TT Report

UNDP Trinidad and Tobago Predialogue Inquiry Mission
August 23September 3, 2009

Mission Report 1
Philip Thomas & Bettye Pruitt

INTRODUCTION
Over the past decade, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Regional Bureau
for Latin America and the Caribbean has significantly enhanced its capacity to support multi‐
stakeholder dialogue as a key component of its strategy to strengthen democratic governance
and help different sectors of society jointly address complex challenges.   Since 2001, its
Regional Democratic Dialogue Project has partnered with other institutions in the region and
elsewhere in the world to develop case materials and synthesize practitioner experiences, a
process culminating in the 2007 publication of Democratic Dialogue—A Handbook for
Practitioners, published jointly with International IDEA, OAS, and CIDA.   The Regional Project
has also developed a network of experienced practitioners to provide technical assistance to
country offices seeking to support national dialogue processes, and it has provided support to
various countries in the region, including Argentina, Bolivia, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico,
Panama, and St. Kitts and Nevis .

This is the background against which UNDP Resident Representative, Ms. Marcia De Castro,
has undertaken to assess the current conditions for multi‐stakeholder engagement and the
opportunities for UNDP to support dialogue across sectors in Trinidad and Tobago.  On the face
of it, the conditions are not favorable. Trinidad and Tobago is a country rich in resources yet
struggling with a number of persistent problems, for example, high crime rates, corruption and
weak and inefficient public institutions. The inability of successive governments to deal
adequately with these problems has contributed to deepening divisions in society and public
distrust of government, regardless of which party is in control.  While this is the kind of situation
where democratic dialogue can often make a positive contribution, stakeholders from different
sectors talked about experience with government consultations and expressed cynicism about
the seriousness of Government’s efforts to engage other sectors of society in discussions of the
issues in ways that will ultimately influence future action.


1
The present report reflects the views of the consultants contracted from UNDP’s network for designing
and implementing the assessment exercise: Philip Thomas and Bettye Pruitt, authors of the book
Democratic Dialogue – A Handbook for Practitioners.

UNDP Trinidad & Tobago Pre‐dialogue Inquiry Mission Report ‐ September, 2009

In the past ten years, there have been Government‐led consultation processes on a variety of
topics such as food prices, youth policy, gender policy, local government reform and, most
recently, constitutional reform.  Civil‐society actors have also convened dialogue processes, for
example, on crime and constitutional reform. In 2004‐2005, a large‐scale multi‐stakeholder
dialogue on the future of the nation, Vision 2020, engaged a  cross‐section of citizens in
thirteen regional consultations, twelve interest‐group consultations and five community
dialogues and produced detailed recommendations on the full range of issues facing the nation.
Yet, many perceive a pattern of minimal government follow‐through on recommendations and
limited concrete results from these engagements—dubbed “NATO” (No Action, Talk Only) by
Vision 2020 participants—that has given Trinidad and Tobago a bad case of consultation
fatigue. 2

At the same time, in conversations across various government ministries, Ms. De Castro found
interest in considering multi‐stakeholder dialogue as a means of rebuilding public trust.  In late
2008, she brought a team from UNDP Panama to share that country’s considerable experience
with democratic dialogue and hold conversations both inside and outside of the government
about the prospects for renewed efforts at dialogue in Trinidad and Tobago.  This mission
found interest on all sides in exploring the possibility of a new dialogue initiative and also
confirmed the significant hurdles to mounting such an initiative in the prevailing climate of
mistrust and cynicism.  These findings led Ms. De Castro, with the support of the Prime
Minister, to undertake an independent UNDP assessment of the opportunities for democratic
dialogue to contribute positively in the current context. The initial phase of this mission of
assessment involved a visit to Trinidad and Tobago by us, the main consultants from the
UNDP’s network, carried out between August 24 and September 3.

In both group conversations and individual interviews, we encountered the perceptions and
attitudes that underlie patterns of conflict and work against the possibility of meaningful cross‐
sectoral dialogue. We also found willingness to keep trying to create the conditions necessary
for such dialogue and some pockets of success that could possibly provide a foundation on
which to build those conditions.  These findings, along with some suggestions of possible ways
forward, are the subject of this report.

PURPOSE

Purpose of the mission
Above all, this is an exercise of assessment.  It is focused on exploring opportunities for UNDP to
promote and/or support the kind of dialogic interactions that will aid Trinidad and Tobago in


2
Kari Consultants Limited, “Draft Report: Vision 2020, the Participatory Dialogue,” volume 1, 48‐49; and
Sir Robert Worcester and Mark Gill, MORI Opinion Leaders Panel, Wave II (September, 2008).

2


making wise decisions on key issues, building a stronger culture of democracy, facilitating the
prevention of crisis and strengthening its democratic governance.  UNDP understands from
experience that, regardless of how necessary more inclusive participatory processes may be,
their appropriateness and ultimate effectiveness depends upon the existence of two important
conditions:

1. The process must be viewed as trustworthy by all parties.  This requires clarity about the
purpose of the process; transparency and inclusiveness in key decisions about the
process, particularly about who will participate; and agreement on what role in shaping
the design of the process key stakeholders should have.

2. There must be a high likelihood that the process will produce credible concrete
outcomes, in terms of both the recommendations made and their implementation.
This means the parties must be open to a design that includes implementation and
mechanisms for mutual accountability within the process itself.   It is also important to
have a timeframe that allows a long‐term horizon and a pace of activities that permits
other conditions to emerge; and (often) capacity building within sectors to enable
effective inter‐sectoral interactions.

Rather than assuming these conditions to be present, UNDP decided to invest in this assessment
to determine not only the interest in and opportunities for cross‐sectoral engagement processes
but also the extent to which the conditions for success exist or can be put into place.

Purpose of this report
This report aims to advance the conversation started by Ms. D Castro.  So far, the assessment
has involved primarily asking questions and listening to the groups and individuals consulted in
both Trinidad and Tobago.  Here, we share the different perspectives we encountered and
suggest some possible ways in which UNDP might support the country’s efforts toward dialogue.
UNDP will share this report with everyone consulted, so that the next turn in the conversation
can come from them.

APPROACH

Our Assumptions
This mission to assess the opportunities for multi‐stakeholder dialogue is itself a process of
multi‐stakeholder engagement.  Our approach is shaped by a set of core assumptions about
what is needed to make any engagement process effective.

1. Action matters.  The term NATO (No Action, Talk Only), developed by participants in
Vision 2020, expresses a broadly shared concern about the tendency of dialogues and
consultations to become “talk‐shops” with little apparent influence in future actions

3


taken.  Given the high level of consultation fatigue in Trinidad and Tobago, we brought
into this mission the assumption that people will be interested in a new process only to
the extent that they perceive it has real capacity to influence decisions and actions.   An
important part of our approach has therefore been to inquire about and facilitate
reflection on past processes in order to gain understanding of the perceived disconnects
between process and implementation of outcomes.   Another goal has been to assess
where real possibilities for influencing action currently exist.

