Written by: Arsen Stepp, Team Leader
Dialogue as practice, not event
At its core, Platforms for Dialogue was never only about activities, workshops, or outputs. It was about creating conditions where dialogue could happen repeatedly, safely, and with purpose. In a context where trust between citizens, civil society, and government is often fragile, this required patience and long-term engagement rather than quick wins.
Dialogue, in this sense, was not neutral. Bringing citizens and officials into the same room meant navigating power imbalances, scepticism, and at times open discomfort. Early meetings were cautious. Participation was tentative. Over time, repeated interaction changed behaviour. Citizens learned how to articulate issues collectively. Officials began to engage more thoughtfully, moving beyond formal replies toward genuine exchange. In several districts, issues raised during public hearings led to immediate administrative follow-up, reinforcing the idea that speaking up could lead to action.
District Policy Forums as locally owned spaces
The District Policy Forums were designed as bottom-up platforms, rooted in local realities rather than national agendas. In their early stages, they relied heavily on facilitation and confidence-building. For many participants, particularly women and first-time civic actors, this was their first experience engaging directly with district authorities.
What changed over time was not just participation, but ownership. Forum members began convening meetings independently, selecting issues that mattered locally, and following up with officials beyond formal events. In districts such as Bagerhat and Panchagarh, DPF members raised concerns ranging from access to social safety nets to the design of public service spaces. These were not abstract governance debates, but practical issues affecting daily life. The fact that these conversations continued years after P4D’s closure speaks to the durability of the relationships built.
Inclusion as a negotiated space
Inclusion did not happen automatically. Dialogue spaces had to be actively shaped to ensure women, young people, and marginalised voices were present and heard. In conservative settings, this meant recognising social norms that limited women’s participation and adapting formats accordingly.
In several districts, women used dialogue platforms to highlight barriers that had long been normalised, such as the lack of safe and dignified access to public offices. When these issues were raised publicly, they were difficult to ignore. Small but meaningful changes followed, including adjustments to service environments that improved women’s access without requiring formal policy reform. These moments illustrated how dialogue can surface issues that technical fixes alone often miss.
Youth and media as bridges
Young people played a distinct role in sustaining dialogue beyond formal forums. Through partnerships with the National Institute of Mass Communication, young journalists and content creators were trained to understand social accountability tools and translate them into accessible stories. Many went on to apply these skills independently, producing reporting that connected citizen experiences with policy discussions.
This role of the media was not simply to disseminate information, but to act as a bridge. By framing accountability issues through human stories, journalists extended dialogue into the public sphere, reinforcing lessons learned in training rooms and forums. The recognition of this work through media awards signalled a shift from learning to practice, and from project-supported activity to professional identity.
Trust built through repetition
One of the clearest lessons from P4D is that trust is built through repetition rather than design. International learning exchanges and capacity-building programmes exposed officials to alternative ways of engaging citizens, but the real test came after they returned to their desks. In districts where officials had multiple opportunities to interact with citizens through dialogue platforms, attitudes shifted incrementally. Listening became less performative and more routine.
These changes were subtle but significant. Trust was not expressed as agreement, but as willingness to continue engaging, even when conversations were uncomfortable. Over time, this created a shared expectation that dialogue was part of governance practice, not an exception.
Continuity beyond the project
By the time Platforms for Dialogue closed, many of the spaces it helped establish no longer depended on the project itself. District and national forums adapted, combined, and evolved in response to changing contexts. This continuity was not the result of perfect design, but of sustained investment in people and relationships.
For the British Council, this experience reinforces a familiar lesson. Durable change rarely comes from short-term interventions or technical solutions alone. It comes from working through people, building trust across difference, and staying engaged long enough for new practices to take root. Returning to Bagerhat years later made clear that while projects end, relationships, if nurtured carefully, can continue to shape how communities and institutions interact long after the funding cycle has closed.