LogoLogo
English
English
  • INSPIRED: Where policy meets dialogue
  • Who is this website for?
    • Civil society and domestic stakeholders
    • Development practitioners and EU representatives
    • Government officials
  • Guide
    • What is INSPIRED?
    • Why does INSPIRED make a difference?
      • A three-tier approach
    • How does INSPIRED work in practice?
      • A dialogue process in three phases
        • Collective Assessment Phase
          • The Participatory Policy Analysis (PPA)
        • Consensus Building Phase
          • The Roadmap for Reform
            • Balancing priorities and trade-offs
            • Considering the policy cycle
            • Structure
            • Types of Roadmaps for Reform
            • Unlocking the black box of “political will”
        • Monitoring and Donor Alignment Phase
          • Monitoring the recommendations of the Roadmap for Reforms
          • Ensuring the alignment of donor support to the priorities outlined in the Roadmap
          • The Policy Network Strategy
            • The Joint Analysis of the Policy Network
            • The network graph
            • The exercise of strategic foresight
      • Measuring progress: The Integrated Support Framework (ISF)
    • Who is involved?
      • The Donor(s)
        • Opening the space for dialogue‌
        • Building incentives through conditionality
        • Providing actors with access to decision-makers
        • Promoting the adoption of international standards
        • Bringing in experiences and good practices to feed deliberation
      • The Partner Government
        • Appointing the right person(s)
        • Providing access to government data
        • Coordinating the participation of the concerned public actors
        • Honouring the commitments collectively agreed through dialogue
        • Allocating resources for the implementation of the roadmap
      • The Dialogue Host
        • Convening the key stakeholders
        • Facilitating the dialogue sessions
        • Promoting knowledge-sharing among stakeholders
        • Coordinating the division of labour
        • Acting as the main hub of the resulting policy network
        • Reporting and keeping track of the collective progress
      • The Stakeholders
        • Civil Society Organisations
        • Political parties
        • Public administration
        • Parliaments
        • Media
        • Social agents
        • National Human Rights institutions
        • Academia
        • Democracy support organisations
    • What change can INSPIRED bring?
      • Types of change
      • Harvesting INSPIRED outcomes
  • The INSPIRED Toolkit
    • Results-orientation
    • Three categories
    • The tools
      • 1. Scoping the policy landscape
      • 2. Determining the stage of the policy cycle
      • 3. Stakeholder mapping
      • 4. Set-up and follow-up of indicators
      • 5. Deliberation around evaluative criteria
      • 6. Joint Research
      • 7. Workshops and focus groups
      • 8. Public events & campaigning
      • 9. Bilateral meetings
      • 10. Working groups
      • 11. High-level missions
      • 12. Workshops on multi-party dialogue
      • 13. Study visits
      • 14. Online consultations
      • 15. Grant schemes
      • 16. Training courses
      • 17. Coaching
      • 18. Network mapping
      • 19. International Peer to Peer support
  • Resources
    • Library
      • Policy dialogue: General
      • Policy analysis for dialogue facilitation
      • Dialogue stakeholders
      • Trust-building
      • Policy dialogue in thematic policies
      • EU democracy support
    • Track record
    • Contact us
  • LEGAL NOTICE
Powered by GitBook
LogoLogo
On this page
  1. Guide
  2. Who is involved?
  3. The Stakeholders

Political parties

If deliberative forms of decision-making are to gain traction within representative democracies – as proposed and championed by this guide– and, even more importantly, if the resulting policies are to be rule-bound and rule-based, political parties should be included in the dialogue. In particular, they should play a leading role when it comes to actual policy drafting, making sure that the policy reflects a plurality of views while also being in line with key political criteria such as constitutionality, legal standards, national interest, international relations, etc. However, this is seldom possible, especially in polarised contexts due to the sense of rivalry instilled by unhealthy electoral competition.

This means that on a practical level, working with political parties in dialogue processes presents the Dialogue Hosts with a series of dilemmas. First of all, there is the issue of selection, which has a number of implications. Finding the right balance by deciding who should be there and who shouldn’t is a risky decision that could compromise the impartiality of the Dialogue Host, so participation needs to be open to all political actors willing to cooperate in a given issue. For a number of reasons, such willingness to cooperate is often harder to find in the bigger players, going beyond the mainstream parties to include political movements, as well as parties with parliamentary representation that, at some point in the near future, could become involved in potential coalition governments.

Secondly, and whether we like it or not, among political parties mistrust seems to be the rule, either because of the well-known ‘power games' intrinsic to electoral competition, or simply because parties are the entities where great societal cleavages (religion, region, ethnicity) manifest themselves. Furthermore, this mistrust usually extends to many of the other stakeholder groups involved, predominantly due to the same basic dilemmas related above.

The role of the Dialogue Host is thus crucial when it comes to avoiding that any antagonisms may affect the deliberative nature of the dialogue process. For this, the dialogue facilitator not only has to be perceived by the parties as being impartial, but also needs to be extremely attentive to those issues that must not be touched due to their politically sensitive nature. Second, before engaging any party the facilitator should test the ground by means of bilateral meetings, briefing contacts in advance in order to develop their trust, but also to assess their commitment to the participatory and inclusive principles that should inform the dialogue process. While this advice is also valid when it comes to other types of stakeholders, it is particularly important to reassure political party representatives that the things they say and do in the framework of the dialogue will not be used against them in the political arena. To make things even harder, the Dialogue Host should encourage the parties to develop ownership over the dialogue process, but without allowing them to hijack it; a risk that is ever-present but more acute in pre-electoral times.

All in all, the most important thing to keep in mind is that both in parliamentary and presidential democracies, the sustainability of any agreement on reform and its further implementation will depend to a large extent on the engagement of political parties. This fact is not likely to change, whether civil society organisations like it or not.

PreviousCivil Society OrganisationsNextPublic administration

Last updated 1 year ago