Our project is related why there is too much terror activates in Pakistan is creeping up what is the major reason behind this war of terror and why Pakistan facing huge loss due to the terror activities in Pakistan. We are going to explore the incident of LAL MASJID and negotiation between LAL masjid and government of Pakistan. The basic issue behind this whole case is unlimited freedom for the society and growing immoral activities in society.
ANALYSIS… CONFLICT: There is conflict between the administration of LAL MASJID and Government of PAKISTAN administration of LAL masjid asking for the stoppage of the immoral activities in society due to unfair freedom they believe that there should be principle of sheria in place for justice but the Government of Pakistan focusing on the freedom of women because they think that it will help them in developing country LEVEL OF CONFLICT:
This conflict is between the Government of PAKISTAN and administration of the LAL MASJID , SO there is a inter parties conflict in place DYSFUNCTION OF CONFLICT: In this negotiation dysfunction of conflict was present there was decrease in communication by Government they was sharing only those information which strengthen his own prior argument he was sharing information about received application for the illegal and terror activates is going on in LAL MASJID Mr.
PARVEEZ MUSHARF has demonstrated his self as a rigid commitment he was not willing to deviate from his point of view he didn’t bother whatever the other party is saying, he was just stuck with his own point of view because he don’t want to lose in negotiation even he knew that the failure in negotiation could be the huge loss to the PAKISTAN in term of human life as well as country image in world wide .
Management representative keep on magnified the differences throughout the negotiation by saying this, they are terrorist and they are promoting terror activities in Pakistan and they are against the freedom of the society and on the other hand administration of the LAL MASJID also showing misperception regarding the freedom of the society and showing some sort of emotionality on the name of ISLAM and enlarging thee issue without any kind of critical incident CONFLICT style :
Both parties having the same style of conflict management, no one trying to expand the pie in real time and they just care about their own outcome and they have less concerned about the others outcome even the Government are not going to expand the pie and haven’t look for the different alternative which can resolve this issue and saving the human life and on the other hand the administration of the LAL.
MASJID not going toward resolving the issue they just care about their own outcome and having no concern for the human life and NAME OF ISLAM which on stake due to their own outcome. we can generalize that both parties has same conflict management style. Over all the style that highlighted the scenario and ending result was COMPETITIVE. NATURE OF NEGOTIATION: This real time negotiation was started as integrative negotiation but later on it 0was turned in distributive negotiation many Hardball tactics were used by Mr.
PARVEEZ MUSHRAF he was being AGGRESSIVE in negotiation to intimidate the other party by threading them of military operation, showing his anger by saying the other party that you’re not responsible for the defense of Islam we are also Muslim and what is ISLAM saying about this so be away from this I know that what is better for the society and what is not, He also has showed his legitimacy and power over there.
The another tactic is also used by Mr. PARVEEZ MUSHRAF that is SNOW JOB he started overwhelming the media and the public of Pakistan by giving them a unrelated background information regarding the MULANA ABDULA AZIZ and his family related to distract them and to make their issue blur and unclear. HIGHLIGHTING THE INTEGRATIVE ASPECT OF THE NEGOTIATION: Integrative negotiation is only successful and pure when the negotiation follows the following critical criteria; * Focus on commonalities rather than differences.
* Attempt to address needs and interests not positions * Commit to meet the needs of all involved parties * Exchange information and ideas * Invent options for mutual gains * Use objective criteria for standards of performance If all of the points are observed while negotiating then the outcome more fruitful at both ends of the node. But, in reality the case is not as ideal as assumed. These criteria are only applicable to an extent when we assume that two parties are involved and the issue is a mutual concern. But when we look into real scenarios then we see that multi party’s negotiation is well observed but their integrative outcomes are the same as planned or expected.
When analyzing our negotiation between administration of the LAL MASJID and, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, we are able to highlight the following aspects of negotiation in the whole activity. The GOVERNMENT is well prepared for the negotiation and sharing adequate information regarding the LAW PASSED by PARLIAMENT and the other related issue and on the other hand administration of the LAL MASJID also share enough information about why they against the freedom of the society and sharing information, i. e. 1. Auntie SHAMIM brothel business 2. Demolishing the MASJID on the muree road 3. Sale of the DVD of immoral activities frequently on different store.
Secondly, the both parties neither LAL MASJID administration or GOVERNMENT OF Pakistan are not willing to understand the focal point of the negotiation both are trying to push the other parties on back foot by their aggressive attitude and tactics . The third step being critical for integrative outcomes is to highlight the similarities rather than differences. The negotiator from the GOVERMENT head was being opposite in the case. He enlightened the differences among the parties involved, also within the negotiating and also there is major focus on the enlighten the stereotype concept of madreesa in public and trying to pushing the other parties on back foot.
