“This article originally appeared in Track Two (Vol. 7 No. 1 April 1998) , a quarterly publication of the Centre for Conflict Resolution and the Media Peace Centre (South Africa).”
Mediation emerged in South
Africa through its use in labour disputes during the 1980s, but
remained suspect as a method to deal with political and community
conflict. Due to the dramatic changes following the release of
Nelson Mandela in 1990, mediation became not only acceptable, but
indeed quite popular.
With pre-election violence
on the rise, the National Peace Accord strengthened this
tendency, and introduced mediation as a tool for conflict
resolution to communities across the country through the various
peace committees established under its auspices. The demand for
training in mediation escalated, and the Centre for Conflict
Resolution (CCR) and its counterparts stepped in to meet some of
this demand.
The approach towards
mediation that CCR adopted was largely influenced by Ron
Kraybill, former director of training at the Centre and now based
at Eastern Mennonite University in Virginia, U.S. Kraybill came
to CCR in 1990 as the nationwide demand for mediation escalated
and the Centre was developing its mediation and training
services.
Kraybill favoured a
non-directive approach. This approach assumes that the best
solutions are produced when parties listen to each other in a new
way, and co-operate in the generation of options to arrive
jointly at the preferred solution. There should be no form of
coercion or manipulation by the mediators. The parties must solve
their own problems, because in this way their self-respect is
served and the outcome is more sustainable.
The role of the mediator
is therefore to be a facilitator of communication. The mediator’s
task is to enable the parties to listen to each other on a deeper
level than their previous hostile attitudes allowed. A mediator
must ensure that the parties have heard each other adequately,
and that each has developed sufficient understanding of the
other’s perceptions, motivations and interests. Improved
listening then leads to better mutual understanding, which
strengthens the imperative to reach an inclusive solution, as far
as possible taking the interests of all parties into
consideration.
In order to achieve these
objectives, the mediation process is served by a basic procedural
structure. This includes the establishment of process ground
rules by the parties themselves, ample time for storytelling,
uninterrupted time for each side to state their perceptions and
feelings, and joint problem solving. The mediators rely heavily
on their listening, paraphrasing and summarising skills, checking
continuously whether people have been correctly understood.
This approach has suited
South Africa well. Non-directive mediation is highly appropriate
in situations where parties need to cooperate in future because
the level of interdependence is high. It is also highly
appropriate in conflicts fuelled by basic differences in values
or world views. Under such conditions the emphasis of mediation
on promoting mutual understanding and on improving relationships
is to be preferred over approaches that rely on arbitration or
coercion.
In applying this approach,
however, South African mediators have found themselves struggling
with specific issues. These issues are certainly not unique to
the South African situation, but they have influenced our
understanding of mediation and its applicability. Three issues in
particular deserve comment namely, impartiality, dealing with the
emotional and psychological dimensions of conflict in the
mediation process, and mediation as a form of empowerment.
impossible
An almost dogmatic tenet
of CCR’s understanding of mediation is that mediators have to be
impartial. Impartiality is understood as an attitude that gives
equal respect to the parties involved and treats them with an
equal amount of fairness. It is deemed necessary because all
parties concerned need to trust the mediator. Without such trust,
the process of mediation cannot succeed. If one of the parties
perceives the mediator as partial they will probably withdraw or
disrupt the process in some way.
The problem faced by South
African mediators is that so many of the manifestations of
conflict at local level have their roots in the deep underground
of the general South African crisis. The struggle in South Africa
was (and still is) about justice for all, a fairer economic
dispensation, addressing grossly unfair historical socio-economic
imbalances and promoting genuine democracy. At a still deeper
level it is about the seemingly incompatible clash between the
basic human needs of different groups, such as the needs for
identity, security, participation, subsistence and freedom.
No single South African
can claim to be unaffected by the pull of these forces or by our
historical background. It is admittedly possible for some people
to put more distance between themselves and these issues than
others, but real impartiality is not possible. The strong
value-laden nature of so much of this condition – as well as the
deep emotions involved – make impartiality impossible. How
impartial can one be, for example, when the conflict is between a
squatter community fighting for their right to a place to stay
and officials bent on destroying their shacks in mid-winter? How
impartial can one expect a black mediator to be when one of the
parties around the table is a well-known apartheid stalwart?
Yet, in spite of this
dilemma, mediators have been successful and conflicts have been
solved. One of the theoretical ways to deal with this is to
emphasise the moral justifiability of the position of a
“process advocate”. The process advocate’s task is to
focus on the fairness and the effectiveness of the process of
mediation in the belief that through the dynamics of an
appropriate process, the parties will reach an understanding that
meets their needs and interests (and thus serves the demands of
justice and fairness).
