A coordinated system of courts and mediation can provide the most effective social justice.
- Courts would focus on supervision and transparency, while mediation ensures fast, effective, and consensual dispute resolution
Noor Muhammad Marri, Advocate, Islamabad
Communal justice, commonly known as mediation, has a history spanning thousands of years in the Subcontinent. This system is based on social understanding, practical experience, and moral responsibility. Before the colonial era, communities resolved their disputes through mediation efficiently and fairly. It was not dependent on written laws or formal institutions but relied on trust, relationships, and social consensus. In contrast, the formal judiciary was established in the late 19th century, and since then, its complexity, expense, and procedural delays have often made the resolution of disputes more difficult.
The greatest strength of mediation lies in representation. Each party nominates two respected and trustworthy representatives acceptable to both sides. These representatives speak on behalf of the parties, present the facts respectfully, and the solution is only finalized when both parties consent. Decisions are never imposed forcibly. This ensures that justice is delivered while maintaining social harmony and interpersonal relations. A British writer once noted that Rajputs in war were fierce and brave, but in negotiation and implementation, they displayed extreme civility and sophistication. The same atmosphere was evident in mediation.
Modern judiciary, however, is expensive, complex, and time-consuming. Cases can drag on for decades, during which hostilities between families and communities may intensify. Courts, rather than resolving disputes, sometimes exacerbate conflicts. Delayed justice, in effect, becomes the denial of justice itself, yet very few voices are raised against these failures. Unlike mediation, the shortcomings of the judiciary often go uncriticized.
Today, the world is moving toward Mediation and alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and many countries have recognized it as an essential part of the legal system. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that Mediation should be a mandatory element of justice. Still, the current practice is that courts first send parties to Mediation, and if the issue is not resolved, the matter returns to court. This process wastes time and money and undermines the very purpose of prompt justice.
Read: Mandatory Mediation in Pakistan: From Judicial Imperative to Legislative Urgency
I suggest that the Secretary of Law in every province issues directives to designate every Union Council (UC) as the first, lowest communal court. The UC Chairman, being a local resident, knows the people of the area and can involve persons of good reputation to resolve the matter. If the dispute is successfully resolved, the UC Chairman should be provided with specific monetary benefits. In this way, cases can be effectively resolved at the local level before reaching the courts, saving both time and money, while strengthening social cohesion.
The advantages of mediation are clear. Cases that take decades in courts can be resolved in days or weeks. There is no need for expensive lawyers or complicated procedures. Emphasis is on reconciliation rather than punishment, so relationships and social networks remain intact. Decisions are mutually agreed upon, protecting social credibility and ethical standards.
Globally, Mediation and ADR are now integral parts of legal systems. Countries in Africa, America, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East encourage or require Mediation before formal litigation. For instance, Nigeria’s Multi-Door Court House and Rwanda’s Abunzi system mandate Mediation before court intervention. The United States, Canada, Ecuador, and Peru promote local dispute resolution mechanisms. In Asia, India’s Lok Adalat, the Philippines’ Katarungang Pambarangay, Singapore and Hong Kong’s international Mediation centers, and China’s Mediation Commissions are functional examples. In Europe, countries like the UK, Italy, Norway, and Poland encourage or mandate pre-court Mediation. In the Middle East, Jordan, Iran, and Egypt require Mediation for family and rural disputes. These ADR systems are modeled on mediation principles: participation, consent, speed, and maintaining relationships.
Ignoring mediation while relying solely on courts or foreign ADR mechanisms seems to be part of social engineering. Societies that dismiss their own traditional wisdom while depending entirely on formal judiciary or foreign Mediation become vulnerable. True justice is not only about issuing a decision but about maintaining trust and moral agreement between society and individuals.
The history of mediation demonstrates that communal justice is not outdated but a centuries-old social experiment. Its principles—representation, consent, reconciliation, and social accountability—are reflected in global ADR systems as well. Recognizing, organizing, and integrating these traditional mechanisms into the modern legal system would reduce court burdens, strengthen social harmony, and preserve the ethical foundations of society.
The world has already acknowledged what we have been practicing for centuries. Mediation, consensual settlement, and collaborative dispute resolution are the systems of the future. Mediation is not behind the times; it is a precursor to modern dispute resolution, recognized even by global experience. The time has come to accept it, refine it if necessary, and integrate it into our legal system, so that courts are freed from excessive burden, social harmony is preserved, and justice is accessible and effective.
In reality, a coordinated system of courts and mediation can provide the most effective social justice. Courts would focus on supervision and transparency, while mediation ensures fast, effective, and consensual dispute resolution. In this way, society will not only uphold justice but also preserve social cohesion, ethics, and cultural values.
Read: Power, Institutions, and the Poverty Puzzle
_________________
Noor Muhammad Marri is Advocate & Mediator, based in Islamabad
