MEDIATION AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF DISTRICT RECONCILIATION COMMITTEE’S DECISIONS IN PAKISTAN

Abstract

This qualitative study examines how authority, justice, and reconciliation are constructed through language in the written decisions of District Reconciliation Committee (DRC) in Adenzai, District Dir Lower, and Pakistan. The sample decisions fifty out of a total of one hundred decisions from the DRC were analyzed through Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Speech Act Theory, leading to the study of the associated linguistic patterns and their roles in conflict resolution at the local level. The decisions were concerning arguments over real estate, monetary disputes, family matters, dowries, inheritance, and neighborhood troubles. The research brought out the presence of five main types of speech acts, namely: directives, commissives, declarations, assertives, and expressives. Directives and declarations were by far the most frequent, revealing the control of the elders. Meanwhile, the combination of categories, commissives, and expressives contributed to the process of reconciliation and the establishment of social harmony. CDA also indicated that formulaic expressions were used frequently, with references to mutual consent playing the most important role in legitimizing the decisions and emphasizing that the parties agreed willingly to the decision made. The findings imply that the decisions of the DRC function not only as legal verdicts but also as discourses intimately embedded in the community's culture. These discourses are still practiced, albeit silently, as they affirm the community's values and the nonviolent resolution of conflicts.