This paper reports the results of the first of a series of co-laboratories organized by Cypriot peace pioneers 30 months after the negative outcome of the referendum concerning UN General Secretary's plan for reunification of the island. The purpose of this colaboratory was to support a diverse group of disengaged and disappointed peace pioneers and activists representing Turkish and Greek communities of Cyprus develop a shared understanding of factors contributing to the perceived widening of the gap between the two divided communities in Cyprus. The co-laboratory was organized using the structured dialogic design process (SDDP) approach within the context of a rich web-based communication environment. The root causes contributing to the widening of the gap are discussed and are also compared with those identified during a similar co-laboratory employing the Interactive Management methodology 12 years earlier.

Personal moral responsibility, public ethics and accountability in policy making and governance are the essential ingredients (supported by legal measures) which we need in order to institutionalize respectful dialogue across diverse stakeholders at the local, national and international level. The idea is to ensure that the process supports subsidiarity, namely those at the receiving end of a decision should be party to the decision making process, thereby ensuring that complex decisions can be made that represent the needs of the majority whilst taking into account the needs of the minority whose ideas could be vital for problem solving. By engaging in processes that enhance participatory democracy we can match decisions more appropriately and enable people to have ownership of the ideas. Semiotics for the purpose of this paper is about exploring ideas with people and carefully considering who is making the argument, what the arguments mean to individuals and interest groups and why. Critical systemic engagement refers to two way dialogue ('a cybernetics of cybernetics') aimed at achieving syntheses or preserving difference to the extent that difference does not undermine the freedom or diversity of others. Representation is one of the major challenges if democracy is to be enhanced, if terrorism is to be prevented and if people are to be able to understand the consequences of their decisions-a cultural shift-that is needed to develop more sustainable futures. Through the process of engaging in dialogue ideas need to be explored by asking: who said this, why and in what context? How do their ideas overlap or diverge from others? Representation in diverse democracies needs to be based on engagement, not just voting. This is one of the major challenges if democracy is to be enhanced, if terrorism is to be prevented and if people are to be able to understand the consequences of their decisions-a cultural shift-that is needed to develop more sustainable futures. Legal measures that make respectful dialogue constitutional need to be embedded as covenants internationally, thereby ensuring that complex decisions can be made that represent the needs of the majority whilst taking into account the needs of the minority whose ideas could be vital for problem solving. Sustainability needs to be institutionalized.

This paper proposes the thesis that it is unethical to plan an action for social change without excavating the knowledge and wisdom of the people who are responsible for implementing the plans of action and the people whose lives will be affected. But the people, being immersed in contemporary complexity, do not know what they know until they know it as a consensus emerging from structured dialogue among a group which represents all stakeholders. We argue that the science of dialogic design may be used to achieve such an emergence. As a consequence, it satisfies the Özbekhan Axiom of Engagement and the Laouris Law of Requisite Action. The paper elaborates for the first time on the ethics of the ‘Tree of Action’, which some stakeholders participating in co‐laboratories have called the ‘Tree of Life’. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This paper summarizes results of a co-laboratory that took place 33 months after the negative outcome of the referendum on the UN's proposal for the solution of the Cyprus problem, and which was a follow-up (3 months later) of a previous co-laboratory. The earlier co-laboratory explored factors contributing to the increasing gap between the two conflicting communities. The co-laboratory reported here engaged relevant stakeholders (peace pioneers, academics, business people, activists and others representing the Turkish and Greek speaking communities of Cyprus) to come up with options aiming to enhance the social dialogue between the two communities. The Structured Dialogic Design Process was used to structure 27 proposed options and develop an influence map. The deep drivers, i.e., most influential factors, determined decisions taken by the participating peace pioneers regarding their future interventions. The results are also discussed within the framework of current (analysis reflects the political situation during the period reported here) political developments.

No abstract