Miandari — Based on an article by Frédéric Rognon, adapted and translated into Persian by Ahmad Aminian
Médiation and médiateur in French, and mediation and mediator in English, are now widely used terms with a very broad range of meanings. In Persian, they are generally translated as mianjigari and mianji. Although these equivalents are valid, they do not capture one particular meaning of médiation: the concept I have rendered as Miandari, which differs from conventional mediation. The French and English term cannot therefore always be translated in the same way. In its newer sense, it describes a body of theoretical and practical knowledge without a historical equivalent, closely connected to civil society and modern citizenship.
In Western languages, specialists have also examined and repeatedly explained the distinction: the words may be shared, but their meanings are not identical. After working with this concept theoretically and professionally for 30 years, I sought a suitable Persian equivalent. When I first introduced this body of knowledge in Iran nearly four years ago, I chose Miandari for the practice and Miandar for its practitioner. Both words are well established in Iranian culture, including in zurkhaneh and communal gatherings, and express an important part of the newer meaning of the French and English terms.
Last year, Joy, a cultural and social organisation, published a short booklet in which I introduced Miandari and its history. I have also adapted and translated a French book on the subject, which I hope will be published by the end of summer 1402 in the Solar Hijri calendar. Through my lectures and training sessions, I have observed the considerable potential of this emerging discipline for managing tensions and supporting entrepreneurship in Iran. I therefore offer readers this short translation and adaptation of Frédéric Rognon’s French article, QU’EST-CE QUE LA MÉDIATION ?, and hope to publish further short pieces so that a body of literature can gradually develop, protecting its theory and practice from profiteering and opportunistic appropriation.
My principal focus here is the educational aspect of Miandari: a discipline with theoretical and practical concepts, currently taught at some institutions of higher education and universities in Europe and Canada. Education about this process matters because it helps people understand Miandari and distinguish it from conventional mediation or acting as an intermediary.
Miandari has a dual nature. It is practical, while also having a systematic, theoretical framework that can adapt its rules to circumstances. It must be able to respond to every situation involving tension. At the same time, its development requires a set of stable principles and non-negotiable rules. This meeting of prior norms and subsequent changes is an important feature of educational and university-based Miandari.
Miandari is a method in which a third party, though not just any third party, supports those who request it in a wholly impartial process, enabling them to find their own way through differences, disagreements, tensions, conflict and violence. Impartiality is therefore essential to its definition: an intervention that does not respect it is not Miandari. For example, someone employed by a school or education authority as an educational Miandar cannot remain impartial because they are accountable to a higher authority. Such a person is, at most, an educational conciliator or conventional mediator. As a third party, they may seek to defend their institution or guide those in conflict towards an agreement based on its legitimacy.
Another example is the people formerly called médiateurs de la République in France. They were government employees tasked with mediating disputes between citizens and the state bureaucracy. They tended to seek settlements and solutions, naturally intervening in the outcomes. This is also apparent in judicial mediators, whom it would be more appropriate, in the distinction used here, to call judicial intermediaries. That kind of position between people in disagreement is not the practice I intend to discuss here.
Not every third party is a Miandar
A Miandar is, above all, an impartial third party. Many tensions and disagreements can be addressed without Miandari. Because this process involves self-awareness, it can be demanding and take more time. Some tensions require only imagination, goodwill and perseverance for the people involved to resolve them together. Communication-based dialogue or approaches grounded in nonviolence can reduce tension and restore peace. These methods attend to people’s feelings and needs, help each side’s messages become understandable to the other and seek to prevent prejudgement. Miandari, by comparison, focuses more on the participants’ behavioural development and transformation, enabling them to create new relationships consciously.
In general, the presence of a third party, whether a mediator, peacemaker or intermediary, can help address tensions arising from differences and disagreements. A third person can create conditions that keep the parties from seeing everything as black or white. Sometimes someone’s physical presence alone has enabled listening and dialogue. But a third person’s arrival does not automatically make everything right. This person must be trusted by both sides and remain wholly impartial. They must not be dependent on either party or enter the conflict as a representative of a private or public institution. They should not be tied to the parties’ professional and social structures, belong to the organisation where the participants work, or stand in a hierarchy beneath its managers. Under these conditions, the third party may be a Miandar. If someone is selected within such an organisational context, the institution must give them full authority and freedom to conduct the process independently.
However impartial a Miandar believes themselves to be, the participants’ acceptance is what gives that impartiality legitimacy. If either participant sees the Miandar as ideologically, socially or emotionally closer to the other, the Miandar must not continue. They should immediately give way to another practitioner whose impartiality both participants accept. Many processes have failed because this fundamental principle was overlooked.
