Access the essential membership for Modern Managers
The Mont Fleur Scenarios of 1990 aimed to bring opposing political factions in South Africa together in order to explore a new way forward for the country in the aftermath of the abolition of apartheid. This article demonstrates how scenario planning can be used to great effect in the public and political arenas.
In 1990 South Africa underwent a monumental change. After almost half a century of apartheid, a political and social system for systemically separating the races, and decades of worldwide protest, South Africa replaced its white majority rule by an alliance of people of all colors.
The Mont Fleur Scenarios were designed to help bring the opposing political factions and social perspectives together in order to achieve a common vision of South Africa’s future. It was decided that scenarios were the ideal way to allow people to explore alternative futures as they take an informal and indirect approach that is very different to traditional methods such as negotiation.
Purpose of the Scenarios
The purpose of the scenario discussions was to encourage debate amongst all citizens as to how best to shape the next 10 years of South Africa’s future. This project addressed the need for a strategic conversation between parties, groups and factions who had previously only met each other across the battlefield. The ultimate aim was not to arrive at one specific answer that everyone agreed on, but rather to bring the many conflicting views closer together towards some common ground and broad agreement.
The public debate and discussion about South Africa’s future took place between September 1991 and December 1992. Within this context, a group of 22 highly prominent South African men and women from all shades of the political spectrum converged to explore, develop and share a set of possible storylines that could represent South Africa’s future over the period from 1992 to 2002.
At the outset, many were pessimistic about what they felt could realistically be achieved. To keep the process focused and relevant, the participants were informed that the discussion should not be about what they hoped would happen but rather what could and might happen. It was felt that this was more likely to help the group achieve a common understanding.
The 22 participants were split into subgroups and asked to focus on the question of what might happen to South Africa over the next 20 years. After a lengthy discussion, the groups were brought back together and now had 30 scenarios for consideration. During the discussion of the scenarios, everyone was prohibited from criticizing the scenarios. Instead, the group members were encouraged to ask questions such as ‘Why does that happen?’ and, ‘What happens next?’ If the presenter found they were unable to answer such questions, they were required to sit down.
This process of presentation and questioning was necessary as the group needed to explore and discuss the scenarios in depth, in order to whittle them down from 30 to four. Useful scenarios were deemed to be stories that were both logically consistent and plausible. After considerable debate and discussion, the group arrived at four distinct stories, which were all concerned with the nature of the political transition. The scenarios agreed upon, presented in their simplest form, are as follows:
Ostrich
In this scenario no negotiated settlement to the crisis in South Africa would be achieved and the country’s government would continue to be minority-led and non-representative.
Lame Duck
In the lame duck scenario, a settlement to the crisis would be agreed. However, the move towards a new dispensation would be very slow and indecisive.
Icarus
This scenario would see a rapid transition to a new political order, but the new government would insist upon the pursuit of an untenable, populist economic policy.
Flight of the Flamingos
The Flight of the Flamingos would entail a sustaining of the new government’s policies, leading to inclusive growth and democracy.
Unlike scenarios used in business environments, the Mont Fleur Scenarios had little research or quantification underlying them. They held considerable significance, however, because a very broad group had compiled them collaboratively. Holding to the original agreement, the scenarios were well-founded mental models about possible futures as opposed to desired ones.
The outline of each scenario was developed into a concise, logical narrative and given a relevant and memorable title. The team then set out to present and discuss the four scenarios with 100 or so groups, including political parties, corporate organizations, and trades unions. This process helped to build a shared vocabulary, language and understanding.
This, in turn, promoted a climate for settling the crisis. Indeed, the whole country seemed to be talking about the four scenarios. Talk of flamingos and lame ducks consumed South African churches, radio stations and workplaces.
The scenarios continued to be debated and it emerged that the new South Africa would not work under continued minority rule (ostrich), tightly circumscribed majority rule (lame duck), or socialism (Icarus). As a result, the Flight of the Flamingos emerged as the only option for success.
This broad consensus was a phenomenal achievement in such turbulent times. When the team initially came together, members had no shared perspective on the difficulties of transition. Discussing the distinctions between the various scenarios helped them achieve a common view on some of the problems.
Summary
The role played by scenario thinking in the South Africa example was significant. Unlike negotiation, scenario thinking does not pit opposing groups directly against one another, but rather focuses attention on what they have in common rather than the differences between the groups. Participants are encouraged to see and use a common language to understand all the issues. The Mont Fleur Scenarios proved that scenario planning could be of significant use in helping disputing parties reach agreement. The wide range of scenarios discussed meant that participants could continue to disagree over the past and present while acknowledging and agreeing upon possible futures. The multiparty scenarios used at Mont Fleur eased the difficult transition from De Klerk to Mandela and demonstrated that scenarios are a promising tool for public consensus building.