This enables mediators to
suspend their own views and feelings for the duration of the
process. “Good process” becomes almost a value in
itself. Commitment to “good process” transcends the
more pressing emotions and values because of the inherent faith
in its ability to achieve a fair outcome. It boils down to a
distinction between moral impartiality (which is impossible and
unacceptable) and technical impartiality. Technical impartiality
refers to the mediator’s ability to treat all people with
respect, to manage the mediation process in a way that is fair
and even-handed, to listen deeply to what each party is saying,
to identify deeper emotions and needs, and, through the skill of
paraphrasing, to determine whether each party has been adequately
understood by all.
The emphasis on being a
process advocate, however, is not the complete answer. The extent
to which one’s perceptions of a “good process” are
influenced by one’s own deeper values and experiences is often
not acknowledged. Moreover, although the mediator may achieve
genuinely high levels of technical impartiality, in the final
analysis impartiality, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the
beholder. Impartiality is an allocated value – allocated to the
mediator by parties deeply entrenched in their own perceptions
and stereotypes. How impartial can a black group perceive a white
mediator to be, and vice versa?
There are also other ways
in which CCR has grappled with this issue over the years. Where
feasible it sought to deploy a balanced team of mediators (e.g.
one black mediator and one white), but in reality this was seldom
possible. There were instances where CCR mediators exercised
their option of withdrawing as mediators and moving into the role
of advocacy. This happened, for example, when mediating in an
ongoing taxi conflict which led to acts of violence and loss of
life. Because one of the parties to the conflict was perceived to
be defeating the purpose of finding a just solution, failing over
an extended period of time to stick to agreements and being
implicated in acts of violence, the mediators issued a statement
in which they declared their understanding of the situation and
withdrew as mediators.
In the final analysis
mediators need to be in touch with their own feelings and
recognise their own prejudices. Whereas impartiality remains
impossible, the negative effects of this situation can be
countered most effectively when mediators are aware of what is
happening in their own hearts and minds and are therefore able to
control it. The implication, however, is that the technical
ability to be impartial requires a level of psychological
maturity in the mediator. Training to be a mediator can therefore
never be only about acquiring technical skills, it has at the
same time also to be about personal growth and maturity.
dimensions of mediation
A phenomenon faced
continuously by South African mediators is the recycling of
conflicts. A mediation session produces an outcome. Both parties
seem relieved and satisfied. A few months later, however, the
same parties are in conflict again. Different issues appear on
the agenda, but with strong indications that the conflict is
deriving its energy from the same deep emotional storage tanks.
It is as if every fight
that is fought taps its energy from the collective pool of anger
and fear built up during the centuries. Very few serious
conflicts are apolitical or completely stripped of the impact of
collective memories. In the South African context, therefore,
avoiding or neglecting the deep-rooted emotional aspects of
conflict results in recurrent conflict and an increasingly
irrational aspect to it.
Three years ago a town in
the Southern Cape was hit by a strike of municipal workers on
remuneration issues. The workers were organised in two labour
unions, one mostly supported by black workers and the other by
white workers. This strike was by the black labour union and it
became ugly. Rumours of threats against people’s lives and
property abounded. The municipal building was smeared with human
faeces at one stage. There was absolutely no love lost between
the workers and management and, more importantly, between the
workers and those organised by the other union.
When an agreement was
reached between the union and management, the largely white union
threatened to go on strike because they thought that the other
union was getting away with unacceptable behaviour and that an
injustice was done. Eventually the situation was defused and all
went back to work, but relationships were not restored. In spite
of attempts to encourage the municipality to pay attention to
this aspect, it was ignored.
Levels of frustration
remained high. A significant number of officials reported
stress-related illnesses, the labour union frequently embarked on
obstructionist activities (the town clerk was kept hostage in his
office twice in the past year), and productivity fell as did
public perception of the municipality’s performance. Solutions
were being sought on the level of pay packages and disciplinary
procedures, but the anger obviously was not going to go away.
The one outstanding lesson
from this experience is that mediation should not be terminated
once a superficial settlement is achieved. In order to resolve
the conflict the mediators have to create a safe space where
participants can talk openly about their past experiences and
about their anger and fear. The purpose is to encourage the
growth of mutual understanding and trust – vital ingredients for
the success of any corporate enterprise. Mediation in this
context should therefore be viewed as a long-term process which
should not be terminated at the moment of a settlement, and which
cannot avoid dealing with fundamental emotional and psychological
issues.
There are two practical
realities that prevent the implementation of a long-term
approach. The first is the aspect of financing. Parties are
normally so relieved to achieve some form of settlement that
defuses the situation, that continued expenditure of time and
money in the process ceases to be a priority. Secondly, mediators
are not necessarily equipped with the therapeutic skills to deal
with the deep emotional underground of such conflicts. Training
in mediation tends to emphasise technical skills and to neglect
the equally necessary training in counselling skills.
A related issue is the
care given to the psychological well-being of the mediator.