2. Thinking matters.  We recognize people never enter processes as “clean slates,” but
rather come with a number of deeply held, often implicit, assumptions and perspectives
that shape their views about what is and is not possible, what changes are necessary,
etc.   Productive, creative group interactions can begin to happen when people are able
to make visible and explore together these underlying mindsets.  In order to help
advance the conversation about what might be possible in Trinidad and Tobago, we
focused attention on capturing and making sense of the different perspectives we
encountered.

3. Relationships matter.  The quality of outcomes of a dialogue depends not only on how
inclusive and participatory the process is but also on the quality of the interactions and
relationships created along the way.   In contexts of high mistrust, polarization and
antagonism, communication tends to become more distorted and ineffective and the
quality of information exchanged deteriorates. Though there may be lots of talking,
there is very little understanding and even less capacity for collective or integrated
action.  Because of this, the quality of current relationships and patterns of interaction is
something we explored explicitly in this mission.

4. Process matters.   The way in which a process unfolds will largely determine the extent
to which people perceive it as legitimate and worthwhile and enable it to achieve its
purpose.  With this in mind, and with awareness of the pattern of “NATO” processes and
resulting fatigue, our approach to the task of assessment emphasized the need for
UNDP to hear from potential participants and involve them upfront in considerations of
how to move forward.

What We Did
The steps we took in our time in Trinidad and Tobago were guided by our mission to explore
perceptions and possibilities for multi‐stakeholder engagement in a way that could contribute to
the necessary conditions for democratic dialogue, should Trinidad and Tobago actors and UNDP
decide to move forward.  We conducted two consultation focus groups, one in Trinidad and one
in Tobago.  On each island, we followed these meetings up with interviews of a number of the
participants, either individually or in small groups.  After the focus groups, we met separately
with Government.

4


Annex 1 provides a list of everyone we consulted, nearly fifty people in all.  In convening the
focus groups, UNDP made an effort to compose groups that would reflect—as opposed  to
“representing” in a more formal way—the diversity of perspectives and experiences that exist in
society on each of the islands.  People came from politics, business, and civil society with a high
degree of interest in addressing the challenges Trinidad and Tobago faces as a nation, as well as
interest in UNDP’s experience with dialogic change processes and how democratic dialogue
might support them.

In each focus group, we briefly offered a framework for understanding the importance and
relevance of cross‐sectoral engagement processes and provided some examples of different
forms such processes can take.   Annex 2 provides a brief overview of the contents presented
during this part of the program.  We also engaged the focus groups in some interactive exercises
to 1) illustrate some of the key challenges related to achieving understanding and coordination
across sectors and perspectives; and 2) help the participants uncover and explore the
assumptions that shape how they understand the current context, what changes they see as
necessary, and how they believe change can happen.

The major portion of each focus group involved engaging people in small groups in inquiry
around four key questions:

1. What changes in the way we as a society do things would increase our capacity to
respond more effectively to the challenges we face?

2. What issues offer the best opportunity to try a different way of solving problems
together?

3. What would be the obstacles to be overcome or the conditions to be met for people to
be willing to engage in a multi‐stakeholder process?

4. Speaking for your sector or interest group, what do you imagine could be gained from
participating in a process that touched upon an issue of importance to the sector?
What would be some perceived risks of deciding to engage?

Our contact with Government was limited.  Ideally, we would have talked with people in
different ministries, and this is something to follow up on if this inquiry continues.  Nevertheless,
in the meetings we had, we reported some of what we had heard in the focus groups and
explored some of the same questions from the government perspective. The responses we got
to these questions, as well as other group conversations in the focus groups, small group
meetings and individual interviews are the basis for the findings that follow.

5


FINDINGS

Our inquiry produced a wealth of information about the range of perspectives on the current
situation in Trinidad and Tobago and the perceived obstacles and opportunities for dialogue to
make a positive contribution.  We begin this section with some brief summaries of what we
heard and follow with more focused analysis of three main findings.

Summary findings
These are current issues or challenges where people felt a different kind of approach is
desperately needed for the country’s development and to ensure that Trinidad and Tobago is not
left behind in current trends of globalization:

• Constitutional reform • Health care
• Local Government reform • Environment
• Productivity   • Nation building – moving beyond self /
• Crime sectoral interests to a collective
• Scenarios for economic sustainability identity
and viability in the future • Morality and integrity in public affairs
• Service delivery

Reasons expressed about why people and/or their sectors would participate in a dialogue
process:

• Perception that current ways of doing • Belief that dialogue yields better,
things aren’t working more sustainable outcomes
• Belief that dialogue enables more • Belief that dialogue promotes greater
effective exchange of information awareness of complexity and limits
which produces  higher quality analysis simplistic partial understandings that
and shared understanding, and more lead to misguided strategies and
intelligent decisions   actions
• Belief that dialogue incorporates • Increasing awareness of
values and builds capacities that are interdependence and the need to
important for strengthening strengthen relationships and work
democratic culture and practice together to understand and address
challenges

6


Reasons expressed about why people and/or their sectors might resist participating:

• Perceived lack of commitment to • Perception that current stereotypes
concrete outcomes and mechanisms and lack of trust block the possibility
for accountability of authentic collaboration
• Fear that divergent thinking or dissent • Perception of insurmountable
will produce retribution   conflicts; sense of being stuck in
• Perception of lack of real influence polarized relationships
• Fear of giving legitimacy to foolishness • Perception of insufficient will and skill
• Fear of being marginalized in the • Fear of being misunderstood
dialogue process itself • Fear of having to make too many
sacrifices

In reflecting on the obstacles to dialogue and on things they would like to see change in Trinidad
and Tobago society, people in our focus groups and interviews named a variety of specific issues
and problems and also described what seem to be some larger patterns that may be holding the
status quo in place:

• The politicization of ethnicity
• The “first past the post” system that reinforces a two‐party dynamic where, for
instance, a third party like the Congress of the People may win a large number of votes
and still end up without a seat in Parliament.  Curiously, in the TT context, the existence
of a third party introduces a dynamic that could help shift current electoral dynamics
that seem to play on racial divisions to strengthen political affiliations.
• A quality of antagonism between the government in power and the opposition party in
which each seeks to undermine the other in ways that limit each from achieving its goals
• An internal culture within the political parties of the “maximum leader,” in which
independent or divergent thinking is repressed or castigated and there is little space for
new leadership, new thinking or internal party democracy
• The use of partial and distorted information as a means to consolidate a power base or
achieve self‐interest
• The use of non‐inclusive change processes that are perceived as illegitimate and thus
produce resistance regardless of the quality of their outputs
• The use of the language of “consultation” for processes that allow people little or no
real influence on policy and action, leading to widespread “consultation fatigue” and
lack of motivation to get involved in important issues that affect everyone
• A pattern of framing issues in overly simplistic terms that deny their true complexity and
result in the demonizing of others’ intentions and justifying of one’s own actions

