Overview: In recent years, Western nations have become increasingly polarized. Rising authoritarianism has become a genuine concern. These changes have created a crisis of political leadership. Is it possible to reclaim democracy? In this panel, prominent leaders and practitioners of peace and conflict resolution will argue for the need for a profound change in mindset among democratic leaders. There is a need to move from current adversarial forms of political engagement to more collaborative forms of democracy. Panels will discuss how it is possible to renew democracy through a process critical self-reflection, empathic engagement and transformative problem-solving. Such change will require new forms of leadership at all levels of society. Additional Details: These are hard times for people who want to foster ways to bridge divides. There is rising authoritarianism, entrenched polarization, and deep animosity among political elites. How is it possible to resist extremes and bring people together

Western democracies are built upon a beautiful paradox. We live in an adversarial democracy. Political decisions are made as people organize themselves into parties, develop political positions, debate the issues, and vote. The paradox is that democracy has been able to use adversarial processes to make political decisions without resorting to violence.

However, in recent decades, the foundations of our adversarial democracy have become fractured. We are losing our democratic common ground – the more-or-less shared values and beliefs that democracy needs to survive. As a result, we have become increasingly polarized. People have a difficult time discussing political issues. When talk comes to politics, we take sides. We don’t simply disagree, we tend to view our opponents as out-of-touch, stupid, crazy, and even evil. Parliamentary bodies have become deadlocked. We are experiencing increased authoritarianism and political violence.

In a democracy, political resistance tends to be directed toward voting current administrations and politicians out of office. However, in the context of partisan polarization, even if traditional forms of resistance were to work in this way, they wouldn’t “work” to solve the core problems that divide people. The political pendulum would simply swing from one political party or parliamentary grouping to the other. The core problems that divide people would remain.

We need a realignment, a profound change in mindset, a new way of thinking and doing things. There is thus a need for critical self-reflection by all who oppose authoritarianism, a desire to identify the problems that diverse constituencies are trying to solve. Rejecting us versus them positioning, we must identify the legitimate complaints that motivate people to move toward polarizing solutions – the unmet needs that people are trying to meet – and show how they can and should be met in peaceful democratic ways.

The Need for Renewed Leadership

We need new forms of leadership to restore, renew and reinvent democracy. This panel will discuss forms of leadership needed to reclaim and transform our democratic traditions. We begin with the idea that there is a need to foster more collaborative forms or democracy to supplement, augment and even replace adversarial democracy.

Democracy consists of government by and for the people being governed. It is easy to fall back on the belief that adversarial democracy – the resolution of political conflict through debate – is the only form of democratic decision-making. This is not true.

At its best, adversarial democracy has benefits. They allow people to express their voices; they encourage an exchange of opinion that allows the best possible ideas to rise in the “marketplace of ideas”; they maintain limits on the power of any given constituency. However, in the absence of an “agonistic common ground” – more-or-less shared beliefs, norms and practices that support democratic decision making – adversarial democracy can degenerate into a zero-sum game. When this happens, the purpose of a debate or campaign is not so much to solve social problems as much as it is to win. In the absence of shared democratic norms, adversarial democracy tends to divide rather than unite.

We already know a great deal about how to resolve political conflict. Collaborative forms of democratic decision making exist in principles of conflict management, collaborative problem-solving and dialectical problem solving, and related processes. These systems have long been used to mediate solutions to many of the world’s most difficult political conflicts. It is ironic that collaborative principles of conflict management are not used in the most quotidian of all political conflicts – everyday political decision-making. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that it is the very structure of adversarial politics – the pitting of the interests of one party against the other – that motivates political actors to seek partisan power over the promise of shared problem-solving.

The Panel

This panel will involve short presentations and an interactive discussion among four individuals:

Antje Herrberg is an international mediator, teacher and coach. She has worked as chief of staff, and senior mediation advisor to the European Union’s External Action Service and the UN Standby Team of Mediation Experts. Since 1989, she has worked to overcome divisions through facilitated dialogue across the globe. Founder of a peace mediation organisation (now conciliation resources), she was a chief advisor to the late Nobel Peace Laureate Martti Ahtisaari (former President of Finland) , and a mediation director of the Crisis Management Initiative. In addition, she was the Europe Director for Interpeace and functioned as the Regional Director for the EastWest Institute.

Mark Gerzon is President and Founder of Mediators Foundation and is one of a key figures in fostering global leadership through conflict management. He is the author of a suite of books, including Just Neighbors: This Land is Our land. Or Is It? (Mediators Productions), The Reunited States of America: How We Can Bridge the Partisan Divide (2016, Barrett-Koehler), Global Citizens: How Our Vision of the World is Outdated, and What We Can Do About It (2010, Rider), Leading through Conflict (2006, Harvard Business Review).

Steve Killelea is founder and chair of the Institute for Economics and Peace (Australia), a think tank that studies relations among peace, business, and prosperity. He is the

principal architect of the Halo initiative which seeks to apply systems thinking to the analysis and promotion of positive peace throughout the globe. He is the author of Peace in the Age of Chaos: The Best Solution for a Sustainable Future (2021, One Tree Films). He will address three basic themes: (a) the need for a new philosophy for our age, currently we do not have one that fits the modern age (b) realignment of government priorities back to productivity and competition and away from inclusion — but with empathy, and (c) exploring how to cultivate an era of integrity after the age of Trump.

Michael F. Mascolo is Professor of Psychology at Merrimack College (North Andover, MA, USA) and Director of Creating Common Ground – a nonprofit devoted to helping people bridge socio-political divides. He will speak on the use of collaborative problem-solving as a way of bridging political divides and solving wicked socio-political problems. With his colleagues, he has developed and studied the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving and dialectical engagement as modes of bridging political divides. He is currently completing Bridging Political Divides: A Collaborative Developmental Approach (Cambridge University Press).

Session Structure

This panel will invite the audience to challenge their assumptions about political engagement. The panel will be organized as follows:

1.Introduction

2.Panelist Insights: Each panelist will elaborate the conception of how to foster leadership that can bridge divides between and among polarized people and parties.

3.Panel Discussion

4.Audience Engagement