There is no single or commonly accepted definition of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). It varies in meaning to various people and in different places. But what it does focus on is the resolution of conflict or disagreements or disputes between two parties (or more) without resorting to court proceedings or adjudicative processes.
It is a method of mediation in which a neutral mediator brings together the two parties and gets them to agree on a common solution. While it is applied more in disputes involving consumers and traders, it is, nonetheless, applicable in other situations, including the feuds among youth in London.
In the first part of this article two weeks ago, I mentioned DCS Michael Gallagher’s suggestion of a community-based solution in which parents, government and community groups would play a central role.
This approach, in a practical sense, would involve negotiation or mediation. The Cambridge English dictionary defines mediation as “the process by which someone tries to end a disagreement by helping to talk about and agree on a solution.”
Realistically, the sides in the feuds in London are diverse and amorphous and, therefore, difficult to identify prior to committing the crimes. But, pragmatically, they could be drawn out and identified by means of strategically planned and executed campaigns.
Like I explained in the first part of this article, the Nigerian Diaspora in the UK are the most affected. This, therefore, means they should be in the forefront of proffering a solution, which will require putting on a thinking hat on a (united) head.
Acting as a body such groups could begin a serious campaign whose objectives could be two-pronged: first, to get families to identify and address problems that affect parenting and; second, to identify the youth that are affected or likely to be affected and begin a process or sensitisation and rehabilitation in order to steer them off the path of crime and violence.
A potential challenge for any group trying to work towards achieving these goals is funding. This is where the government, charities and others stakeholders could step in. Already, bereaved families of the victims sometimes, although informally, organise rallies in which they speak out against the crimes. Such groups could become formally recognised and funds set aside to support the cause.
But for them to succeed some fundamental problems, like the collapse of the family as a primary unit of socialisation, needs to be addressed. This collapse, directly linked to the changing political economy of the family, started with parents abdicating their roles and leaving children, more often, on their own to do as they please.
While in some cases it could be because of absenteeism due to long hours of work, in a situation where both parents work full time, in many other cases it be due to a longer or even permanent absence of one or both parents. The latter happens more in broken homes, which leaves one of the parents struggling to bring up the children.
A victim’s father, Patrick Boyce, believes the problem has spiralled out of control because families are now dysfunctional. This, he argues further, is because, most of the youth involved in such crimes come from single parents, and do not have fathers around them. He also blamed poor schooling.
So, the first thing to address is how families could be reorganised and encouraged to take their responsibilities seriously. And where one of the parents is absent, the communities and could consider means by which they could help the lone parent cope with the challenges of parenting.
This could mean, somehow, overcoming some of the barriers imposed by the individualistic nature of the society. Thus, the campaign could focus on educating parents, especially those in the most deprived areas, realise the importance of working with community groups to address common problems. In this way, such parents, could take ownership of the campaign and work fully for its success.
With the help of experts, such communities could be armed with ADR skills, which they could pass on to their members. This will, in turn, help them identify urgent situations and provide the required supports.
It is important to understand that these young people, the victims and the perpetrators, are victims of this dysfunctional system; a system in which they have lost confidence, which is why they often resort to violence at the slightest provocation.
The system, the family and the community, must win back these youth. They must empathise with them and make them realise they are as important as everyone else and begin the process of rehabilitating them and addressing their needs. This could break down the barriers and, possibly, be the turning point. The alternative is to sit down and do nothing while the problem amplifies.
(Concluded)