7


Of course, the presence of difference, dissent and conflict is normal and essential in a
democracy.  Real, substantive differences always exist across political parties and within the
broader society.  A healthy system of political parties and effective governance allows for the
ongoing competition of political visions and the vying for political power while, at the same
time, ensuring progress and the general well‐being of the nation state.   On the other hand, the
way in which these legitimate differences and disagreements are perceived and expressed can
lead to dysfunctional dynamics that weaken governance, limit effectiveness and block progress.
One of the contributions of dialogue processes in systems that have such dysfunctions is to offer
people some alternative ways of thinking and talking about their own and others’ viewpoints.
We try to do that in the next two sections, which look more closely at a couple of the patterns
we heard about in Trinidad and Tobago.

Analysis: Past Experience with Consultation and Dialogue
Like many modern democracies, Trinidad and Tobago is a polarized society facing serious
current problems and long‐term challenges.  Unfortunately, past experiences with public
consultations and multi‐stakeholder dialogue seem to have exacerbated rather than helped this
situation.  Now, public disillusionment and distrust of Government’s intentions and/or capacity
to follow through are major obstacles to establishing the first critical condition for meaningful
stakeholder engagement: trust in the process.  What are some different ways people could think
about this experience?

Different stories could be told about a consultation judged as inadequate.  Some of these stories
might be helpful for moving forward, others not so helpful.  For example, the problem might be
framed as one of individual intention: one or more people’s motives and intentions are judged
to be malicious, self‐centered, manipulative, etc.  It could also be framed as a problem, not of
intention, but of individual behavior: perhaps the intentions are good but skill is lacking – they
just don’t know how to do consultation well.  In both cases, the problem is located in the
individual.
Other stories might locate the problem at the group level.  For example, it might be framed as a
problem of structures and systems: the existing “rules of the game,” compounded by poor
communication entrenched patterns of antagonistic behavior by all involved create a context in
which effective consultation cannot occur.  Finally, the problem could be framed as a gap in
shared understanding: each group is trying to act with integrity according to the understanding
and logic that inform its perspective;  yet “consultation” may mean very different things to
different groups—and without realizing that, “never the twain shall meet.”  The table below
pulls together this brief overview of how different “stories,” or ways of seeing a situation or
event, can be compared and understood at the level of underlying assumptions about what is
really going on.

8


Figure 1: Elements of an Integrated Perspective on Consultations in Trinidad and Tobago 3

INTERIOR EXTERIOR

Values & Attitudes Actions & Behavior
INDIVIDUAL
BAD INTENTIONS UNSKILLFUL, INEFFECTIVE
ACTIONS

Relationships & Culture Structures & Systems
Group Values & Attitudes Group Actions & Behavior

COLLECTIVE
LACK OF SHARED ANTAGONISTIC PATTERNS OF
UNDERSTANDING GROUP BEHAVIOR, UNHELPFUL
RULES OF THE GAME

The dynamic of polarization moves people away from more complex, nuanced understandings
of a situation and toward more simplistic, reductionist understandings that result in patterns of
blame and self‐justification.  In dialogue, people need to make an effort to understand each
other in order to break that self‐reinforcing dynamic.  One way to do this is to recognize that
people hold different assumptions that shape the way they view the same thing.  Focusing on
the lower left quadrant above (lack of shared understanding) we suggest in the table below
some of the different ways of thinking about key questions related to consultations, based on
what we heard in our inquiry.  This is an example of the kind of work that might be done in a
dialogue process.

Figure 2: Comparing Perspectives on Consultations

Assumption areas Government perspective Those who question Gov’t
A process by which Government A process in which citizens are
can educate the public about an given a chance to become
What “consultation” issue, provide information about more informed on issues and
means how Government proposes to consider different options for
address the issue, and solicit addressing them.  The goal is
feedback. Its goal is to secure to provide citizen input to

3
This is based on a core framework of Integral Theory developed by Ken Wilber, Introduction to Integral
Theory and Practice: IOS Basic and the AQAL Map (2003).



9


buy‐in and support for help inform Government’s
Government policy. decision making.
Citizens are uninformed and lack Citizens lack necessary
sufficient expertise to know information but do have that
The capacity of citizens to what’s best. capacity to weigh options,
engage based on local knowledge
about what their issues are
and what they need and want.
Effectiveness depends on Effectiveness depends on
The style of leadership decisive leadership in which the engaging citizens and helping
required to address leader determines what is them name and frame the
complex problems needed and provides direction to problem and work together to
others. find solutions.
The government is elected by The government’s role is to
the people to act on behalf of facilitate systems and
the people – citizens participate structures that permit the
The role of Government
through their vote. society to participate
effectively in addressing
issues of public importance.

These statements are meant to be suggestive, not definitive of the situation in Trinidad and
Tobago. The point is that conversations break down when people are unwilling or unable to look
into the different assumptions and logics that are at play in cross‐sectoral interactions.  Then the
discourse devolves to Government saying that its opponents criticize and sabotage its
consultation processes because they want to win power, while the critics of Government accuse
it of autocratically imposing change from the top down in ways that serve its own political
interests more than the interests of the nation as a whole.

Our conversations both inside and outside Government suggest that another area where greater
shared understanding is needed is around the role different forms of public engagement can
play, and have played in Trinidad and Tobago, in the larger process of public decision making.
(See diagram below.)  Making clear distinctions among the purposes and characteristics of
different engagement strategies within this broader framework is the foundation for agreement
on what’s necessary and possible and on decisions matching approach to purpose or need.

Public Education:  This strategy is sometimes labeled DAD—Decide, Advocate,
Defend.  Government has taken up an issue, formed a policy, and made a decision
to act.  It then conducts an information/education campaign to build public
support.  This often includes providing an opportunity for the public to comment
on and ratify the decision.

10


Public Deliberation:  This is a strategy for raising public awareness and seeking
citizen input on an issue that government has identified as critical.  A select group
or process, or possibly the government itself has “named and framed” the problem
and identified a number of alternative approaches to dealing with it.  It then invites
citizens to come together in groups to deliberate on the three or four alternatives
put forward and the trade‐offs they may involve.  The public reaches resolution and
comes to public judgment about the issue. The government is now informed about
the public’s judgment and makes a decision with this information in mind.   This
strategy is sometimes referred to as “choice creation.”

