Therapy in this theoretical model is a process of:

a) guiding clients through more sanguine ways of addressing the problems they face, including deepening the understanding and implementing responsiveness to underlying concerns and

b) coaching collaborative conflict resolution methods so that the client(s) can use these up-graded skills to address future concerns and differences more effectively. 

I asked my friend, Mehlaqa Samdani the question of how or if this model of therapy could be helpful to a country locked in a culture of violence. Samdani studies and consults on issues of international relations with a particular focus on her native country of Pakistan. 

It turned out that Samdani had recently written a proposal to reduce sectarian violence in her home country.  Interestingly, Samdani's proposal, which follows this introduction, reads with remarkable similararity to the interventional path my conflict-resolution model of therapy advocates:

a.      Clarification of the pathology and target goals for change.

b.      Brief exploration of the history of the target symptom.

c.      Identification of strengths that can be mobilized toward healthier functioning.

d.      Identification of the core underlying concerns

e.      Creation of win-win solutions to these concerns, including making structural changes to upgrade how the overall system functions.

f.       Teach healthy conflict resolution skills so that subsequent difficulties will be addressed cooperatively.

The idea of country therapy for Pakistan has particular import for me.  Mehlaqa Samdani's family and my own have grown up together.  In the summer of 1976 my husband and I visited them in Pakistan's frontier provinces, the mountainous area from whence the Taliban launched.  We were there to study with her great uncle Durrani Sahib.  Durrani Sahib, in addition to being the dean of the engineering college in Peshawar, was a great Sufi mystic from whom we were privileged to learn. 

Thus as a daughter of both the tribal areas and urban Lahore, Mehlaqa Samdani knows well the Pakistani nation.  In addition, her distinguished Islamic lineage brings the Sufi penchant for kindness and love to her work.

Here's Mehlaqa Samdani's proposal:

Pakistan: From Chaos to Calm

A Strategy to Replace the Current Culture of Violence with a Culture of Dialogue

Pakistan's proclivity to resolve domestic and international disputes through violence rather than collaborative dialogue has created a culture in which militant groups have flourished.  Until there is a paradigm shift in Pakistan's approach to problem-solving, militancy will continue to pose a threat to Pakistan and, given its nuclear armaments, to the world. 

Pakistan is home to a wide range of combative and aggressive, i.e., militant groups.  These include anti-India groups operating in Kashmir, sectarian organizations based in southern Punjab, as well as Taliban and non-Taliban militant groups entrenched in the tribal belt. 

When and how did Pakistan begin to develop a culture of violence?

A culture of violence began to take root in Pakistan in the late 1970s and 1980s when successive Pakistani governments deliberately radicalized religious identities in the country.  The government's goals were a) to consolidate internal political advantage, b) to sponsor militant groups that would  advance its foreign policy objectives in Afghanistan and India, and c) to cultivate a nationwide militant mindset and infrastructure that would enable it to achieve these goals.

The government's success in fostering militant religious beliefs stimulated pervasive acceptance of intolerance and violence throughout much of Pakistani society.  It then was able to justify its own violence against its citizens, political competitors and neighboring counties via religious idioms, imagery and rhetoric.

What potential strengths could be mobilized to reverse the society's increasing intolerance of differences and violent interactions between groups?

While the Pakistani government has been unable to thwart militancy and at times been directly complicit in promoting it, Pakistan's civil society groups do show potential to advance non-violent problem-solving.  In recent years, Pakistani civil society groups such as media organizations, human rights groups, lawyers, student groups, and religious organizations have mobilized peacefully and effectively around various political and humanitarian causes. 

With a minimal amount of appropriate external support, these groups could play an enlarged role in reversing Pakistan's proclivity toward violence.

What strategies have been tried thus far?

It is important that Pakistan's relatively weak criminal justice infrastructure be strengthened to successfully apprehend and try militant leaders. Punitive measures alone however have proven ineffective at decreasing militancy. 

The cycle of violence continues because three further factors must also be addressed:

1.      The underlying concerns and grievances that lead people to joint violent organizations.

2.      The lack of an alternative to militancy.  There is a general lack of awareness in Pakistani society that win-win dialogue and problem-solving can offer an alternative method for finding solutions to their concerns. Nor do people have the skills to utilize dialogue effectively for addressing intra- or inter-group differences.

3.      Some groups, particularly the more extremist Islamic factions, are locked in fixed belief systems that will not be open to hearing others' perspectives and concerns, and that seek dominance, not side-by-side interactions.

What are the main underlying grievances?

While many militant groups have overt religious agendas, socio-economic and political factors have been key in gaining adherence to their dogmas.  For instance, in Pakistan's tribal belt, the corruption of the local ruling elite has deprived the local population of basic services. Militants challenge the status quo and fill the governance gap by providing security and justice to local communities. 

In southern Punjab, violent, anti-Shiite Deobandi groups such as the Sipah-e-Sahaba and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi are most active where the landed elite are Shiite and landless peasants predominantly Sunni.  The apparent complicity of the landed elite with the corrupt and inept local judicial and administrative systems pushes the local population toward those who challenge the system in support of landless peasants.  For instance, MaulanaHaq Nawaz, the founder of Sipah-e-Sahaba ,   was known to spend time at district courthouses, providing financial and moral support to destitute litigants.

What steps could address these grievances in a more collaborative manner? 

The following four steps, taken simultaneously rather than sequentially, could significantly impact the transition from a culture of violence to a culture of cooperation.

Step 1: Form networks of leading civil society groups.