Is the Mediator a Therapist? A Critique of the Role of the Mediator in Bush and Folger’s Transformative Model of Mediation

Abstract

Mediation as a dispute resolution process came into being in
response to the need to manage the growing problem of overflowing
court dockets. By implication, the Mediator’s role in mediation
proceedings could be said to be that of dispute settlement. However,
divergent views exist as to the actual role of the mediator and one
of such views given by the originators of the transformative model
of mediation, Robert .A. Baruch Bush and Joseph. P. Folger is the
subject matter of this paper. A careful perusal of the objectives of
the transformative model of mediation suggests that the role of the
transformative mediator is akin to that of a therapist as he is not
expressly charged with the function of ensuring dispute settlement
between the disputing parties. He is primarily concerned with
helping disputing parties achieve the joint goals of developing the
capacity for strength of self (empowerment) and developing the
capacity for relating to others (recognition). This, I believe, defeats
the purpose of mediation because the primary reason for the
parties’ referral of their dispute to the process is the resolution of
such dispute. I believe that since the object of mediation is dispute
settlement, it follows that the role of the mediator should primarily
be that of problem-solving. This essay therefore seeks to compare
the role of the transformative mediator to that of the ‘traditional’
problem-solving mediator as well as that of the therapist in a bid to
show the deviation of the role of the transformative mediator from
the original idea of mediation.