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 .
Transcript
UNDP Trinidad and Tobago Predialogue Inquiry Mission August 23September 3, 2009
Mission Report1 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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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
• Local Government reform
• Productivity
• Crime
• Scenarios for economic sustainability and viability in the future
• Health care
• Environment
• Nation building – moving beyond self / sectoral interests to a collective identity
• 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 things aren’t working
• Belief that dialogue enables more effective exchange of information which produces higher quality analysis and shared understanding, and more intelligent decisions
• Belief that dialogue incorporates values and builds capacities that are important for strengthening democratic culture and practice
• Belief that dialogue yields better, more sustainable outcomes
• Belief that dialogue promotes greater awareness of complexity and limits simplistic partial understandings that lead to misguided strategies and actions
• Increasing awareness of interdependence and the need to strengthen relationships and work together to understand and address challenges
Reasons expressed about why people and/or their sectors might resist participating:
• Perceived lack of commitment to concrete outcomes and mechanisms for accountability
• Fear that divergent thinking or dissent will produce retribution
• Perception of lack of real influence
• Fear of giving legitimacy to foolishness
• Fear of being marginalized in the dialogue process itself
• Perception that current stereotypes and lack of trust block the possibility of authentic collaboration
• Perception of insurmountable conflicts; sense of being stuck in polarized relationships
• Perception of insufficient will and skill
• Fear of being misunderstood
• 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
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.
Figure 1: Elements of an Integrated Perspective on Consultations in Trinidad and Tobago3
INTERIOR EXTERIOR
INDIVIDUAL Values & Attitudes
BAD INTENTIONS
Actions & Behavior
UNSKILLFUL, INEFFECTIVE ACTIONS
COLLECTIVE
Relationships & Culture Group Values & Attitudes
LACK OF SHARED UNDERSTANDING
Structures & Systems Group Actions & Behavior
ANTAGONISTIC PATTERNS OF 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
What “consultation” means
A process by which Government can educate the public about an issue, provide information about how Government proposes to address the issue, and solicit feedback. Its goal is to secure
A process in which citizens are given a chance to become more informed on issues and consider different options for addressing them. The goal is 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).
Citizens are uninformed and lack sufficient expertise to know what’s best.
Citizens lack necessary information but do have that capacity to weigh options, based on local knowledge about what their issues are and what they need and want.
The style of leadership required to address complex problems
Effectiveness depends on decisive leadership in which the leader determines what is needed and provides direction to others.
Effectiveness depends on engaging citizens and helping them name and frame the problem and work together to find solutions.
The role of Government
The government is elected by the people to act on behalf of the people – citizens participate through their vote.
The government’s role is to facilitate systems and structures that permit the 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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
Tobago: Business and Civil Society (Alphabetical order)
Name Title/Organization Participation Ms. Wendy Austin Director, Environment TOBAGO Group consultation
Mr. Sylvan Cruickshank President, Tobago Division, Trinidad and Tobago Association of Villages/Community Councils
Group and individual consultation
Mr. Reginald Dumas Former Ambassador Trinidad and Tobago Group consultationMr. Christo Gift Chairman, National Alliance for Reconstruction Group consultation
Mr. Theodore Greig President, Tobago Hospitality and Tour Operators
Association Group consultation
Ms. Merle Hercules Member, Bethel District Farmers’ Association Group and small group
consultation
Mr. Fitzgerald Haydes Treasurer, All‐Tobago Fisherfolk Association Group and small group
consultation Mr. Anthony R. Hector Founding Member, Media Workers of Tobago Group consultation
Mr. Neil Hernandez Buccoo Seafarers Association Group and small group
consultation
Mr. Christopher James First Vice‐President, Tobago Hotel and Tourism
Association Group and individual
consultation Ms. Deborah Moore‐
Miggins Deputy Coordinator, Tobago Forum for
Consensus on the Constitution Group consultation
Ms. Vernie Shield Tobago Division, Trinidad and Tobago Chamber of
Commerce Group and individual
consultation
Ms. Patricia Turpin President, Environment TOBAGO Group and small group
consultation
Ms. Rene Vialva Lady Vice President, Tobago Youth Council Group and individual
consultation
Trinidad: Government
Name Title Participation
The Honourable Patrick Manning
Prime Minister of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
Individual consultation
Mr. Kennedy Swaratsingh
Minister of Public Administration Individual consultation
Tobago: Government
Name Title Participation
The Honourable Orville London
Chief Secretary, Tobago House of Assembly Small group consultation
Mr. Wendell Berkley Special Advisor, Office of the Chief Secretary,
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.
• 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.
Assumptions Strategy &Actions Results
Single-loop learning
"Doing the same, only better"
Double-loop learning
Checking assumptions that inform strategy and action plan
DOUBLE-LOOP LEARNING
Doing differently
Thinking differently
• 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.
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 Tobago4. 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
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.
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.”
• 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
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.