Public Dialogue:  In contrast to the other two strategies, public dialogue engages
citizens up front in naming and framing the issues and envisioning one or more
ways to address them.   As the diagram suggests, dialogue is often a necessary step
to build the understanding and trust required for societies to be able to make the
hard choices required in deliberation and decision making.  It is not, by itself,
sufficient to produce firm decisions and concrete action.

Figure 3: Public Decision Making

Consultation fatigue: We see a major source of public disillusionment and distrust in Trinidad
and Tobago in different expectations for what kind of engagement strategy “public
consultations” actually represent.  Our understanding of Government’s perspective, based on
our conversation with the Prime Minister about the ongoing consultations on constitutional
reform, is that these are in fact public education events.  They are guided by the assumption
that the public is uninformed and therefore does not fully understand the issues Government is
trying to address.  Government is confident in its analysis and understanding of the issues and
what is needed.  Its goal is to get buy‐in, and the consultations seem to be helping to achieve
that goal.

11


At the same time, referring to these events as "consultations" has caused disillusionment and
fueled the cynicism of consultation fatigue among many people in the society.  For them,
“consultation” signifies more of a two‐way interaction, to be undertaken before decisions are
made so that citizens have the opportunity to analyze the issues and explore alternative ways of
moving forward so that benefits and tradeoffs can be carefully considered in order to make
more informed decisions.  Hoping for something much more like public deliberation or dialogue,
they are disappointed with and suspicious of a consultation process that is clearly a program of
public education.

Disillusionment with Vision 2020:   We see the source of disillusionment with Vision 2020 as
similar but distinct.  This process was called into being by Government’s charge to a multi‐
sectoral group to create a development plan to enable Trinidad and Tobago to achieve
developed nation status by 2020.  It was a dialogue in fact as well as in name.  Yet, without a
firm connection to the other key steps of deliberation and decision making necessary for moving
from dialogue to action in terms of clear plan, agenda, timeline, and progress markers, the many
ideas and recommendations produced by Vision 2020 became, in effect, a long, rather
unrealistic, wish‐list of initiatives and policies handed off for Government to make the tough
choices and decisions on what would actually be implemented and how.  Not surprisingly, many
hold the perception that Government has not delivered significant results, and this outcome has
confirmed public skepticism that the dialogue was ever intended to have a real influence on
public policy.

Analysis: Obstacles and Opportunities in Current Patterns

In the context of political polarization that exists in Trinidad and Tobago, we expected to
encounter perceptions of the situation framed in terms of good guys versus bad guys, and we
did.  Bitter political divisions, ethnic divisions and the intersection between these two are clearly
big obstacles to the convening and success of participatory, consensus‐building processes.
Given our mission, our concern is less about the nature of substantive disagreements and more
about current patterns that have created a sense of stagnation and even losing ground.  To the
extent that these patterns impede the nation’s ability to deal with problems and challenges,
Trinidad and Tobago may risk falling behind and becoming less competitive in the global
context.  On the other hand, at least some of them may also be potential entry points for
dialogue and positive change.

In the focus groups, when we asked whether the problems facing Trinidad and Tobago are
caused by inadequate systems and structures (laws, policies, procedures) or individual values
and attitudes, people recognized both sets of factors as necessary for understanding the current
situation.  Likewise, in our conversation with the Minister of Public Administration, he reflected
12


on the challenges of implementing change in complex contexts where many variables are at play
and some key dimensions of needed change cannot be accomplished by Government policy or
legislation.

Our conversations, both in focus groups and individual interviews, indicated that people
recognize that the challenge of creating a more positive future for Trinidad and Tobago is about
individual change, not just Government policies.  For example, we heard about a common
attitude and pattern of behavior that emphasizes self‐interest and the interests of one’s own
group with little acknowledgement of or sense of responsibility to society as a whole.  We heard
about the need for a stronger work ethic and greater self‐discipline as part of the national
problem of low productivity and economic underdevelopment.  And we heard that a leadership
style that rewards loyalty and punishes independent thinking is a pattern that undermines the
internal democratic functioning of the political parties in Trinidad and Tobago.

People also described dysfunctional relationships and cultural patterns that hold the current
situation in place.  For example, we heard that the divisions between people of African and East
Indian descent are exacerbated and embittered by the prevailing pattern of political party
competition and the way the parties handle themselves both in and out of power.  We also
heard Trinidad and Tobago society characterized as a “9‐day culture,” in which the public’s span
of attention on issues is too short to exert meaningful influence on policy decisions.  In Tobago,
we heard about a “crab‐in‐bucket” group mentality that punishes individual ambition and
achievement and about the “little sister syndrome”—a collective sense of victimization that
seems to keep Tobagonians from taking responsibility for their own well being.

To be sure, we also heard about the need for changes in both structures and policies in order to
address the many concrete issues on the table.  We were impressed, however, by the argument
made by Mr. Swaratsingh, Minister of Public Administration, that making progress in key areas
requires changes not only in law and policy but also individual capacities and behaviors, in
organizational cultures and in the culture of the broader society.  This kind of integrated,
systemic view of the challenges facing Trinidad and Tobago turned up in many of our
conversations, in particular with people from the business sector.   While there was no lack of
criticism of Government and its policies, most people were ready to acknowledge that
individuals and the society share responsibility for creating more desirable conditions.

This is a significant finding because it shows that the quality of thinking needed for Trinidad and
Tobago to make progress against the challenges it faces is already present in the society.  In our
experience, naming and talking about patterns and the different perspectives people hold can
create openings for moving forward even when the disagreements over specific issues are stuck.
By the same token, for a cross‐sectoral dialogue process to be effective, we believe it cannot
focus narrowly on policies and structures but also should create a space in which people can
openly address other aspects of the issue. Again, the framework presented in Figure 1 may be

13


helpful for holding this integrated view in continuing conversations about the shape future
dialogue processes might take.

Analysis: Seeds of Productive Relationships
Finally, while we heard about many problems and numerous obstacles to constructive dialogue
in Trinidad and Tobago, we also encountered a number of people actively engaged in making
such dialogue happen now.  This is not happening in the context of formal dialogue processes
but in the dialogic interactions occurring in the context of initiatives that are bringing people
together across various boundaries and divides.  In particular, these people are setting aside
partisan political divisions that seem to be holding up progress on so many issues.  They are not
waiting for Government but are working to address common issues and challenges and, in the
process, modeling the kind of cooperation and collective problem solving everyone agrees is
sorely needed in Trinidad and Tobago.  As one person we interviewed captured this attitude:
“The government is just a reflection of us—if we change, it will change.” The initiatives we heard
about are:

• The National Youth Council of Trinidad and Tobago
• The Inter‐religious Organization
• The Trinidad and Tobago Group of Professional Associations
• The Tobago Chamber of Commerce management group
• The Artists Coalition
• The Association of Local Government Authorities

These initiatives model the kind of cross‐boundary relationship building that UNDP is hoping to
promote through democratic dialogue.  If, in future, there were to be another significant
dialogue process there needs to be a group of champions outside of Government to play that
role, and the existence of these ongoing efforts indicates that there is openness and potential
leadership from these groups that are already trying to work in dialogic ways.  These are
valuable seeds worth nurturing.

