Enforcing Rights and Correcting Wrongs - Asia-Pacific Regional ...
Enforcing Rights and Correcting Wrongs - Asia-Pacific Regional ...
Enforcing Rights and Correcting Wrongs - Asia-Pacific Regional ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
BOX 7. Two Cases of Local Dispute Resolution: Pakistan <strong>and</strong> Bangladesh<br />
The Musalihat Anjuman system in Pakistan is a state sanctioned Alternative Dispute Mechanism. It was<br />
constituted under the 2001 Local Government Ordinance. It resolves conflicts through arbitration <strong>and</strong><br />
mediation. This justice mechanism system encourages parties to identify issues, explore areas of compromise<br />
<strong>and</strong> generate options to resolve the dispute amicably.<br />
Bangladesh’s shalishi mediation councils are a type of traditional alternative dispute resolution system that<br />
is often used at the local level. An estimated 60–70 per cent of local disputes are solved through it. They are<br />
often used for the resolution of small disputes <strong>and</strong> are accessible to disadvantaged groups. Marriage, family,<br />
dowry <strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong> issues are also often dealt with through the Salish councils. The resolution of dispute is sought<br />
through discussion between the plaintiffs <strong>and</strong> the defendant, assisted by mediation <strong>and</strong> counseling of a group<br />
of respected village elders.<br />
Sources: Government of Pakistan 2008; UNDP 2005.<br />
5.3 Mixed experiences in customary<br />
justice systems<br />
Customary justice systems are pre-existing methods<br />
of resolving disputes within the communities. 117 They<br />
may include state sanctioned Alternative Dispute<br />
Resolution (ADR) processes as well as non-state local<br />
justice systems. ADR mechanisms are set up to address<br />
shortcomings of formal courts <strong>and</strong> are considered to<br />
have some value in bringing justice closer to people by<br />
being less expensive, less time-consuming <strong>and</strong> enforcing<br />
decisions quickly through community consent. They<br />
may decide on petty matters, such as a dispute over lost<br />
livestock, but they can also act on serious issues such as<br />
adultery <strong>and</strong> murder. Being closer, such systems may be<br />
more accessible to women than formal justice systems.<br />
The jirga system that operates in Afghanistan <strong>and</strong> parts<br />
of Pakistan, <strong>and</strong> the shalishi system in rural Bangladesh<br />
5. Barriers of Access<br />
are informal mechanisms that decide by consensus <strong>and</strong><br />
impose punishments (Box 7).<br />
But such systems may also produce discrimination<br />
through their very processes. In India, community justice<br />
mechanisms connected to caste have carried out some<br />
violent sentences against members of Dalit communities<br />
for “crimes” such as marrying someone from another<br />
community. They commonly serve the interests of local<br />
elites, backed by community sanction, <strong>and</strong> so attempts to<br />
rein in their influence have generally not been successful. 118<br />
Jirga decisions may be prone to gender bias – few women<br />
participate in them as they are often run exclusively<br />
by older men. According to a sample survey in 2007<br />
conducted by the Afghan Centre for Socio-economic <strong>and</strong><br />
Opinion Research, women comprised only two per cent<br />
of representatives on local jirgas. Elderly men constituted<br />
65 per cent of the membership. Other members included<br />
mullahs, local leaders <strong>and</strong> comm<strong>and</strong>ers. 119<br />
27