By Abdel-Rahman El Mahdi (Sudanese Development Initiative) and Rebecca Freeth (Reos Partners)
Over the past few decades, the Horn of Africa has faced significant challenges, including climate change, political instability, and violent conflict. Local, national, and regional actors, both state and non-state, are increasingly under pressure to find sustainable solutions to these challenges.
While National Dialogue is considered a valuable approach in many parts of the world, this approach has largely failed to generate meaningful or long-lasting solutions to the diverse range of challenges—the most prominent of which is the fragile state of peace and security. Despite several National Dialogue efforts in recent years, several countries in the Horn remain caught in cycles of violence and instability that have led to the displacement of millions, the destruction of infrastructure and services, and a protracted humanitarian crisis.
For example, Sudan has seen numerous dialogue initiatives spearheaded by national, regional, and international actors with the goal of achieving peace, national reconciliation, and political accommodation. Despite these efforts, Sudan has been the site of an intense war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) since April 2023.
There are other ongoing examples in the Horn, where National Dialogues appear to have made some headway but are losing steam. South Sudan’s National Dialogue process, initiated in 2017, has helped to avert a relapse into the country’s long-running civil war, but it has yet to complete its third and final phase—the national conference.
Ethiopia, grappling with a variety of longstanding challenges in state-building, commenced its National Dialogue in December 2021. This process, described as "protracted," is ongoing with no clear end in sight. Similarly, Somalia continues to grapple with intra or inter-clan conflicts, the ongoing offensive against Al-Shabaab, and a fragile security regime. Despite some progress towards achieving Somalia's national priorities, peacebuilding efforts through dialogue have not yielded proportional results (Security Council Report, 2024).
The shortcomings of traditional National Dialogue
National Dialogues have been described as nationally owned political processes aimed at generating consensus among a broad range of national stakeholders in times of deep political crisis. Numerous National Dialogues have been initiated around the world over the last three decades. However, a growing body of work is critiquing their outcomes.
The Inclusive Peace and Transition Initiative conducted a comparative analysis of 17 National Dialogues, which demonstrated that while most successfully reached an agreement, implementation of these agreements failed in half of the cases.
National Dialogue, intended as an inclusive political process, often falls short of delivering meaningful, lasting solutions. Beyond the implementation gap, researchers have noted a concern National Dialogues can be used by elites to bolster their own political agendas, undermining genuine transformation.
Proposing a futures-oriented approach
Building on existing critiques, we suggest that National Dialogues in the Horn of Africa would benefit from incorporating future-oriented methodologies. Two such methodologies, Transformative Scenario Process (TSP) and Future Search, offer practical tools for fostering inclusivity, shared ownership, transparency, and accountability—which arekey principles for successful dialogues.
Both approaches have been successfully used to enable multi-stakeholder dialogue in situations of fragility and conflict, offering practical ways to apply the four principles of inclusivity, shared ownership, transparency, and accountability. This orientation enables rethinking how National Dialogue can be convened, designed, and facilitated.
Key principles for effective National Dialogue
Previous National Dialogues in the Horn of Africa have failed to adhere to the fundamental principles mentioned above: inclusivity, shared ownership, transparency, and accountability. We believe these four principles are necessary, and if a National Dialogue is inclusive, transparent and accountable but fails to build shared ownership of the outcome, it will most likely be flawed.
1. Inclusivity: Much has been written about the importance of inclusivity in National Dialogues. We know that including diverse voices, especially those of marginalised groups like youth, enriches dialogue. However, Thania Paffenholz reminds us that inclusion is more than representation (who attends). It is also about meaningful involvement in the process (who makes decisions) and in the outcome (who implements the results afterwards and is influential in shaping a more peaceful future). This takes us to the next principle: ownership of outcomes.
2. Shared ownership: Inclusivity doesn’t ensure ownership of outcomes. Ownership is enhanced when National Dialogue convenors are local, have “skin in the game”, and are committed to accompanying the process into the implementation phase. It is also fostered by broadening engagement and using citizen participation platforms so that more people can express their hopes and fears for the future than the core group of participants.
3. Transparency: Balancing openness with confidentiality is crucial. Getting this balance right builds trust and ownership of outcomes without compromising sensitive discussions.