He was being stereotypical while judging the personalities on the basis of appearance. Also the difference was forced while emphasizing on his power level and experience shared in the same field. The fourth and the last step in the general integrative situation is searching for an appropriate solution. But in this negotiation both parties fail to find out the integrative solution for this negotiation. As both parties came up with the following statements. Statement from GOVERMENT ISLAMABAD, July 9(Reuters): Islamist militants in a Pakistani mosque compound exchanged fire with security forces on Monday, but there was no sign of an imminent assault the morning after the government gave “a final warning” to surrender.
As the stand-off entered its seventh day, Muslim clerics said they were trying to persuade the government to hold off, while they tried to find a way to avoid a bloodbath in the heart of the Pakistani capital. (Posted @ 11:45 PST) Statement from LAL MASJID : KHAR, Pakistan, July 9 (AFP) Around 20,000 Pakistani tribesmen vowed Monday to take revenge on President Pervez Musharraf for the siege of Islamabad’s Lal Masjid, witnesses and officials said. “We are ready for jihad! ” cried the protesters – some of them armed with Kalashnikovs and rocket launchers – who rallied near Khar, the main town in the Bajaur tribal district bordering Afghanistan. Local pro-Taliban commanders told the gathering that there should be a holy war in return for the Lal Masjid standoff.
The confrontation has so far left at least 24 people dead, according to the government, but the mosque’s leaders say more than 400 students have been killed. (Posted @ 12:15 PST) CREATING VALUE VERSUS CLAIMING VALUE: Distributive way out of resolving an issue suggests the Both negotiating team focused on the claiming the value versus creating value due to their rigid commitment and misperception regarding the mudeesa and freedom of the society and there is no intention toward the creating value from both the parties even knowing that the creating value will be the best way to in this negotiation. TYPE OF INTEREST OBSERVED IN BOTH PARTIES: LAL MASJID ADMINSTARTION:
The interest of the LAL MASJID administration was more integrative in process and more principle based. As they were focusing on the objective and pro-social impact of unlimited freedom to the society and immoral activities on the basic principle of Islam believed to solve the problem via alternatives. GOVERMENT REP (PARVEEZ MUSHRAF): The interest of the counter party was more distributive in process as he was stick to his position and used force in the entire negotiation. Also he was more substantive he was more interested in the outcomes. Here the clash in interests resulted in a failure for the both parties at the end of the entire conversation.
GENERATING SOLUTION FOR THE ISSUE: The both the parties did not try to find out any solution even there is less intention toward the negotiation and both parties focusing on their own outcome rather than being concerned about other outcome for whom their lives on stake due to some rigid commitment and some wrong perception, so there is no effort on following to things ; 1. Expand the pie 2. Find a bridge Solution They just only invent the options which is favoring their own outcome government concerned about their writ in the country and lal masjid administration focusing on implementing the Islam by usage of gun FUNCTION OF PLANNING IN NEGOTIATION:
The role and importance of planning for negotiation can be understood by simply understanding the situation when no planning is practiced. Therefore the absence of proper planning can lead to following outcomes; * Objectives and targets are not clear * Generating alternatives will be difficult * No knowledge about own and other’s strengths and weaknesses These drawbacks rewards you with failure while valuing your points and also knowing others in order to be mutual and integrative. The goal if, mutually accepted then the parties tend to be bilateral in selecting their strategy but when the goal not mutually acceptable and both the parties are with different goals then the strategy persuaded is unilateral.
The strategy in the negotiation of the current scenario i. e. government versus LAL amsjid administration is unilateral. As, the representative’s behavior from the both parties was quite egoistic and aggressive in deriving solution. The interaction to whatever the approach is, i. e. unilateral or bilateral; the parties are automatically placed in one of the position in the dual concern model of engagement in the problem. In this case the both parties is following an engagement strategy i. e. COMPETITION (distributive) The planning process for any negotiation involves the following steps to be covered: * Define the problem * Assemble issues and define the bargaining mix * Defining interests.