Conclusions
Dialogue is a voluntary process.  The possibility for future successful dialogues depends on
people seeing the need and calling for dialogue; on people wanting to be included and wanting
to include others in a relationship of mutual accountability; and, only when those conditions
have been met, on clearly defining the topic and finding the best process methodologies for
what the participants want to accomplish.  The purpose of this inquiry has been to determine
the presence of the sense of need and willingness to participate.

Our conversations with Government were limited, and this makes generalization difficult.  The
most we can say at this point is that we did not uncover in that sector a strongly felt need for
engaging across sectors in ways that are fundamentally different from what is currently being
14


done.  Outside of Government we encountered in most people we talked to a deep longing for
change and frustration in not knowing how to bring it about.  We saw some promising seeds and
potential models of engagement, and we learned there are a small number of people who could
act as champions if conditions are right. We also found the desire to engage across sectors
tempered by awareness of the obstacles and skepticism about the likelihood of overcoming
them.  Dialogue in this context will not be easy, but the alternative of continuing with no
engagement offers a discouraging prospect.

In short, we have concluded that cross‐sectoral dialogue is much needed in Trinidad and
Tobago.  Given the findings we have reported here, we do not believe the conditions are
present to develop another major dialogue effort similar to Vision 2020.  At the same time, we
think there are a number of things that can be done to begin addressing some of the current
patterns that are blocking progress and to promote stronger social cohesion and democratic
culture – and perhaps create the conditions for a future national dialogue process.  Our
recommendations, below, offer some scenarios for what UNDP can contribute.  In Annex 3 we
list some actions people in the different sectors of Trinidad and Tobago society can do
independently to foster the conditions for future engagement.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this mission has been to explore opportunities for dialogue.  Given our findings
that the conditions do not now exist for a new national dialogue process, our recommendations
focus on how UNDP can assist ongoing processes and help to promote a culture of dialogue.  We
do so with the understanding that there needs to be some pull for this assistance from the
people we consulted and the groups they represent.  If there is clear interest and a topic is
defined, UNDP will be in a much better position to explore the conditions more fully and at the
level of detail required to move confidently with the design of a process.

Some General Considerations

Considering the standing of UNDP in Trinidad and Tobago society

The high standing and perceived neutrality of UNDP in Trinidad and Tobago society are key
assets relative to its desire to promote and support dialogue processes that cross sectors and
other boundaries.  In making recommendations for moving forward, we are mindful of the
importance of ensuring that any process to which it lends its name will have the essential
characteristics that will both help create the conditions necessary for success and maintain
UNDP’s credibility and legitimacy in this arena.  These characteristics are inclusiveness,
transparency, shared ownership of the process and responsibility for its outcomes, and
adequate monitoring and evaluation to ensure accountability and avoid the trap of NATO.

15


Working with Government and advancing democratic governance

UNDP has a mandate to support governments in enacting and implementing policies that favor
social and economic development, and this often involves partnering with governments to
strengthen their initiatives and institutions.  At the same, it has a long‐term institutional goal of
strengthening democratic governance in a sustainable way.  Advancing this goal calls for
ensuring that initiatives both deliver good outcomes and leave behind, embedded in society, an
increased capacity for addressing future challenges.  Holding the perspective of that longer‐term
goal, the purpose of democratic dialogue may be to help the current Government achieve
specific goals, and it will also be about promoting a democratic culture and values of inclusion,
dialogic participation, and deliberation.

In this case, we think it makes sense to continue exploring potential opportunities to support
the current government in future efforts at public engagement.  Our conversation with the
Minister of Public Administration suggested some possible openings, and we understand there
is also interest in exploring opportunities for dialogue on the part of the Minister of Local
Government.   Although he declared himself satisfied with Government’s current program of
consultations, the Prime Minister was nevertheless open to suggestions on how consultations
might be done differently.

The challenge here is finding opportunities to support and strengthen the work of the current
government in ways that build renewed confidence in the broader society while at the same
time avoiding simply reinforcing (albeit unintentionally) dysfunctional dynamics of current
polarization.   Dialogue can serve the broad goal of strengthening democratic governance by
taking an inclusive approach, working not only with Government, but with all sectors.  This could
mean, for example, offering capacity development and technical assistance to support and
strengthen strategic initiatives within and across the different sectors in society, or supporting
development of a national agenda which is long‐term and can be shared across parties.

Supporting versus leading processes

In considering the role UNDP might play in Trinidad and Tobago, we think it is important to
recognize the significant difference between supporting (through capacity‐development,
technical assistance, etc) and leading (as a convener or lead organizer) a dialogue process.
Given the current context of mistrust and dialogue fatigue, success in any initiative framed as
multi‐stakeholder dialogue will require that those involved in the process be the ones who
design it and collectively own it.  Taking a highly proactive position, in which UNDP tries to sell
the idea of and "get buy‐in" on a process, would risk raising false expectations and creating a
dynamic in which some sectors agree to participate but with a "wait and see" or "prove it to me"
attitude.  At the same time, given that UNDP has limited influence on the will and actions of
those in power, there would be the risk of a process being co‐opted by a strong Government

16


partner.  These problems could more easily be avoided if the impetus and energy for dialogue
comes from the parties themselves and UNDP acts in support of what they want to achieve.

Another consideration is the capacity of UNDP’s country office, which at its current level limits
how large a role it can take on.  Leading a dialogue process, as opposed to supporting a process
jointly lead by stakeholders, requires enormous time and resources.  At the moment, UNDP is
better positioned to support dialogue in Trinidad and Tobago through capacity development,
technical assistance, and even facilitation than it is to convene, organize and manage a dialogue
process.

“Promoting dialogue” versus “taking a dialogic approach”

Often the language of “democratic dialogue” signifies large events or high‐stakes processes,
requiring substantial staff and resources to organize and manage.  Such processes have been a
significant part of UNDP’s experience and contribution to this field.  At the same time, however,
the resources, tools and skills gained from that experience can be highly relevant for initiatives
that are not formal dialogue processes yet call for UNDP to support people in working together
across boundaries to achieve a common goal. This reality presents an opportunity to "take a
dialogic approach" to ongoing programs and activities.  This would involve integrating the
operating principles, practices and, where relevant, process tools developed for formal dialogue
processes into the day‐to‐day conduct of meetings and other interactions connecting diverse
stakeholders.  We think this approach can make UNDP more effective on the ground and
contribute in a real, if low‐profile, way to strengthening capacity for dialogue in Trinidad and
Tobago.   For more information on the distinction between “dialogue” and “taking a dialogic
approach” refer to pages 33‐34; 49‐51 in Democratic Dialogue: A Handbook for Practitioners.

