At the onset,it cannot be conclusively and authoritatively stated with absolute certainty; the specific

role that a mediator should assume whenever s/he is called upon to mediate without first examining the
nature and significance of mediation. Starting on this premise, mediation is an agreement-reaching
process in which a third-party (neutral) assists in resolving a dispute between two or more other parties.
It is a non-adversarial approach to conflict resolution. The role of the mediator is to facilitate
communication between the parties, assist them in focusing on the real issues of the dispute, and
generate options that meet the interests or needs of all relevant parties in an effort to resolve the
conflict.1
Unlike arbitration, where the intermediary listens to the arguments of both sides and makes a decision
for the disputants, a mediator assists the parties to develop a solution themselves. Although mediators
sometimes provide ideas, suggestions, or even formal proposals for settlement, the mediator is primarily
a "process person," helping the parties define the agenda, identify and reframe the issues, communicate
more effectively, find areas of common ground, negotiate fairly, and hopefully, reach an agreement. A
successful mediation effort has an outcome that is accepted and owned by the parties themselves.2

There are conflicting views about the proper role of a mediator. In essence, formal ethical standards
have spoken neither clearly nor consistently on the issue. As a result there are varying opinions on the
issue. One view emphasizes on party autonomy and argues that the mediator must play a passive
role,facilitating communication among the parties. The other view proposes a rather active role of a
mediator,sometimes proposing a solution to the parties. Personally, am tempted to go for the latter. My
contention is subject to the understanding that the role of a mediator is inherently if not impliedly
coupled with the function of correcting biases and pointing out to obvious errors or irregularities that
might have ensued in the process of asserting one's rights. This is absolutely critical here. In order for
mediation to be effective and meaningful,it should be able to provide both short-term and long-term
solutions to a dispute. In this regard,Robert A. Baruch Bush and Joseph Folger explicitly proposed a
way of practicing mediation that seeks to address deeper levels of social life. In the preface of their
seminal work, they stated that, "mediation's greatest value lies in its potential not only to find solutions

1 Christopher Honeyman,Nita Yawanarajah;Mediation(September,2003)

2 Ibid
to people's problems but to change people themselves for the better, in the very midst of conflict."
Without a doubt,this function can only be accomplished by an active mediator who is able to assume
an active role in the dispute at hand and applies a holistic approach to the whole issue. Mediation, in
their opinion, can transform individuals. For mediators who adhere to the framework of transformative
mediation, achieving this type of long-term change is more important than solving a specific problem
between parties.
It would be absolutely ironical for a mediator to oversee a mediation process that is fundamentally
defective merely because s/he is not allowed to actively intervene even at the clearest instance where
one party is taking advantage over the other,for example through duress or undue influence. In my own
words,this might properly be termed as “solving an arithmetical error using an erroneous
method/formulae”The end result might appear to be correct but the method is obviously wrong.
Sadly,this illustrates the likely outcome of a passive mediator in resolving a conflict.
Mediators use appropriate techniques and/or skills to open and/or improve dialogue between
disputants, aiming to help the parties reach an agreement (with concrete effects) on the disputed matter.
Normally, all parties must view the mediator as impartial. On this background it cannot be argued
convincingly that a mediator who assumes an active role in mediation is likely to be biased. This
assertion is canceled by the fact that the parties to a dispute,mutually participate in choosing a suitable
mediator.

References
http://www.collaborateaustralia.com.au/mediators-role.php