Several Arab states are working on activating mechanisms for “national dialogue” to overcome issues emerging during transitions, reinforce stability and confront mounting challenges in those states that have already gone through transition in recent years. Calls for national dialogue adopted by states such as Tunisia, Algeria, Sudan, Egypt and Libya are often viewed as overarching coordination frameworks for all actors involved in domestic issues to hold consultations and reach at plans that support reforms and help address existing crises.
Different Models
Since early 2022, several states in this region witnessed calls for launching national dialogue that can be outlined as follows:
Dialogue between all sides was launched in early 2022 and was brokered by the so-called trilateral mechanism, made up of the United Nations, the African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) to find a solution to the exacerbating political crisis which broke out in October 2021. The aim was to form a national, independent and technocrat government, launch an all-inclusive dialogue and hold fair and free elections. Other goals included amending the constitution to keep up with ongoing political developments in the capital Khartoum. The first session of the dialogue was held from 8-12 June 2022, but the other rounds of talks were indefinitely postponed after some parties refused to take part. Moreover, the African Union, on June 22, suspended its participation in the trilateral mechanism because of what it described as “exclusion and lack of transparency.”
Amid the deepening rift between Libyan forces, two calls were launched to initiate national dialogue. The head of Libya's Government of National Unity Abdulhamid al-Dbeibah, on March 20, 2022, called for creating a committee to lead a national dialogue about the electoral law and laying the foundations of a new constitution. Fathi Bashagha, who was appointed prime minister by the eastern-based parliament, on May 2, called for direct talks between all parties to reach real national understandings.
President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, during the Egyptian family iftar last Ramadan, launched a new national dialogue which is designed to embrace all partisan and youth political currents to discuss priorities for national work at present. The outcome of the dialogue will be reported to the president who pledged to attend the final sessions of talks. The National Training Academy, an offshoot of the presidency, said the first rounds of talks will be launched in the first week of July. Diaa Rashwan, head of the Egyptian Journalists' Syndicate, had been selected as the general coordinator of the dialogue, while Secretary-General of the Supreme Council for Media Regulation Mahmoud Fawzy was selected as the head of the technical secretariat of the dialogue.
President Kais Saied formed a committee to mediate a national dialogue which will involve the youth in the lead up to a referendum on a new constitution, scheduled on July 25. The dialogue is aimed at finding an exit from the current political crisis. The first sessions of the dialogue held on June 4 brought together representatives of political parties and NGOs. Opposition parties such as Ennahda Movement boycotted the dialogue. Overall, three rounds of talks were held as part of the dialogue. The dialogue was concluded by a new draft constitution that was delivered to Saied on June 20. The president is yet to approve the new constitution before it is put to referendum.
President Abdelmadjid Tebboune, in May 2022, launched an initiative to reunify the ranks and open a new chapter with the opposition. The initiative coincided with Algeria’s celebration of the 60th anniversary of independence. Influential political parties, civil society organizations and figures, including Chief of Staff of the People's National Army Lieutenant general Saïd Chengriha, expressed support for the initiative named “the extended hand”. The initiative is yet to take full shape as Tebboune is meeting partisan and civil society leaders in the lead up to drawing up a framework for the dialogue aimed at reaching agreement and overcoming political and economic crises.
The Goals
Calls for national dialogue in Arab countries were launched to achieve several goals that vary from one country to another and can be outlined as follows:
1. Agreeing about transitional reforms:
Most of these calls seek to achieve convergence about reforms during transition to address constitutional issues and political dilemmas. The targeted crises pose threats to the stability of the political system in countries such as Tunisia where the dialogue seeks to resolve an escalating crisis which broke out after the president Saied invoked emergency powers on July 25, 2021 and mend the relationship between the three authorities, damaged after Saied took exceptional measures suspending and later dissolving the parliament.
In Sudan, the national dialogue comes amid a worsening political crisis caused by renewed rift between Sudanese parties after the Sovereign Council took exceptional measures on October 25, 2021. The crises were deepened by ongoing popular protests and the deteriorating living conditions.
2. Re-constructing public space for “New Republics”:
Calls for national dialogue in Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria are seeking to achieve an outcome that is more efficient than transitional reforms through re-preparing the public space both politically and economically and laying the foundation for “new republics.” Calls in all three countries have one thing in common: They seek to achieve maximum popular approval and support for national projects that go beyond the boundaries of transitional reforms.