Ways Forward

With the above considerations in mind, we end this report naming potential areas for further
exploration where UNDP could make meaningful contributions towards strengthening
democratic institutions and culture in Trinidad and Tobago in ways that increase their collective
capacity to address shared challenges.

1. Support for strengthening  government institutions and initiatives

Government is currently engaged in initiatives that involve extensive change throughout the
whole system, from local to national, across different ministries within government and
across different sectors in society.  Some of these initiatives and related consultations have
been highly criticized, either for the substance of what they are doing or the process being
used.   UNDP is interested in supporting the Government in achieving high quality outcomes
on key issues.   Opportunities may exist to support current change initiatives within
17


government where success depends upon achieving more effective processes that enable
higher quality interactions among interdependent stakeholders—both internal (across
departments and ministries) and external (sectors, groups, institutions outside of
government).   In further conversations it is worth exploring with change agents within
Government where they might perceive the need for and express interest in UNDP support
by offering capacity‐development or technical assistance aimed at improving the skills,
processes, and mechanisms that can facilitate change.

2. Encourage and support conversations around shared principles and ethics guiding political
culture and practice

There is a general concern about the ways in which the political polarization in Trinidad and
Tobago infects all aspects of life and holds up progress on important issues of national
concern.  There is also some interest in changing these dynamics—not to eliminate real
differences that exist across parties but to minimize the destructive consequences of
current behavior.   While agreement among the political parties around substantive issues is
neither likely nor necessarily desirable, there may be an opening to build consensus around
shared principles and ethical standards that could help shape a new political culture and
practice that allows the expression of deep difference while at the same time minimizing
destructive polarization and promoting/maintaining social cohesion.

UNDP could explore with key stakeholders potential interest in a process that facilitates
inclusive conversations that bring together members from the different political parties and
within the broader society and enable them to explore together for enacting a more healthy
political culture that inspires trust and restores legitimacy to the political process.

Many will question the usefulness of such a process based on the assumption it will
ultimately be an abstract exercise based on meaningless rhetoric without any real impact.
However, it might go forward based on the assumption that a process focused on principles
can be a positive starting place for beginning to work on dysfunctional patterns of behavior
and can create the possibility of more moderate voices across the political divides to come
together.  This kind of process lends itself to the possibility of more low‐profile informal
conversations that often can play a strategic role in promoting and strengthening change in
democratic culture and practice.

3. Support the creation and strengthening of more effective mechanisms for facilitating
access to and engagement with higher quality, credible information.

There is a generally recognized problem of information in Trinidad and Tobago society in the
sense that citizens lack sources of balanced and credible information that would allow them
to become more informed on important issues.  As a result, the quality of discourse and
participation is poor, and there is a tendency for voting to ultimately fall out along lines of
ethnic identity.  Government consultations are perceived by many to be less about
18


developing an informed citizenry capable of weighing different policy options and more
about advocating and defending decisions already made by those in power.  As noted
above, how one judges the quality of “consultations” depends on the assumptions one
holds about the roles of elected officials and citizens should or should not have,  as well as
the clarity about the different purposes that currently fall under the general term
“consultation” (public education, public deliberation, public dialogue).

In any case, each of these processes that are key to a vibrant democracy depend upon
effective mechanisms and processes that provide citizens with access to credible
information as well as facilitating meaningful engagement with this information in order to
promote shared understanding of the real complexities embedded in the social issues
policies are meant to address.   For obvious reasons these mechanisms and processes often
emerge from and reside in civil society as opposed to being solely based in Government in
order to preserve the kind of non‐partisan objectivity required achieving more
comprehensive, less partial understanding of the issues.

UNDP might explore both within Government as well as Civil Society interest in bringing
together a group of stakeholders who share an interest in exploring ways of creating and
strengthening mechanisms for providing TT citizens with access to higher quality
information and facilitating processes that elevate the role of debate and deliberation.
When done well, in the spirit of deliberation—carefully weighing the benefits and tradeoffs
of different policy choices—public debate can be a strategic vehicle for introducing new
ways of framing issues and working with different perspectives.

4. Observations regarding Tobago

The level of interest in UNDP assistance with democratic dialogue in Tobago Government is
unclear.  Outside of the group of leaders we met with from business and civil society it
seems there are strong forces of resistance to mobilizing productive dialogue in this context.
These include a pervasive sense of apathy and disinterest in engagement on public issues
within the general public, some strong cultural patterns ("crab in bucket", fear, skepticism)
that are further barriers to engagement, and the structural economic dependence on oil
wealth distributed through government employment that holds these patterns in place.
There is a shared concern across sectors about the future of Tobago and a strong sense that
Tobagonians need to take responsibility for shaping the future they want for themselves.

Given these dynamics and the importance of self‐determination in Tobago, UNDP can
assume that a dialogue process, if not initiated and led by local actors, will be unsustainable.
On the other hand, should a locally‐grown, locally‐owned initiative emerge that seeks to
address through multi‐stakeholder engagement key challenges shared by Tobagonians,
relevant opportunities might emerge for UNDP support in terms of capacity development or
technical assistance.

19


5. Support capacity‐development for individuals and groups strategically positioned for
cross‐sectoral engagement around important public issues

Building the dialogic skills of and strengthening relationships among change‐minded
individuals strategically positioned in different sectors in society is an effective way to
develop the social capital and societal capacity for change.   There are groups in the business
sector, civil society, and Government that are already demonstrating the potential for
working across the various divides in Trinidad and Tobago society to address substantive
issues—for example, the Trinidad and Tobago National Youth Council, the Trinidad and
Tobago Group of Professional Associations, the Inter‐religious Organization and the
Association of Local Government Authorities.  The National Productivity Council and
proposed Tripartite Dialogues are cross‐sectoral initiatives that involve national
Government.

The fact of these existing structures and the intentions they represent creates an opening
for UNDP to acknowledge, support and perhaps build upon examples of the kind of
interactions that contribute to a healthy culture of democracy.  To the extent that there is
interest in using dialogic processes, there may be an opportunity to provide capacity
development for individuals engaged in these initiatives.  Training programs in dialogue and
deliberation can allow UNDP to contribute both by raising awareness and building skills as
well as by providing chances to strengthen relationships across sectors.

