HOME
AM: In Western mediation, there seem to be certain values involved - such as freedom, empowerment, justice. An idealised form of democracy is the path of values we have here, where people are free to express their needs and contend for things, where people have equal access to resources. Nomagcisa, do you accept that values underlie the mediation system?
NS: Definitely, there are fundamental values underpinning each society. Freedom and power are the critical values being used by the processes of transformation. The government is seeing now that in order to address the scarcity of resources here, they need to interact with all the role-players, at all levels of society. How do you interpret "freedom" and "power"? How do you translate that into current values, and how can it benefit the mediation apparatus? What values do we need to proactively assess?
AM: Chris, if you're dealing with believers and unbelievers, don't their different values severely influence the mediation process?
CS: I'd like to make a distinction between the values of the mediator, and the values of the parties. The worst-case scenario is when the values of the mediator and those of the parties are irreconcilable. For instance, if you have a mediator who believes that if only Jesus is in the parties' hearts, the conflict will be solved, but the parties say we are believers, but we want our taps, we want our water - leave Jesus out of this for awhile.
The mediator is unable to really appreciate these people's values, and can destroy the whole process. So I think any mediator must be very sure where he or she comes from. WHY am I a mediator? is a crucial question. What is it that I would like to see as a just and sustainable outcome in this mediation? The mediator may have to put aside some of their really strong values.
On the side of the parties, it is the task of the mediator to help those parties to express their needs and values in a very clear way. Sometimes people don't verbalise, but it is extremely important that their values are heard.
AM: Joanna?
JF: As South Africa is a multi-cultural environment, one can assume that values are very different, even within communities. The challenge is that values are not visible, they're not usually obvious, they're not easily heard. One of the roles of the mediator could be to help parties come to understand what their own values are, and the values of the other party.
AM: Do we really take care of these different values in our mediation processes?
NS: I think we are in most cases very conscious of values in mediation. Before we go to the mediation, we first assess the nature of the conflict. You come to terms with your inner values - whether you would be capable of being the neutral third party to serve the interests of all. When you have made that decision as a mediator that you can really deal with the diversity of value systems, then you are above the values that might influence the process.
AM: Chris, working in rural communities, you must find different values, between the haves and the have nots. How do you deal with the difference?
CS: I agree with you partly. Values are different but not that different. I think if one creates a safe space, where parties can relax and talk about what they would like to see, you begin to discover a lot of common ground. Nomagcisa was talking about drawing up ground rules in mediation - putting our values on the table. Seldom do you encounter a party who will object to a ground rule. This is crucial in mediation - where you hear the heartbeat of the parties, see the danger signals. If you struggle to lay the ground rules, you must know there is a deep division in values, and you must then take a step back and do more work separately before you force people into one room.
AM: Are ground rules not also the rules for fair fighting? Does fighting fairly also establish a bond for other values?
CS: I think so. People don't change roles rapidly in a mediation process. But initially, when they are checking each other out, it shows a lot about values. The way people enter the fight actually shows a lot about what's important to them.
JF: I view it slightly differently. I think the ground rules simply provide guidelines for a procedure. Values are not cast in stone, they are constantly changing. The role of the mediator is enabling the parties to gain insight into themselves and the problem. I don't see it as coming to common values or a collective insight.
AM: What if you had to mediate between parties with radically different values, such as the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) and Radio Islam? The IBA upholds the constitutional right of women to have access to radio; Radio Islam says no, our faith says otherwise. Where do you start?*
JF: I see no contradiction in terms of what mediators seek to do. The resolution of the problem lies squarely on the shoulders of the parties, the mediator must enable them to hear one another. Often parties speak a very different language - and I don't mean English vs. Afrikaans. What is visible to a mediator is often not visible to the parties themselves. The mediator can help make visible what the parties can't see - can help them understand the different "languages" they are speaking, not help them speak the same "language".
AM: Chris?
CS: I agree with Joanna. One problem area is that people have strong positions, and are not always aware of why they have them. Religious values inform our thinking and the way we express ourselves - once you are touching on religious values, you are touching God.
The most I could hope for as a mediator is to create a space that is safe enough for people to understand the impact of their values on others who share the same space and the same constitution and the same country. The decision to change positions cannot be enforced through negotiations - it's tied to belief, to a paradigm. That change in paradigm happens when people are self-aware and they begin to discover that "my actions impact on other people in such a way that they feel uncomfortable". I think in this case it's necessary to create conflict around those issues - in a sense to push conflict.
AM: Can you as a mediator be neutral? Nomagcisa?
NS: Definitely. In the pre-mediation stage, when you come to terms with who you are, who are the parties, what are the inner issues - it's a critical stage. If you have any strong feelings that keep you from being neutral you need to declare that.
CS: Nomagcisa, how do you understand neutrality?
NS: It's quite a broad term - but I'd say I'm neutral if I have no personal interest in the issue being discussed, I have no underlying baggage that I'm bringing along. There can be no other benefit for me than achieving the best outcome for the parties concerned.
CS: What you are describing I'd call "operational objectivity" rather than neutrality. I don't think neutrality is really possible, but I can be operationally objective. Let's take an example a case where people were forcibly removed from their land and are claiming their land back. The current people who own the land refuse to negotiate, but agree to mediation. Can you really be neutral, when you know those forced removals took place under apartheid? I think in this case I'd say I support the act that makes it possible for people to claim back their land, and as a mediator my role is to help you to come to an amicable solution on how this will happen.
NS: But you as a mediator need to appreciate the thinking behind both sides.
JF: I believe a mediator is not neutral. The mediator always has a measure of subjectivity, but there are ways to get around it. One way is to reveal your values that are premising the intervention. Secondly, as part of your preparatory work, become aware of your assumptions - about yourself, the intervention, the parties, and even possible outcomes that you might envisage. Mediators seek to be impartial, but intervenors impact upon the intervention in a very definite way.
AM: Is it just a question of terminology?
CS: It's a question of whether certain values are more important than others. Ron Kraybill has written in his article, "The Illusion of Neutrality", that freedom, equality and justice are overriding values. In the case of Radio Islam, if freedom and equality are overriding, can you mediate that dispute? Can you put the values of freedom and equality aside? I don't think so.
JF: I think the mediator's credibility is important. If the mediator has credibility, he or she does not have to subscribe to the values of any of the parties - but again, the mediator must make this transparent.
AM: What about the values around violence? Many people say, "we must stop short of violence at all times."
NS: That's an assumption of the early sixties. Before that certain societies used to see violence as the number one means of dealing with conflict. More affluent societies are more likely to seek an alternative. The poorest of the poor, the illiterate and uneducated, because of lack of better understanding and better strategies, often resort immediately to violence.
JF: It depends how you define violence - physical abuse, or disrespect is also a form of violence. I think in our work we promote the value and practice of non-violence, of constructive conflict resolution. But we should be slow to condemn violence - it depends how we define it.
AM: Franz Fanon argued that for the downtrodden, violence was the only way of getting relief - that their self-esteem could only be restored through an act of violence. I don't believe that, but I think we have to go into dialogue with it.
CS: The effect of violence is so important that it forces resolution. Violence is bound to happen as long as the needs driving people to violence are not expressed. I cannot denounce all forms of violence. One must acknowledge that people have needs that push them over the edge.
JF: How do we promote this value of making peace? I don't have the answer. People come to learnings by themselves. If they experience violence, perhaps they will then seek an alternative.
* Editor's Note: Since this discussion, the IBA has in fact closed down Radio Islam.
HOME