Mediators are subjected to particular kinds of stress. A
mediation session in itself is very stressful because of the
demands it places on the mediators to stay calm and deal with
strong emotional undercurrents (and explosions) between the
parties. It becomes particularly stressful when the conflict out
there is nothing but an outward manifestation of an internal
struggle. If, for example, the conflict has overtones of racism,
it inevitably feeds on the internal struggle of the mediators to
come to grips with the effect of racism on their own lives.
The implications are
twofold. Firstly, it emphasises the need for mediators to have
their own safe space for dealing with their internal struggles
and to be open about the effects of certain situations on them.
Conflict resolution centres such as CCR would do well to give
much more urgent priority to this aspect than is currently the
case. Failure to do this will not only have an effect on the
quality of the performance of mediators in the field, it will
also avenge itself on the internal well-being of the
organisation.
Secondly, there are
definite implications for training. Training would-be mediators
in different skills without paying serious attention to
self-awareness and personal growth will leave them unequipped to
deal with the most difficult aspect of mediation. Even at the
level of role playing it is demonstrated again and again how
easily mediators become emotionally affected by a conflict if
they are not aware of their own vulnerabilities.
The inherent ability of
mediation to create greater equality in power relationships is
one of its major attractions. By establishing ground rules for
discussions that govern all parties in the same way, by allowing
each party the freedom to tell its story, by introducing
mechanisms to check whether each party’s position has been
adequately understood by all, and by sitting around the same
table without the more powerful party being in charge of the
discussions, the outward trappings of equality or of a level
playing field are established.
Consider, for example, the
scene where an illiterate and unskilled farmworker sits across
from the farm-owner at a table discussing the fairness of the
farm- owner’s plans to demolish the worker’s dilapidated house.
The discussion happens on a level not before possible because the
mediator creates a safe atmosphere where the farmworker can
express his feelings and ideas. Or, another example, where
leaders of a squatter community meet the officers in charge of
the local police and discuss relationship issues, expressing
their feelings and frustration with what they perceive as bias by
some police. These discussions could of course happen without a
mediator. The process managed by the mediator, however, creates a
sense of safety for the relatively disempowered and encourages
the expression of ideas and feelings in a way that enhances the
potential of good communication.
There can be no doubt that
the mediation process empowers the relatively disempowered. This
fact, however, creates a dilemma – because it is precisely its
potential to equalise relationships that raises suspicions in
those in authority. Conflict resolution is and should be an
aspect of good governance. It is the job of those in power to
deal with conflicts. If outsiders intervene and call the
authority to a table as an equal partner, it either gives the
impression of a vote of no-confidence in the authority’s ability
to govern or it smells of an attempt to undermine the authority.
The challenge, therefore,
is to promote mediation as an approach that shows great potential
in the South African situation precisely because it equalises
power relationships, but at the same time to avoid undermining
the legitimate role of government to exercise its authority.
One way of dealing with
this dilemma is to emphasise training. There is a growing
realisation at CCR that the deepest form of empowerment takes
place when the knowledge and skills necessary for constructive
conflict resolution are transferred in a way that enhances
indigenous understanding. Johan Galtung (1996) has defined peace
as the context for conflicts to unfold non-violently and
creatively. Empowerment for peace means, therefore, that people
should be enabled to react non-violently and creatively to
conflict by raising the awareness of alternative approaches.
Non-directive mediation is one such alternative, and its
potential to promote peace will be enhanced considerably if it
becomes a tool of the people.
Mediation and the skills
that accompany it should therefore become an aspect of common
culture, rather than an elitist profession. At CCR there is a
growing emphasis on providing training for people who find
themselves in conflict situations rather than on mediating the
conflict. Such training targets “ordinary” citizens as
well as government officials.
The training is largely
based on an elicitive approach. This means that participants in
training workshops bring their own insights and experiences to
the workshop. The methodology used is to reflect on these
experiences, draw lessons from them collectively and review past
thinking and actions in the light of these lessons. This approach
holds the best guarantee that indigenous wisdom and experience
will be recognised. At the same time, however, the shortcomings
of traditional approaches become clear as their appropriateness
to deal with conflict is reflected upon.
Non-directive mediation
(as well as training in mediation) holds a lot of potential for
developing a culture of peace in South Africa. Its success,
however, does not solely depend on the technical skills that come
with the approach, but also on the way that mediators succeed in
dealing with the tensions and dilemmas that go with being a
mediator in South Africa. Success also depends on the ability of
training institutions such as CCR to make this approach
accessible to all communities.
Introduction Conflict coaching is defined as a set of skills and strategies used to support peoples’ ability to engage in, manage, or productively resolve conflict. In this process, the conflict...
By Robin AmadeiDisputing Blog by Karl Bayer, Victoria VanBuren, and Holly HayesA member of the Hawaii State House of Representatives has reportedly introduced a bill that would require mediation for certain real...
By Beth GrahamImagine my surprise years ago when I went through North Carolina family financial mediation training and I learned that the norm for mediating a couple going through divorce was that...
By Mary Salisbury