Public policy conflicts often seem to illustrate some aspects of conflict theory. They often quickly escalate and become defined in simplified pro and con positions, often bringing out intense emotions and bringing together unrelated individuals and groups. Public policy disputes can be mediated but can often be a challenge.

I followed a blog detailing a dispute in Seattle. The dispute concerned the city’s repaving of a street that would affect bike lanes. The dispute escalated, grew to involve many citizens and resulted in some highly emotional blog posts. Seattle’s mayor proposed confidential mediation sessions with some of those opposing citizens and those who were in support.

As the conflict grew, charges were made about how the proposed mediator had contributed funds to the political campaigns of the mayor and to a councilmember who was a known opponent of bike lanes. Another charged that the mediator had previously worked for the mayor’s father. The mediator said that he did not see the contributions as a conflict of interest and the councilmember issued a statement that “this isn’t a conspiracy by the Mayor’s Office.”

Later it was disclosed that the mediator’s fee would be coming from the city’s Bicycle Program which raised more objections. Others objected that the mediation was being conducted confidentially ahd felt such proposed expenditures and policy should be open to the public.

As the conflict escalated advocates held well-attended rallies and posted signs in businesses.

The responses posted on the blog demonstrated how emotionally involved impacted citizens had become.  One wrote that the area’s residents were “entitled well-off white people” and that the city emphasized building bike lanes in white, wealthy neighborhoods over poorer, more diverse neighborhoods.” The public’s discourse began to move from disagreements over a proposed action to attributions about other parties involved in the dispute—clear evidence of an escalated conflict.

I once did a public policy mediation involving a city and residents of a mobile home community. As I arrived at the mediation residents met me in the building’s lobby to tell me how racist the city’s actions have been and sought out my agreement to such claims. I had to explain that they would have amble opportunity to express their grievances in the mediation but not in the lobby. It was a long, emotional process involving some 25 people, but it was resolved. It took hours but we were able to “drill down” to the originating events, which were as simple as distribution of regulations in languages all residents could understand. Some of the residents were reacting to strict enforcement of regulations they had never been informed of. When the city agreed to a review of the regulations with input from residents and the distribution of the details in all languages spoken by the residents, there was agreement.

Public policy disputes often become escalated over pro and con positions and can typically become emotional. Whether the dispute is over bike lanes in Seattle or over mobile home community regulations, the conflicts can grow to mobilize supporters on either side. And occasionally the originating issue becomes lost or distorted as the conflict discourse grows. Bike lanes and mobile home community relations can be mediated.

Are any of those techniques used in local communities appropriate on a national scale? I believe so, and suggest one: All parties need to be willing to go back to the originating issue, recognize their interdependence and be willing to deal honestly and cooperatively with the originating issue.

I am a strong advocate of everyone learning mediation skills. A person doesn’t need to become a formally trained mediator to reap ther benefits.

Recently, science-based self-help books author Amy Alkon wrote an opinion piece for The Los Angeles Times (September 21, 2018). She enrolled in the Los Angeles city attorney’s training program for volunteer mediators. She admits that her idea about mediation before taking the training program was that she would learn to become a “Sister Socrates,” making decisions for people to live by.

She quickly learned (as do most of the people in my own mediation training classes) that in mediation that’s not the case. In most forms of mediation disputing parties come up with their own solutions.

In the training program, people learn the “tools” of mediation. Alkon relates three that were particularly meaningful to her:

1) That while conflict can be toxic, it also presents the opportunity to develop more harmonious relationships

2) That mediators foster an environment where the parties can communicate

3) That mediators help participants shift from “positions” to “interests,” that is, from specific demands to underlying motivations.

Alkon then makes a statement I have heard from so many of people who have completed mediation training with me: “I’ve experienced so many benefits from using the techniques in my own life.”

She relates that at a recent reception a close friend publicly revealed the political opinions of a mutual friend. She was horrified that the opinions were revealed in such a manner and admitted that before completing the mediation training she would have judgmentally and aggressively confronted her friend for doing so. That could have affected their relationship among other possible negative outcomes. But having completed the mediation training, she realized that confronting him would’ve only led to a conflict. Alkon said she took the friend aside and said, “Hey, question for you: Do you think maybe our friend told you his views in confidence, figuring you’d keep them that way? His response? “Yeah. You’re right. Shouldn’t have done that. Thank you.”

Most people who complete mediation training with me, don’t actually go on to become full-time mediators. But most tell me they use the tools with their families and during their everyday lives. I get great satisfaction from sharing the tools that anyone can use to reduce levels of conflict.