational fabric that is foundational to life is fast coming apart. Dialogue is a means of bringing creativity and innovation to healing and transforming the relationships that shape us.
The common refrain of “oh no, not another talk shop” is evidence of poor-quality process design and facilitation. It reflects reticence to commit sufficient time and other resources to engage quality practitioners and processes. We have a store of the skills needed, that have developed through our national learning journey thus far.
As a nation, we are positively trembling from forces for emergent change from all directions – top, bottom, inside and out. We have been trembling on the precipice before. The world was surprised when the momentous change happened.
Can we put to creative use the tensions and learnings of our past? Can we draw on our intuitive connection to Ubuntu, fuelled by the tensions of our world-leading gap between the rich and the poor, to dialogue as a nation towards meaningful transformation?
We have arrived at where we are together, all contributing to what we have achieved and where we have fallen short. What is needed is a slowing down, going inward, reconnecting to self and foundational values.
It requires revisiting the constituent organs that come together to make a nation, for each to take stock of their societal function and how well they are doing in their functioning.
Then, come together in dialogue to find ways of getting what they need from each other in order to grow towards becoming a flourishing sustainable nation. DM