How the monarch now follows through on decentralization will greatly determine to the extent he is able to achieve his most cherished goals: sustainable socio-economic development of the Kingdom achieved through participatory democracy; and a resolution of the Western Saharan conflict by way of meeting the self-determined needs of people in the region as part of the Kingdom.

There are four major paths to a nation’s decentralization that have been applied around the world. Morocco’s decentralization roadmap is highly innovative in that it combines three of the four approaches. The three arrangements incorporated in Morocco’s plan are devolution, deconcentration, and delegation, or what the King often refers to as the participatory democratic method (Morocco’s roadmap does not incorporate privatization, and instead intends to use public funds to implement the plan).

In the past, decentralization in Ghana, Ivory Coast, Canada, and China applied more heavily the devolution model, which emphasizes greater authority and capacities among local government. In Tanzania, under the still revered President Julius Nyerere, delegation occurred in which groups of people living as a community exercised self-government in all matters which concerned their own affairs. And India and Sri Lanka utilized deconcentration, whereby government and community groups collaborate to promote development.

Morocco’s incorporation of the three approaches would create a progressive system whereby provincial and local government, and communities and their organizations, exercise decision-making authority, newly built skills, and other capacities, including financial, to carry out greater developmental responsibilities. Furthermore, His Majesty emphasizes that ultimate determination of specific kinds of projects should rest with local communities, or the beneficiary groups. Local beneficiaries are the “engine and objective” and are to “take charge” of programs, with government and civil support.

The King of Morocco should now use his upcoming November 6th speech to build on the existing roadmap by offering more specifics on the reforms and initiatives that will carry out decentralization. Here are some suggestions:

First, local civil and government technicians (across Moroccan ministries) require training in facilitating participatory methods that assist communities in analyzing their challenges and determining project solutions (in job creation, clean drinking water, school construction, etc.). This necessitates, for example, new development studies and training programs at universities (including here at Morocco’s flagship Al Akhawayn University), well beyond the few recently created in the country. Morocco’s goal to train 10,000 new social workers and the same number of engineers per year should include in their curriculum building skills in managing project development and participatory democracy. Since universities play an indispensable role toward decentralization, the King ought to announce his intention to establish the first university in Western Sahara.

Second, His Majesty should take this opportunity to highlight important lessons from Morocco’s National Initiative for Human Development and suggest how they may guide the implementation of decentralization. Scores of Moroccans benefitted from the Initiative, and it raised the public’s consciousness about sustainable development, creating fertile ground for decentralization. However, as the King himself suggested, the Initiative has been too centrally managed, which contradicts its original intention of promoting local self-reliance. Far more non-government facilitators of community planning of Initiative projects are needed. The Ministry of Interior, charged with internal national security, has been in too much control and results unfortunately show. Therefore, although the King’s ongoing role in the decentralization process is essential, central government should not be the primary caretaker, but rather a new “third-party” agency inside the royal cabinet is probably necessary.

Finally, there are too many cases where local officials of the Ministry of Interior have stirred distrust and division, particularly in rural areas where most of Morocco’s poverty exists, impeding collaborative development. Decentralization should reform their traditional functions, and subsume them to local Communes, which are governed by elected representatives directly involved in meeting human needs. Reforming the Ministry of Interior is inevitable if genuine decentralization is to occur, and the King now stating so will increase public awareness and confidence. After all, as he recognizes, it is the people, minimally encumbered, who are to grab hold of their own development.

After making unintentional remarks about the arrest of Professor Gates in his home by Sergeant James Crowley of the Cambridge police, President Obama extended an invitation to the gentlemen for a beer at the White House–a positive gathering which occurred on July 30th. The idea it seems behind the invitation is that direct communication between parties involved in a conflict (in this case, Dr. Gates and Sgt. Crowley) and a skilled third-party facilitator (here the President of the United States), can advance mutual understanding among the participants.

Attorney General Eric Holder also underscored the dialogue theme in his noted speech about race. He said that “we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race,” and that “we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us.” Participatory communication to which Mr. Holder seems to refer is an internationally applied methodology that builds more productive racial-ethnic relations through inclusive direct dialogue. The process begins with groups building trust (by sharing and acknowledging life experiences), leading to expressions of regret. Racial dialogue and reconciliation at the local level can gradually become vehicles for participants to collaboratively plan and implement their priority socio-economic and environmental initiatives.

Mr. Holder’s comment in that speech that received great (negative) attention–that we are “essentially a nation of cowards”–was directed at the reality that we as a nation commonly avoid inter-personal and -group dialogue on issues of race (and, for that matter, religion). People may not have the opportunity to participate in discussions about race, but also they may not want to in order to not feel the discomfort that can go along with conversing about how race can determine opportunities in life, for example. While recognizing it is difficult, Holder suggests that people ought to persist and talk through hard issues.