A Miandar can arouse suspicion through many circumstances or behaviours: age, gender, social affiliation, ways of speaking, methods, body language or nonverbal behaviour may lead a participant to doubt impartiality. This becomes more difficult when one participant is eager to reach an outcome while the other wants to proceed slowly and carefully. An inappropriate response can compromise perceived impartiality. How should the Miandar act so that neither participant believes they share the other’s interests?
With clear judgement, restraint and professional skill, the Miandar must avoid identifying with either participant and keep themselves outside the outcome. Some practitioners use an approach called multipartiality: instead of a cold detachment that might be mistaken for indifference or lack of understanding, they support and connect with each participant in turn. Advocates believe this helps prevent suspicion because each person can experience the Miandar as understanding their position when they speak.
These considerations show why a Miandar must be professionally trained. Nothing is worse than undertaking Miandari without the necessary theoretical and professional preparation. Good intentions alone are insufficient, and a talent for settling disagreements does not automatically qualify someone. University-level or higher training and practical experience are needed, supported by the practitioner’s emotional and personal balance. A Miandar must understand themselves and assess their limits so that concern for others, restraint and patience can work together.
Self-knowledge and a balanced presence allow the Miandar to listen calmly, without being swept up in psychological or intellectual agitation, and to use subtle intuition to recognise what remains unseen or unsaid and bring it into thoughtful conversation. Miandari is a profession that requires deep understanding and commitment, carrying an element of purpose and idealism. Yet idealism must not distance the practitioner from reality.
For this reason, a Miandar should not work free of charge. The practitioner should receive an hourly fee, making a longer process more costly to the participants, as is customary in psychotherapy and psychoanalysis. In this way, participants take financial responsibility for the process. Without such commitment, they may not take it seriously or invest themselves in it. The absence of financial commitment can undermine the process and bring poor outcomes. When the service is free, participants may take a superficial view of resolving the tension and expect immediate results without patience or responsibility.
A further condition is that the third party support the participants without supplying a solution. The participants must come to understand their difficulty and find their own way through it. This distinguishes two approaches often confused: conciliation and Miandari. Although closely related, they are not identical. People practising conciliation may believe they are conducting Miandari, but their actions and processes differ.
In conciliation, the conciliator listens to both sides and then intervenes in the outcome, offering proposals for the parties to discuss. A Miandar, by contrast, must not offer a solution or proposals. Even when drawn to a particular solution, the practitioner keeps it to themselves. This does not mean that no solution should be sought; it means the participants should find it themselves. The Miandar only helps them move towards their own solutions.
Conciliation can be appropriate for some tensions without any need for Miandari, for example when the parties will not see one another again: certain traffic accidents, business disputes or family situations where people decide no longer to live together. An agreement may be reached through a conciliator’s proposal. But when the parties must continue interacting or living together, or work through earlier injuries and their memories, a different relationship is needed. The agreement must endure within a new emotional and social relationship and allow positive experiences in the future.
This is what the Miandar must consider, enabling participants to find their own resolution. It also reduces the likelihood that they will later attribute shortcomings in the agreement to the practitioner or say they were compelled to accept it. The participants’ movement through Miandari is grounded in freedom, responsibility and personal commitment.
Before the Miandari process begins
A Miandar usually becomes involved at one participant’s request but must ensure that all participants accept that request. This establishes trust between the practitioner and participants and helps them recognise a shared intention. It creates a positive emotional climate from the outset. Two people who have been in conflict for months or years without speaking may open a constructive path simply by agreeing to see a Miandar.
Once they agree, the practitioner must make sure they understand Miandari and its conditions. Explaining the process helps them know what lies ahead and distinguish it from conciliation or other ways of settling disagreements. Wherever possible, this should happen with all participants present. Sometimes separate initial meetings are necessary, for example when there are more than two participants and a joint discussion becomes too cumbersome, or when a common introductory meeting cannot be scheduled suitably.
The setting is important. It should feel emotionally comfortable, welcoming and aesthetically pleasant. Drinks, biscuits or other refreshments may be placed in a corner. The space should inspire trust and be away from outsiders. Seating must not make anyone feel superior: participants should be equally distant from the Miandar and able to see one another easily.
Before beginning, four rules must be explained: mutual respect; not interrupting one another; trust and confidentiality; and implementing the agreement. Respect means refraining from insults, humiliation and abusive expressions. Courtesy and its social conventions should be upheld. Each person must be allowed to finish speaking, even when the other finds their words difficult to hear. The other participant can then present their position.
