- If we observe the global and Latin-American context, we can verify that the accelerated dynamics of factors contributing to governance and democracy poses an scenario of high complexity to political and social leaders. Current problems are complex in two ways: dynamic and socially. Problems are dynamically complex because cause and effect are distant in time and space, which makes it difficult to grasp them at first sight. And they are socially complex because people involved perceive things differently, and therefore problems become polarized.
- Faced with this reality, we observe on the one hand, a heavy need of powerlessness in front of the weakness of public capacity for handling complex and conflictive decisions; and on the other hand, an increasing need for implementing working strategies that enable us to build multi-actor consensus. We know that complex problems cannot be solved by experts but by the stakeholders.
- In the public domain, it is usual to face controversies by bringing apparently irreconcilable positions face to face. As a result, the conversation that could have made finding solutions possible, is absorbed by polemic. Debate becomes polarized, opposing groups are formed, and practices that could facilitate conflict resolution only manage to intensify it.
- In our work, we have found that there are alternative ways for facing conflicts and challenges, and creating new realities. For example, people involved can talk and listen to each other, trying to find a solution. But this approach, which produces medium and long-term results, is perceived as something difficult to implement in the face of the urgency posed by the context. Therefore, force becomes the immediate option.
- When change is constant, creativity and adaptation become fundamental for creating new possibilities. This situation also demands design and search strategies able to admit the differences and harmonize them. Experience has shown to us that dialogue is a privileged space to explore possibilities that are already there, but that we have not been able to see and understand in order to find emerging futures.
- It seems like if when we transform the way in which we talk (being open and listening with empathy trying to understand the other), the way we think (discovering a shared meaning of issues and problems that afflict us), and the
|
- way twe act (starting from a better mutual understanding), then changes can happen in the leaders and in all of us –parents, citizens and persons in all levels of the organizations.
- For some, these conditions can be easily rejected for being idealistic and unreal, but experience has also shown to us all, in several spheres of life, that if something is not giving us the results we want, keep doing the same thing, will not give us different results.
- We tend to measure the success of our conversation by the efficiency with which we have gained some advantage. Even when those motives are hidden under a veil of politeness, it is uncommon that people that have something at stake truly open their mind and discover the limitations of their own way of seeing and acting.
- What does opening our mind involve? Ultimately, it means to open our heart. But here there are also people that rule out this alternative because they think that using the heart is a synonym for confused thinking and personal weakness of those who make decisions “efficiently”. However, along the history, the most ancient cultures and people of the world have connected their decisions to this subjective aspect. In the Chinese culture, the most ancient symbol of the mind is a representation of the heart. 1
- In the short term, it is possible for social manifestations of a generative, transforming and integral dialogue not to be obvious. In fact, it may take months, years or even decades for them to emerge. It is by all known that social changes take time. But what definitively will be apparent in the short term, is the qualitative change in the mind of individuals and their relationships, and among multi-actor groups. This kind of change is deep because it involves a personal transformation. It is systemic because it changes relations in the sphere of perception and action. And it is integral since it deals with the human being in all its objective and subjective, personal and collective essences.
We believe dialogues that have this
qualities constitute the basis for positive sustained changes in people, their relationships and their societies.
And they are a real alternative for addressing the complex problems
we face, both at a global level
as in national scenarios. |
|