* Defining limits and alternatives * Defining one’s own objectives (targets) and opening bids (asking price) * Analyzing constituents and the social context in which the negotiation will occur * Analyzing the other party * Planning the issue presentation and defense * Defining protocol As far as both parties planning part there is no planning from the both side even if they planned anything about negotiation the major focus on the personnel outcome and there is no intention toward others outcome ,because it’s part of our project we came up with our own assumption regarding the both parties with respect to below given points s i. e. Defined the issues at both ends:
LAL MASJID – Religion, environment, ethics, social context, t , character devastation, morale inclination… unjustified freedom for the society which is against the Islamic LAW GOVERNMENT:, freedom, equality entertainment… Defined interests: LAL MASJID – principal & distributive GOVERMENT – substantive & distributive Defined alternatives: (BATNA) LALMASJID – ISLAMIC law implementation in country or bloodbath GOVERMENT – surrendered or bloodbath in Islamabad Defined objectives: LAL MASJID – Clean and Islamic law in the country, no vulgarity enhancement GOVERNMENT – stick to his position, power delivered to the context of negotiation which is focusing on equality and more freedom for society.
NOTE: we can extract a result out of our planning model that when a complete negotiation is missing some points in planning process then you will have to face the failure. Both parties were weakly planned and thus faced power distance impact from the counter party. And there is no problem regarding the multiple interaction with the other part because Pakistan facing such kind of problem since 1947 PERCEPTION ANALYSIS IN THE NEGOTIATION: WHAT PERCEPTION IS? “Perception is the process by which individuals connect to their environment. The process of ascribing meaning to the messages and events is strongly influenced by the perceiver’s current state of mind, role and comprehension of earlier communication.
” In the scenario the both parties perceived each other values, norms and interests on the basis of some incidents they experienced and communicated in his life. Secondly, government followed the 80/20 rule as if some madreesa are involved in such terror activates then the all the others have same intention PERCEPUAL DISTORTION INVOLVED IN THE CASE: WHAT IS PERCEPTUAL DISTORTION? “The perceiver’s own needs, desires, motivations and personal experiences may create a predisposition about the other party. This is cause for concern when it leads to biases and errors in perception and subsequent communication. ” There are four types of distortion observed in negotiations; 1. Stereotyping 2. Halo Effect 3. Selective Perception 4. Projection.
The highly dominating types of distortion in our case are stereotyping and selective and projection perception. STEREOTYPING: Stereotyping occurs when one individual assigns attributes to another solely on the basis of the other membership in a particular social or demographic category. In case the stereotypical thought was “a man with heavy shave and from the Islamic thoughts is a terrorist. SELECTIVE PERCEPTION: Selective perception occurs when the perceiver singles out certain information that supports a prior belief and filters out information that does not confirms that belief. In the case the government Reps has used this technique by justifying his belief by number of complaint received by government against madressa. PROJECTION:
Projection is all about developing a perception about some member or institute on basis of others opinion “in our case both parties perceived less cooperative in a situation like this “ FRAMING THE SCENARIO AT BOTH ENDS: FRAMING: A frame is subjective mechanism through which people evaluate and make sense out of situations leading them to pursue or avoid subsequent actions. Framing at LAL MASJID ADMINSTRATION: The administration of lal masjid following a substantive outcome frame as they are not willing to listen and understand that what exactly it is, they are more concerned about their own outcome and cheap media fame is their objective. They continuously saying that they are not ready to surrender and ready for their own describe jihad. Framing at Government end:
The government was involved in substantive, outcome, identity and characterization frames as they are keep threatening the lal masjid administration to surrender otherwise a military operation is waiting for them and not willing to give them a easy escape and more willing to reap them out from society which is not that much easy in a Islamic country . ATRTCLE IMPLEMENTATION: THE DYNAMIC INTERACTION OF CONTEXT AND NEGOTIATOR EFFECTS Negotiation context: It concerns the structural features of the negotiation setting and the non-interaction based influence of other actors.
This involves the following aspects under its head; * Multi-party or team negotiation * Temporal effects * Power * Medium of negotiation The negotiation between the government and the LAL masjid representative is a mixture of team negotiation and multiparty negotiation. LAL MASJID administration act like a team and have the same set of preferences and goals to be achieved.
The team used combined or shared cognitive resources and hence tried hard to get the desired outcome via integrative way out only for their own outcome and there is no what so ever concern for the mutual concern of both party even that is the most suitable way to resolve the issue.
And both side perceived their opponents less trust worthy and more power full and there is no lack of decision making agenda and there is no conducive procedure for the problem solving in the negotiation and this negotiation lead toward the research gap which is about that what is consequences of the negotiation if there is a difference in outcome regarding the team member and this direction is shown from the government . The both side of negotiation faced the time pressure from the opposite party as the opposite party was of the aim to end the negotiation as soon as possible.
