Could mediation be the answer to a hung parliament?

Proponents and practitioners of mediation often have an evangelical belief in its ability to bring about resolution to even the most intractable disputes.

In a recent press release from CEDR (the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution), its chief executive Karl Mackie put the dispute resolution technique forward for what could be its toughest challenge yet.

Mackie has written to the leaders of the three main political parties in England calling on them to use mediation to help form the next government in the event of a hung parliament.

‘With the level of personal animosity being built up in this election, getting around a table to create working partnerships will be a mammoth task which should not just be left to politicians and civil servants,’ says Mackie.

There should, he suggests, be a parliamentary coalition independent mediator to help avoid the sort of inertia often associated with coalition governments, caused by fudged decisions and political game-playing.

Mackie accepts that this may not guarantee results, but says politicians should be open to the concept and could learn lessons from other conflicts that have been resolved with assistance from mediators, for example Senator George Mitchell’s efforts in Northern Ireland.

This laudable proposition raises a couple of questions. Firstly, is it mediation process and techniques that bring about resolution, or is it more to do with the person acting as the mediator?

Because if it is the mediator, it is hard to imagine a person of sufficient gravitas who would be an acceptable choice to all parties. Could that be the first thing they would disagree on?