Resolve this — now

The reality is that we are a truly divided nation – to the point that some of us don’t regard our own people as more than cockroaches to be eliminated. And, while this animosity exists and there is no uniformity of purpose, the real sectors will remain stunted no matter how hard we focus on the stock market as the barometer. Lack of business impetus continues to plague this country which faces poverty, unemployment, civil unrest, and depressive pessimism of immense proportions.

I think resorting to the courts or to parliament to resolve our disagreements is unlikely to yield results as the objectivity of the courts and of parliament will remain questionable given all that has been exposed widely of late. In addition, visible changes made to the law using perverse undemocratic mechanisms in the opinion of a large swathe of the population doesn’t help. Unfortunately all the above is a reality.

So how to break this impasse which is fundamental to resolve to move on to sustainable economic progress? My suggestion is: let’s recognise we are truly a big family with divergent views. To emotionally accept some part of the proposed resolution – which will inevitably be unacceptable to some – it will only be accepted if it is pronounced by independent persons in whom we expressly repose our confidence.

The route to resolution is arbitration and the beauty of arbitration is that no conflicted party needs to sit at a negotiating table and enter into a dialogue with the other side. They only need to agree to the need for a conflict resolution objective, without compromising their position. Each only agrees to appoint its arbitrator. Implicit in this nomination is a commitment to accept the collective decisions of the arbitrators nominated by all stakeholders. So no pride is hurt and yet a resolution is achieved no matter how difficult to swallow.

So, I propose we use an arbitration process in which opposing groups each appoint their trusted arbitrator and let them use the tried and trodden arbitration route. Of course, each would also appoint an advocate to plead their case before the arbitration panel. This arbitration can be used to yield quick resolution if the process is not made bureaucratic. Given that each group has appointed an adjudicator that enjoys credibility of the nominating group, there is a high likelihood that the collective arbitration decision will be acceptable and we can move on from there.

The fact is that Pakistan does not have time on its side. We need to move into conflict resolution in short order. The world is watching our maturity as a civilisation. No one wants martial law. The PDM, though it claims many gains, knows in its heart that the economic malaise – no matter how they camouflage it – will bite it in the end and so it needs legitimacy. We are thus ripe for conflict resolution in a manner that keeps respect for all parties.

Why doesn’t the PTI table this arbitration route since it has ardently opposed dialogue with the incumbent government, and since the establishment seems to be unwilling to dialogue with the PTI? There is a deadlock. So any one of the parties can propose this as it is a neutral position.

The writer is the former president of United Bank Limited (UBL).