The dictionary of contemporary English defines dialogue as a conservation that examines differences of opinion between leaders. The dictionary of contemporary English defines dialogue as a conservation that examines differences of opinion between leaders.
However, the English Language records two types of dialogues, these are constructive dialogue and the dialogue of the deaf. Constructive dialogue involves the airing of views, discussions, and debates to reach a consensus.
Dialogue of the deaf, on the other hand, refers to a discussion or a negotiation in which each side ignores the argument advanced by the other party.
Indeed, nothing can be more cherished in our society today towards conflict resolution than the use of constructive dialogue.
This is because the use of violence or the disruption of a system most times has tended to tear apart the fractious components welded together by the common goal of building a nation for us all.
Of note, is the fact that violence itself is a product of a failed or non-application of dialogue with the attendant consequences of disunity, disorder, and chaos in the society.
In order words, in any society in which dialogue fails and violence becomes the order of the day, there is bound to be little or no progress.
That is why over the years, our society has witnessed sporadic violence largely because of our reluctance to imbibe the culture of constructive dialogue in the settlement of disputes.
What is discernible from this is that while most people want to claim their rights, they have refused to recognise the rights of others, or to understand the prevailing circumstances in which certain decisions are made when they are not favourable to them.
It is in this perspective that we see the need for individual communities and groups in society to rub minds on burning socio-economic and political issues to reach a middle ground that is conducive for all.
This has become pertinent given our democratic dispensation and the various fora open to people to canvass their interest no matter how extreme such interest may be.
This implies that at all times the use of violence or any other act likely to be counter-productive and not to the interest of the masses should be discouraged in the settlement of disputes.
There is no gain in saying the fact that violence or disruption never wins or achieves victory and even if it does such victory is always known to be pyrrhic or won at too great a cost.
We must agree that the situation we find ourselves in today is a result of our past deeds or misdeeds or even our failure to take action when we should.
Therefore, we cannot expect overnight solutions to problems we have piled up through decades.
There is a need to imbibe a culture of tolerance mutual respect, goodwill, equity, and fair play.
It becomes necessary if our nascent democracy shall survive, all the different segments of Nigerian society must sink their differences and establish a way forward along the lines of equity, justice, and fair play.
Thus, those tribal leaders or ethnic champions who prefer to play the drums of war to serve their interests should realise that in this age a man’s heroism is not measured by the number of human heads he brings from war or how many communities he has decimated.
A man’s achievement these days is reckoned by the progress and development he or she has attracted to his community and society at large.
It is indeed a task before our political class to build a culture of dialogue that allows us to hear the viewpoints of every member of the society instead of overheating the policy. This is necessary for the sustenance of democracy in our nation.
Add comment