20


ANNEX 1: PERSONS CONSULTED

Trinidad: Business and Civil Society
(Alphabetical order)

Name Title/Organization Participation
President
Mr. Jonathan Adams Small Enterprising Business Association of Group consultation
Trinidad and Tobago
Member
Mr. Carrall Alexander Group consultation
Council of Presidents of the Environment
President Group and individual
Mr. Michael Annisette
National Trade Union Centre consultation
Editor, UWI Today Group and individual
Ms. Vaneisa Baksh
University of the West Indies consultation
Treasurer
Ms. Marcia Braveboy Group consultation
Media Association of Trinidad and Tobago
Coordinator
Group and individual
Ms. Hazel Brown Network of NGOs of Trinidad and Tobago for the
consultation
Advancement of Women
Treasurer
Ms. Marcia Braveboy Group consultation
Media Association of Trinidad and Tobago
The Hon. Winston Political Leader Group and individual
Dookeran Congress of the People consultation
Chairman Group and individual
Mr. Ian Haywood
National Youth Council consultation
Mr. Stephen Kangal Former foreign minister; columnist
consultation
Treasurer
Bro. Noble Khan Inter‐Religious Organisation of Trinidad and Group consultation
Tobago
Vice‐President
Mr. Cornelius Lewis Trinidad and Tobago Association of Village/
consultation
Community Councils
President
Pundit Bramdeo
Inter‐Religious Organisation of Trinidad and Group consultation
Maharaj
Tobago
Leader of Opposition Business in the Senate Group and individual
Senator Wade Mark
United Nations Congress Alliance consultation
Board of Director Group and individual
Mr. Nicholas Mouttet
Trinidad and Tobago Manufacturers' Association consultation
President
Ms. Angella Persad Trinidad and Tobago Chamber of Industry and
consultation
Commerce
Chief Education and Research Officer
Mr. Ozzi Warwick Group consultation
Oilfield Workers' Trade Union

21


Tobago: Business and Civil Society
(Alphabetical order)

Name Title/Organization Participation
Ms. Wendy Austin Director, Environment TOBAGO Group consultation
President, Tobago Division, Trinidad and Tobago Group and individual
Mr. Sylvan Cruickshank
Association of Villages/Community Councils consultation
Mr. Reginald Dumas Former Ambassador Trinidad and Tobago Group consultation
Mr. Christo Gift Chairman, National Alliance for Reconstruction Group consultation
President, Tobago Hospitality and Tour Operators
Mr. Theodore Greig Group consultation
Association
Group and small group
Ms. Merle Hercules Member, Bethel District Farmers’ Association
consultation
Mr. Fitzgerald Haydes Treasurer, All‐Tobago Fisherfolk Association
consultation
Mr. Anthony R. Hector Founding Member, Media Workers of Tobago Group consultation
Mr. Neil Hernandez Buccoo Seafarers Association
consultation
First Vice‐President, Tobago Hotel and Tourism Group and individual
Mr. Christopher James
Association consultation
Ms. Deborah Moore‐ Deputy Coordinator, Tobago Forum for
Group consultation
Miggins Consensus on the Constitution
Tobago Division, Trinidad and Tobago Chamber of Group and individual
Ms. Vernie Shield
Commerce consultation
Ms. Patricia Turpin President, Environment TOBAGO
consultation
Ms. Rene Vialva Lady Vice President, Tobago Youth Council
consultation

Trinidad: Government
Name Title Participation

The Honourable Patrick Prime Minister of the Republic of Trinidad and
Individual consultation
Manning   Tobago
Mr. Kennedy Individual consultation
Minister of Public Administration
Swaratsingh

Tobago: Government

The Honourable Orville
Chief Secretary, Tobago House of Assembly Small group consultation
London
Special Advisor, Office of the Chief Secretary, Small group consultation
Mr. Wendell Berkley
Tobago House of Assembly

22



Mr. Elton Bobb Chief Administrator, Tobago House of Assembly Small group consultation
Assistant Secretary, Division of Health and Social Small group consultation
Mr. Huey Cadette
Services, Tobago House of Assembly
Special Advisor, Office of the Chief Secretary, Small group consultation
Mr. Frank Roberts
Tobago House of Assembly

23


ANNEX 2: FOCUS GROUPS CONSULTATION FORMAT

The purpose of this section of the meeting was to provide a brief framework for understanding
the importance and relevance of cross‐sectoral engagement processes.  It included some
exercises to help illustrate some of the key challenges related to achieving understanding and
coordination across different sectors of society.  There were four main elements.

1. The graphic below illustrates the areas of interdependence among the different sectors
where there is a need to address common challenges, which typically exceed the capacity of
any one sector to respond adequately.  We talked about multisectoral work as often
involving multiple strategies.  On one hand there may be a need to focus on working within
sectors (intra‐sectoral), for example to build a shared analysis of and alignment on the
issues and to strengthen capacities internally.   At the same time, there is a need to focus on
working across sectors (inter‐sectoral), to strengthen the ability to come together and
develop shared understanding and coordinated action.

We shared some assumptions that guide this view of cross‐sectoral engagement:
• More inclusive participatory processes are required to collectively address the
complex challenges currently being faced by nations and regions. These are
problems that can no longer simply be “fixed” by an outsider  or decreed from top‐
down, but require the active involvement of the whole system within which the
challenges are emerging.

24


• Today’s problems cannot be adequately addressed by the same level of thinking
that created them.
• Any vision or perspective we have conditions how we interpret and act in the world
as well as our way of relating together. Like the proverbial blind man encountering
an elephant, the vision or perspective of any individual or group is always at best
partial and incomplete.
• Systems are always perfectly designed to produce exactly what they are producing.
To get different results, we must do something different and this often requires
taking time to make explicit and reflect on our patterns of thinking and the
assumptions we make that underlie how we define problems and design strategies.
This kind of reflection and analysis is illustrated in the diagram below.

DOUBLE-LOOP LEARNING

Strategy &
Assumptions Results
Actions

Doing differently
Single-loop learning
"Doing the same, only better"

Thinking differently

Double-loop learning
Checking assumptions that inform strategy and action plan

• Dialogue is an important tool that allows groups to tap into the collective
intelligence that resides in the system in order to achieve a more robust and integral
understanding of the nature of the challenges needing to be addressed.

2. We engaged the group in an exercise of naming and exploring important assumptions
people hold that influence how they think change happens and what changes they identify
as important in the current context in Trinidad and Tobago.  To support this, we did a quick
activity that required the group to do some very basic calculations based on a story we told
about a horse that was purchased and sold a couple of times. The exercise helped to
demonstrate one of the core challenges people face in cross‐sectoral
engagements – the challenge of communicating in ways that promote
shared understanding.  Doing this successfully calls for recognition that each
sector typically brings into the conversation very different ways of making
sense of data and experience as illustrated by the groups' experiences with
the horse story.  Even with lots of talking, it can be difficult to get the shared
understanding that is required for effective action.

