Dialogue in Pursuit of Development - Are you looking for one of ...

4
On both sides, there is a wide range of actors who communicate with each
other at different levels and in ways that are not always clear and logical. In
the recipient country we find actors, they can be private or public, at four
different levels: the community, the district, the province/region and the
national level. They can be a community council or a women’s group, a
district and/or provincial council and at the national level a Ministry of
External Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Development Planning or any other
line ministry. On the donor side you will have an equally diverse set of
actors, such as consultants involved in studies or in implementation, the
embassy in the recipient country, the aid agency itself and the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs or a specialised Ministry of Development Co-operation,
parliamentarians, NGO representatives and others from the civil society
(Carlsson and Wohlgemuth, 2000).
The word dialogue in itself carries only the message, “I am prepared to discuss”.
Dialogue however, is pursued in order to achieve changes. In a dialogue,
it must be possible to bring forward harsh criticism or there may be
total agreement between the parties. This dialogue must be based on a
number of values. These values relate to fundamental questions such as
mutual respect for human rights, a concern for poverty reduction, the equal
rights and value of every person, democratic principles, a preference for
equity and equality, as well as a respect for sovereignty.
What is dialogue?
In development co-operation, the concept of dialogue has taken on different
meanings over the years. The invitation to the contributors to this book
gave a rather broad definition of the concept. “The term ‘dialogue’ stands
for the methodology of interaction between the donor and recipient. At
best, it is the instrument for formulating the parameters, which together
should make up the joint understanding and contract between the parties
on policy, programme or project level on how to interact (Annex).”
This wide definition has prompted many authors to present their own
definitions of the concept. Paulo Freire´s definition has been used both to
highlight what dialogue is and what it is not. “Dialogue is the encounter
between men, mediated by the world, in order to name the
world….dialogue cannot occur between one who imposes his/her own
ideas upon another who does not wish this imposition (Suzuki).” Another
interpretation along the same line says that “dialogue means to bring about
an exchange of views. It is not to inform about views, but exchange views,
which needs mutuality and sharing (Ringström).” Lysén sees “dialogue as
an inter-personal exchange with the aim of increasing understanding, learning
and exchanging ideas through communication. The purpose of the
dialogue is not necessarily to reach one common viewpoint but to try to
understand the different participants’ perspectives.” The concept as such is
also questioned. “The term dialogue seems a bit idyllic – it should prob-