In Cairo, the government is working on launching the “new republic” model, while in Tunis, President Saied is working on writing a new constitution based on the outcome of national dialogue so as to reflect the foundations of the “new republic.” In Algeria too, President Tebboune, on several occasions, talked about “new Algeria” as he took several measures including amendment of the constitution, holding local and legislative elections, renewing constitutional institutions and launching the “reunification” initiative to open up to the opposition.
3. Preventing a slide back into violence:
National Dialogue aims to avert a slide back into wars and armed conflict in countries such as Libya in particular. Calls by rivals al-Dbeibah and Bashaga targeted all actors in Libya so as to achieve agreement solely about certain political issues, while excluding any other issues such as the security situation, which can potentially make the process devoid of meaning.
The success of national dialogue in regional countries hinges upon a group of dynamics including: the identity of the initiator i.e. the party making the call, patterns of reaction of the targeted parties and participants to the tracks of dialogue, the mechanisms used to run the dialogue and guarantees for implementation of its outcome. This can be explained as follows:
1. The identity of the initiator:
The identity of the institution calling for national dialogue is the most influential determinant of success or failure of the process. A majority of such calls were made by the top institutions, such as the presidency or the cabinet. In Sudan, however, the call to dialogue was made by foreign parties working on achieving stability in the country. While the prospects of the dialogue in some countries can be bolstered by the fact that the call is made by the top authority and its outcome can be implemented faster, dialogue in others may face restrictions where invited parties may raise doubts that dialogue is only a maneuver to absorb public outrage and momentum, or where the process of dialogue and implementation of its outcome fail to fulfill aspirations.
2. The response of parties invited to the national dialogues:
The patterns and intensity of interaction of invitees, among other factors, do influence the efficiency of dialogue because they are expected to express their views about the agenda of the dialogue. Therefore, agreement to take part in dialogues and showing positive momentum, agreement to holding parallel or preparatory meetings to try to achieve convergence between views of involved parties, associations and forces. A reaction that is negative or lower than expected can restrict or even block dialogue, as was the case in Sudan where a majority of political forces and civil society boycotted and blocked dialogue.
3. The mechanism of running dialogues and implementation of the outcome:
This is related to the existence of an organizational framework and a clearly defined structure for running dialogue and for dealing with its outcome in a serious manner. As such, a technical secretariat should be created in an unbiased and objective way while also offering influential participants an equal opportunity to express their views. Several regional countries recognized the importance of this determinant for the success of dialogues and created secretariats for organizing the process of national dialogues and appointed non-biased public figures with a wide popular base.
National dialogues can offer an opportunity to overcome crises hitting some Middle East countries. It is therefore highly important to foresee potential tracks for this mechanism as well as the resulting gains, challenges and impediments so as to recognize its success or failure.
This scenario reflects a development where national dialogue in some regional states attains efficient degrees of the above-mentioned determinants of success, and achieves positive outcomes that contribute to achieving set goals. These states will be closer than others to achieving the transitional reforms, or to avoiding a slide back into political crises and armed conflicts. Moreover, states which managed to step into transition are closer than others formulating a new socio-political model providing proper conditions and a proper public place that accommodates larger dynamics and positive interactions, while at the same time restoring or boosting mutual trust between the ruling authorities and involved actors. This would naturally reinforce the ability of these states to counter various challenges.
Such a scenario is the result of deficiency in some or all determinants of success, thus causing failure of national dialogue or making it devoid of meaning. The end result can include a series of negative repercussions including renewed in-fighting in conflict-hit states, or escalation of political stalemate and economic crises in others. Addressing the resulting crises can be hard in the future because of diminished confidence between parties involved in national dialogue.
Overall, it can be noted that the increasing calls for national dialogue in Middle East countries, mostly Arab countries, launched at the beginning of this year, reflect these states’ desire for addressing political and economic crises, especially in light of exacerbating challenges caused by the war between Russia and Ukraine as well as the Covid-19 pandemic. This requires the use of reliable expertise to run national dialogues, those at the regional level in particular, while also maximizing gains and achieving goals.