25


3. We used the following graphic to talk about the different phases of a decision‐making
process as a way of highlighting important distinctions and exploring where along this path
process breaks down.

4. We presented two videos showing very different kinds of multi‐stakeholder engagement
processes. The purpose of this was to illustrate the fact that there are many kinds of
processes to choose from, based on the specific context and purpose, and thereby to help
broaden the vision of what might be possible in Trinidad and Tobago 4 . The first video
showed a cross‐sectoral, multi‐stakeholder process conducted in India, focused on the issue
of child malnutrition.  This was an example of a longer process following a methodology
known as "the U‐Process" that is based on working with a multistakeholder group that is
intended to be a microcosm of the large system it represents.   The process consists of
moving the group through three stages illustrated in the graphic:  Sensing, Presencing,
Realizing.


4
For further information on different social technologies and methodologies for dialogue, deliberation,
and public engagement see National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation website and more specifically
Streams of Engagement Framework

26


This illustrates a methodology that integrates different perspectives and ways of knowing
and incorporates the design and implementation of action as part of the process itself.

The second video presented a large‐scale deliberative process conducted by AmericaSpeaks.
This is a very different kind of process that uses communication technology to enable many
people to discuss issues in small groups, share group ideas with the whole, and finally vote
on those ideas. It is an example of an effective way to engage large numbers of ordinary
citizens in conversation about an important public issue, allowing them to become informed
on the issue and, through public deliberation, bring their voices to bear on how it is decided.

27


ANNEX 3     THINGS THAT SECTORS CAN DO UNILATERALLY, WITHOUT
DEPENDING ON THE OTHER

What GOVERNMENT can do:

• Develop or strengthen mechanisms that demonstrate greater accountability and
transparency so that broader society has clearer idea about current priorities,
approaches, progress and where progress proves difficult—what the challenges are that
Govt is facing.
• Show concern for establishing greater legitimacy and build trust in government
institutions by reaching beyond its current base for political support, and show
willingness to build alliances and involve broader society in issues that affect them.
Identify opportunities (low hanging fruit) where Government can begin to build
relationships of trust.   For example:
o Make visible examples of how consultations across partisan lines have
influenced policy and practice
o Follow through on previous agreements and be intentional about
communicating concretely what has been done or is currently in process and
how it links to previous dialogues or agreements
o Invite feedback and independent assessments that show interest in giving
account to society on select issues.
• Unilaterally commit to rejecting all discourse and behavior that seeks to link election
processes to ethnicity and invite all others in opposition to the same.
• Understand and assume responsibility for how current patterns of behavior reinforce
stereotypes and perceptions.
• Promote and model democratic leadership that invites and honors divergent thinking
and dissent.
• Recognize the long‐term costs moving forward on high‐profile important issues in ways
that leave a significant minority unsatisfied.
o For example, the issue of constitutional Reform could represent an opportunity
to slow down and open space for others rather than pushing forward on a path
that focuses only on securing the right amount of votes in order to force a
decision.   The naming of Professor Hamid Ghany seems like a potentially
positive step forward.
• Mindfully distinguish between and be explicit about those policies and initiatives the
government can push forward on their own and those issues that really warrant more
meaningful engagement of the broader society in order to achieve wiser solutions and
the support necessary for their implementation.
• Distinguish between “substance” and “process”:  Understand the importance of
ensuring not only good content (policies) but also good process – whether or not
policies are good, if processes used to develop and/or implement them are not
perceived as appropriate, however good a policy may be, it will likely be rejected,
resisted, sabotaged.    Rosabeth Moss Kanter once noted astutely “change is disturbing
when it is done to us, exhilarating when it is done by us.”
28


• Expand the repertoire of frameworks and competences one draws on for understanding
different purposes and approaches for civic engagement  –  become familiar with a
diverse array of dialogue or engagement methodologies in order to wisely match the
approach to the purpose.
o When is consultation needed and what should be understood as “consultation”
‐  When is the aim collective decision‐making and when is it simply offering
space for others to participate in order for the government to then make
decisions it deems best.   Too often consultation is confused with shared
decision‐making or consensus.
o When is public deliberation needed as a way of involving other sectors and
ordinary citizens in understanding the benefits and tradeoffs of alternative
options and the core values that underlie them.
o When is dialogue necessary as a way of involving other voices within a system in
order to promote to help name and frame the problems needing to be address.

What individuals and groups in civil society and private sector can do:

• Raise awareness about need within one’s own sector and in the general population for
gaining understanding and accepting responsibility for change.  Promote shared
understanding about their own role in the current patterns that sustain and perpetuate
current reality rather than seeing themselves as outside the problem.   The old maxim
“If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem” has recently been turned
upside down to reflect a systems perspective and now suggests “If you’re not part of the
problem, you can’t be part of the solution.”   When we come to see ourselves as part of
the problems we seek to address, we begin to see more entry points and ways we can
change that can contribute to shifting or promoting more healthy patterns of thought
and behavior.
o Understand that all change does not rest solely on Government.   Show ways of
supporting government initiatives where a strong convergence of interests,
values, and vision exist.   Avoid the simplistic dismissal of all the government
does based on information that is always partial at best.
o Weak institutions produce weak results.   Recognize and value current efforts
within government to strengthen institutions  ‐ recognize and express
agreement and support at least in principle with idea of strengthening
institutions – even if significant differences exist around how this should most
effectively be done (Process).
• Develop its capacity to recognize and support boundary‐crossing spaces where people
with very different perspectives and allegiances are able to work together to pursue
common goals.
• Recognize the “power of one” – when individuals commit to different attitudes,
mindsets and behaviors, this can have influence on others.  Assume responsibility for
changing self rather than others as suggested by the proverbial or trite but very true
idea that change begins with oneself.
o Example of individuals in Tobago
• Promote within organizations and communities processes aimed at strengthening the
capacities of ordinary citizens to engage each other around issues of public importance
29


and work to develop and strengthen a culture of civic engagement, drawing on the
increasingly diverse array of new methodologies and approaches for engaging citizens in
public processes. This is important for ensuring local ownership and responsibility for
change.
• Pursue strategies for exercising their responsibility and opportunity to influence current
political culture by calling all political parties to respect and honor more productive
codes of conduct – Assume their own part in calling those that represent them to
practices more congruent with democratic culture.
• Promote new structures or mechanisms for ensuring higher quality non‐partisan
information that allows citizens to become more informed and able to contribute more
meaningfully.

30

TT Report

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to TT Report

More from Bertrand Bhikarry

Recently uploaded

TT Report