4. Accountability: An accountability framework should be set early. This means learning from past dialogue efforts—especially from mistakes and failures—and agreeing on what “success” looks like with convenors and participants. Ensure that there are sufficient resources to track progress so that course corrections can be made along the way. Pass on the learning by being transparent about challenges and errors made along the way.
Implementing futures-oriented methodologies
Talking about the future can be a powerful antidote to debating the current situation. It can help to ease engagement, break deadlocks, challenge assumptions, encourage difficult conversations, and connect diverse stakeholders. This includes those who may be marginalised due to their gender, ethnicity, social status, or ideology.
Focusing solely on the present can exacerbate polarisation. A future-focused approach can reinvigorate National Dialogue. Shared uncertainty about the future can create valuable common ground. Futures thinking has been applied in various conflict situations, including methods like TSP and Future Search.
TSP brings together diverse stakeholders to create shared narratives about the future. The scenarios they co-create seed an imagination for future-informed strategies for peace. Unlike traditional methods, TSP moves beyond adapting to the future, supporting participants to use their collective agency to influence the future.
A notable example of working in fragile contexts is the Mont Fleur scenarios in South Africa during the country’s often precarious transition from apartheid. In this deeply divided and uncertain period, stakeholders from across the ideological and political spectrum came together to co-create stories about possible future outcomes for the nation. This process not only helped foster understanding among conflicting groups but also provided a shared framework for navigating the complexities of the transition, demonstrating the power of scenario planning in fragile and uncertain environments.
Future Search brings together diverse stakeholders to collaboratively envision desired futures and create mutually agreed-upon action plans. It prioritises finding common ground over focusing on problems and conflicts. Through structured discussions, participants work in large groups to set shared goals and develop actionable strategies.
For example, in Sudan's Darfur region, long plagued by herder-farmer conflicts over scarce natural resources, dialogue conferences were convened, bringing entire affected communities together. These gatherings addressed critical issues such as animal migration routes, which had been longstanding flashpoints of tension between nomadic herders and settled farmers. Through collaborative dialogue, participants reached agreements on policies governing these routes and developed shared strategies to address the root causes of the conflict, ultimately fostering sustainable development and reducing tensions.
These methodologies aim to activate imaginations, foster new relationships, and encourage collective leadership rather than producing fixed peace settlements.
Real-world applications of future-oriented approaches
In April 2024, Reos Partners, with support from Irish Aid, hosted a workshop for 30 civil society leaders from Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, and South Sudan, introducing them to TSP as a future-oriented approach to dialogue. The goal was to explore how future-focused dialogue could help address challenges in the Horn of Africa. Along with practical training on dialogue and convening skills, the workshop led to the creation of three convening groups (from Sudan, Somalia, and the Horn of Africa region) to explore potential TSP applications in their contexts.
The Sudan group recognised the limitations of traditional mediation methods in the ongoing war, which have relied on short-term, exclusive dialogue. They are now exploring how future-oriented dialogue can foster inclusive transition, inviting diverse perspectives, especially those of women and youth, to address long-term state-society relations.
The Somalia group identified challenges in local civil society, including weak coordination and a lack of clear legal definitions, which undermine the sector’s effectiveness. TSP is seen as a tool to create shared narratives that enable the building of a more unified civil society that can contribute to Somalia’s future.
The regional Horn of Africa group wants to use TSP to address issues of mutual interest, such as multilateralism, security, climate change, and humanitarian challenges. They aim to foster a regional imagination and provide a collective regional voice on issues that may be difficult to address nationally.
The central message from these groups is that traditional dialogue methods are insufficient, and future-centred approaches offer a new strategy for National Dialogue. These methods focus on inclusivity, ownership, transparency, and accountability, with an emphasis on learning and innovation.
Reos Partners remains involved in a supportive role as these civil society leaders take the lead in conceptualising, convening, and fundraising for future-oriented National Dialogues for peace.
Conclusion
The Horn of Africa requires more than conventional approaches to National Dialogue. It needs transformative, future-focused approaches that challenge entrenched structures and empower a broader range of voices. We support local civil society leaders in convening groups of people with different experiences, beliefs, and interests but with a shared sense of uncertainty—and anxiety—about the future. With these convenors, we will create conditions for imagining and innovating alternative futures, offering creative ways to interrupt cycles of conflict for a more peaceful and resilient Horn of Africa to emerge.