These actions can be an outcome of several reasons like international pressure, rigid commitment from both side and having short deadlines etc. thus. The negotiation end with no result which result in a huge loss to the both side in term of human life as well as future with respect to their perception Thirdly, role of the power in the negotiation is heavily recognized and there is a greater chance that a team with the greater are mostly less cooperative and not willing to lose any part of their outcome and try to maximum out of the outcome in our case both party perceived them self more powerful then the other party in negotiation and nobody are willing to go for the mutual gain.
Medium for the negotiation does play a important role in achieving the outcome either you looking for the mutual concern or own outcome , in our case there is no proper medium for the negotiation and there is lack of direct communication between the both parties and they using a different medium to communicate their point of view e. g. electronic media which interpret the agenda from both side according to their own point of view which lead toward the less mutual gain and more toward their own outcome. Negotiator influence: I this negotiation occur between the two team but there is a complete control of single individual from both side ,PARVEEZ MUSHARF is from the government who has the decision making power and from the other side QARI ABDUK RASHEED GHAZI is responsible.
With respect to this we going to cover following subheads; * Gender difference * Negotiator motivation * Negotiator relationship * Affects in negotiation There is no gender difference between the both parties as male from the both side negotiating so that is way the both side act like more distributive in nature there is less concern about mutual gain or integrative negotiation where both side look for the similarities rather than difference but there is no intention toward the integrative negotiation even though both parties pretend that they looking for the mutual gain and a solution which is acceptable for both side. The style of the both parties was more egoistic than pro-social.
Initially government showed some interest in being social with the issue but then suddenly government move towards a hard-ball tactic shows his interest shifting to egoistic nature. Then highlighting his position and authority again and again was a clear trigger of him being self-concerned. He had the authority but not utilizing that is completely a counter action of being pro-social. And the administration of the LAL MASJID stuck on their egocentric behavior and they less accommodative The way the level of aggressiveness imposed by the government increased the same way the LAL MASJID analyzed that he is no more concerned about the future interaction.
Both parties continue their aggressive and PARVEEZ MUSHRAF continue his dictatorship behavior and ultimately face a failure in negotiation CULTURAL ASPECT INVOLVED IN THE NEGOTIATION: The negotiation in itself demonstrated both types of cultural differences. INTER CULTURAL DIFFERENCE: Pakistan is an Islamic country and follows the culture that integrates its rules of living with the rules identified in Islam to lead a successful life. But there is mixture of the activates which is prohibited in the Islam but allow by the rules of our country which lead to basic conflict between the both parties which end with no gain for both parties. INTRACULTURAL DIFFERENCE:
Narrowing the spectrum again there arise a conflict between the same society members. We live in the same nation but still are classified on the basis of color, income, living standards, beliefs etc. We broadly follow same cultural values but again differentiate. Here the same point is to be considered whatever we believe, whatever we desire to wear, eat, have… our core values do not allow us to be that much adaptive that we drop back our living rules and change ourselves like the ones that does not suits our impressions.
NOTE: In reality the situations in not always bookish and assumed, it is difficult to drag the conflict towards solutions in a pure integrative or distributive way. and there is so much difficulties for me to interpret the situation according to my bookish knowledge either it’s about the team negotiation or motivation level and medium used for the negotiation its quite tough ask for me to convert information according to our project outline After all…
SUCCESS IS BEYOND TRIALS… Conclusion “Summing up the whole situation we can witness it that the need for negotiations is as essential in resolving the matters especially the matters on which the interests and the safety and security of the nation are at stake. In that particular scenario if the possibility of negotiations was to be found somewhere around then the case and the issue must be resolved in a peaceful and meaningful manner rather than directly pouncing the nations security and causing the instability and insecurity among the masses.
The situation at that time demands that the two parties should sit together and they should both collaborate with each other in a meaningful and rational manner to come upon the solutions of the problems rather than just withstanding with ones owns views and doing what which is proving unnecessary and bringing out the hostility among the people and the thinking that if the issue needs to be settled in a more decent and ongoing discussions among the two parties. The result of the Laal Masjid incident was that the Masjid was completely abolished leaving hundreds of poor souls to breathe their last many of them were poor little children including many women and girls. So what was their allegation it was nothing by the way.
The situation proves that while launching any action between the major pillars of any nation which is the religious and social system you must need to be very cautious and have to think many times before moving for any further step because such a step would lasts its impressions on the lives of many people and the coming generations would bear its sufferings along the way. Such sort of issues before they turn into enigmatic issues must be dealt with the mutual negotiations where the two parties must sit together and bring each others must have and would like points so that on a certain degree of time there comes a point where the two parties have a harmony on agreeing to each other’s mutual interest. ”