By Sardar Khan Niazi
Reconciliation remains a profound challenge in a country that has experienced political violence. Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial has suggested dialogue between the government and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). None can deny the power of dialogue to promote reconciliation in situations of political confrontations.
Both sides can settle the most contentious issues on the negotiating table. In the aftermath of violent conflict, there must be efforts made to explore new opportunities to nurture and build peace. The political actors who are influential within each side can enable the negotiations to flow and compromise to reach.
Dialogue is a powerful tool for conflict resolution. It is a mechanism to bring the quarreling parties together for collective deliberation to produce consensus upon key issues essential to progress. It is necessary to resolve deep-seated conflicts.
However, the negotiating parties must clearly define the scope of the dialogue so that it is realistic and achievable. Reconciliation is the mutual acceptance of the other in a peaceful relationship and the sustainability of that acceptance; accompanied by a commitment to bind relationships in accord with future interests rather than being stuck in a conflicted past.
Dialogue allows parties to engage in conversations with former opponents by giving each space to talk and listen. It allows for a change of perceptions and mindsets toward each other. The parties, who are not on talking terms or who consider others as their enemies begin to connect, and develop a sense of safety and less fear.
Relationships begin to establish as both parties begin to define their common interests and build something new. New realities begin to emerge. Both feel the power of restoration and transformation embedded in dialogue.
There is cause for optimism that parties can develop the necessary capacity to work towards reconciliation despite the varying and even polarized attitudes observed in them at the start of the process.
Dialogue is useful in restoring broken relationships among political opponents. This is a viable alternative for promoting reconciliation in the absence of effective responses. Both sides should consider that violence between them had the most serious effects on ordinary citizens.
They should comprehend each other’s needs and interests in a manner that leads them toward collective decisions about their relations and new attitudes. Dialogue is a way to heal communities and relationships broken by political divisions, through inclusive engagement and the opportunity to learn from each other.
The government and the PTI must select dialogue to attempt to facilitate a shift in their mindsets from stereotyping to accommodation by changing the nature and process of their conversations. Sharing through conversations would allow new understandings to emerge.
They must open avenues for constructive communication, should engage in analyzing the violent context, and discuss why peace is necessary. They must focus on determining the direction of change desired by the CJP. The dialogue process induces positive behavior. The dialogue will enable them to explore issues affecting their relations and, which could have otherwise been difficult to discuss. The dialogue process will provide both sides an opportunity to correct perceptions about each other.
Even if both sides do not become a united block immediately, they at least develop an understanding and appreciation of the other through constant communication. They no longer see each other as enemies but as potential friends who deserve to live with each other in peace.
Given the deep animosity between supporters of the ruling party and the opposition, the tolerance at the start of the dialogue may seem minuscule but in the end, it will bring a positive change. Both sides must start a dialogue and acknowledge their failure to find solutions to problems affecting them and the country.