From these two incidences involving the President and the Attorney General, what can we learn about how the Obama administration might approach crux issues such as an apology from the federal government for slavery, affirmative action and reparations, and institutional racism (in the criminal justice system, the economy, health, and education) creating disproportionate levels of poverty and incarceration among African Americans particularly?

Foremost, Obama’s policies may significantly grow from inter-racial “listening” (an act often repeated by Obama)–or racial dialogue across U.S. communities. In fact, policies and programs that create constructive local dialogue about racial and ethnic experiences and partnership could be viewed by the administration as an end in itself.

This approach to managing racial issues embodies the President’s bottom-up philosophy, and could unfold in society in the following way. Understanding and relationships among racial and ethnic groups are built during inclusive local dialogue. Then, coalitions form and local racial movements composed of diverse groups spread horizontally–from one group to another and from one community to another through peers, its demonstration effect, and the ongoing training and work of facilitators. The local movements then partner and have a vertical effect–on state and national laws and policies.

For this to happen, dialogue at the community level needs to be catalyzed, facilitated, and sustained. What kinds of programs then spur on these local bottom-up processes? To start, the U.S. Department of Education could dedicate funding to compiling existing and creating new participatory dialogue activities that provide some structure to group dialogue to maximize information sharing, and build trust and partnership. A warehouse of racial dialogue tools ought to be made available on-line.

People, particularly those in a position to apply them, need to be trained in facilitating community-dialogue. Training can be given to leaders in government from the many departments who liaison with local communities; members of communities of faith with support from the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships; AmeriCorps and other grassroots volunteers; university students through community-building programs; and community workers from Organizing for America, the successor organization to Obama for America. Civil society organizations working on issues of racial reconciliation would be indispensible partners for their community outreach and capacity to train.

The emerging position of Obama on race does not seem as much focused on end solutions to our most challenging problems, but rather more on the process of how sustainable solutions may be found. Under Obama, then, race-related programs and policies would not be directed toward pre-determined ends, but rather reflect the consensus position derived from countless community conversations. The end for Obama, then, which utilizes magnificently his skills and identity, is to build the means by which people can come together and talk.

Community organizers help local groups develop action plans and implement local development. Community organizers do not decide for others what their most pressing needs are, but rather facilitate dialogue as people together assess their challenges and opportunities and create socio-economic projects they want. Community organizers are negotiators, conflict managers, and help build mutually beneficial and peaceful relationships.

The reality is that neighborhoods and villages of people generally do not spontaneously come together to improve their socio-economic conditions. Catalysts are needed to jump-start the process and organize meetings. Communities do not automatically work through conflicts that naturally arise when they together plan local development and consider the broad range of interests and ideas reflected among them. Third party facilitators help to ensure an inclusive, partnership-building, and productive experience. Community organizers perform these and other key functions until development initiatives are self-sustaining and people are meeting their needs through their own capabilities (material, skills, and network).

Community organizing has a deep history in the United States. Its first initiatives in urban areas in the late 1800s were inspired by Alexis de Tocqueville and John Dewey — philosophers who connected community development to the intrinsic identity of the country. Contemporary community development grew significantly in the United States in the 1960s and its political roots are in decentralization and federalism — concepts embodied in the Constitution and that the Republican Party historically championed.

So what kind of social policies come out of the community organizing perspective? None that warrant its attack at the Republican National Convention. For one, Senator Obama’s community organizing perspective had to have informed his recent proposals to reform the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives to broaden access to support while reducing unhealthy government-religion entanglements. Community organizing redresses the dislocation of families in the United States and around the globe caused by free trade or other social and natural phenomenon. People with community organizing backgrounds would likely intuitively know that for reconstruction and reconciliation in Iraq to endure, it needs to be locally-driven — a lesson finally applied by the United States after billions of dollars wasted and insecurity reigned in that country for years. In fact, community organizing is about rallying people’s participation, which is needed to deal with the range of domestic and international issues facing the United States. Most likely, the community organizing perspective of Senator Obama helped his presidential campaign put in place strategies that generated historic levels of grassroots support throughout the country for his election and enabled him to overcome significant odds to win the Democratic Primary.

Barack Obama should take advantage of this political opportunity created by the ironic remarks of Republicans Governor Palin and Mayor Giuliani and explain how community organizing directly relates to successfully dealing with the serious challenges confronting the United States, including terrorism. Facilitators of and participants in well organized community development initiatives are empowered in such a way that diminishes feelings of alienation and the kind of discontent that can lead to violence.

The Obama campaign ought to make the case that community organizing is the right kind of experience needed at the highest level of decision-making. Non-ideological, pragmatic Republicans that support their party for the very reason it was founded — to better enable the people of states and communities to manage their own affairs — may see that their priorities are better served through the community organizing experience of Barack Obama.