The environment must be trustworthy and confidential. Many processes have failed because conversations leaked outside them. What is said should remain within the room, and anything shared elsewhere requires the participants’ agreement. Because the final decision is their own, it creates a moral commitment to which they should remain faithful; this is also a commitment to themselves.
The participants commit orally or in writing to respect these rules. The Miandar presents them at the first meeting, and participants may draw up their own agreement of commitment. Although these initial steps may appear routine or obvious, they are significant for the practitioner. The rules must remain present throughout the process for two reasons: they protect the Miandar from participants’ prejudgements and make clear that the practitioner will not take part in deciding the final agreement. This safeguards impartiality.
If the rules and process are not clear or properly understood from the beginning, participants may misinterpret the practitioner’s behaviour and create difficulties. For example, a reminder to maintain confidentiality or let the other person finish speaking can then be understood as a reminder of the agreed rules, rather than as a rebuke. The Miandar is responsible for upholding those rules throughout the process.
Miandari follows a process-based logic. Every stage can become a platform for unexpected developments. Imagine two people who have been in conflict for years, refusing to speak or speaking only to insult one another, spread rumours and cause deep hurt. One day, they agree to see a Miandar. If they accept the proposed ground rules at the first meeting, that is already an agreement. It can create a positive pattern for later agreements. The logic of Miandari therefore begins with agreement about the process itself, moves towards further agreements and ultimately seeks a comprehensive final agreement. The subtlety of this method shows why Miandari is a professional skill requiring theoretical knowledge and training. Its usefulness depends on these conditions, and its success rests on its principles.
Two stages, one purpose
Following the initial procedural steps, Miandari can begin in two distinct stages: one looks towards the past, the other towards the future. Either may take weeks or even months. Time should not be underestimated; it can be a helpful friend or a troublesome enemy. Rushing the process means withholding the time needed to address the tension. The underlying factors may then remain hidden and become more entangled, creating pressure either to reach a premature outcome or to prolong the process without care. By contrast, appropriately allowing time gives participants the opportunity to express themselves clearly.
The first stage returns to the past to establish the chronology of the tension. Each participant has sufficient time to describe events in their own words and express the feelings those events produced. Two or more accounts of the past come together, while remaining focused on the central issue. After one participant speaks for a few sentences, the Miandar asks the other to restate what they understood: to retrieve and express the other person’s words as they heard them.
Restating is an important technique for several reasons. First, it requires the listener to put themselves in the other person’s place. Some practitioners go further and ask participants to exchange seats. Second, the person who told their story can hear it understood and spoken by someone who previously would not listen. They can hear their suffering acknowledged by the other person. These two qualities alone can change the boundaries between participants and how they see one another. A new relationship can emerge, allowing forgiveness or empathy and bringing them closer.
There are two further practical benefits. Restating allows each participant to determine whether the other has understood them, encouraging continued engagement. If the message has not been understood, the speaker can explain it differently until the other can restate it accurately. After one participant has described the past, the other must have the same opportunity, with the first then restating their account. This gradually helps set mistaken interpretations aside.
Accounts of the past often begin with a period when things were going well, followed by an incident that suddenly darkened the relationship. The Miandar invites each participant to identify that incident, focus on it and describe it carefully. Prejudgements may then become apparent: perhaps the incident was not as significant as assumed, or happened against both parties’ wishes and generated increasingly serious misunderstandings without any harmful intention behind it.
The practitioner therefore brings the central issue into view so participants can examine the layers of interpretation that have amplified it over time. The tension can cease to be a struggle between people and become a shared difficulty in understanding the issue. Agreement about the issue matters in itself. Instead of questioning another person’s dignity and integrity, attention turns towards something that arose in particular circumstances. The violence of the tension lessens, and it can be seen as a disagreement without its original hostility.
The second stage looks towards the future, helping participants find a way through their tension and disagreement. As explained above, the Miandar does not provide a solution but supports the participants in reaching their own. This resembles Socratic midwifery: the practitioner serves the participants as they discover their solution. Each is invited in turn to suggest ways forward. The approach is dialogical and collaborative. Participants offer solutions arising from reasoning, imagination and practical reality and bring them into conversation. A final solution gradually takes shape within their awareness until consensus emerges. Restating remains important at this stage.
Two further points should be made. Either participant may end the process whenever they consider it necessary, and this freedom to leave must be explained at the initial meeting. The process may also pause to give participants time to reflect. During such a pause, the Miandar may meet participants individually. If one requests a separate meeting, the other must be informed and offered an equivalent opportunity if they want it.
The Miandar does not pursue a predetermined outcome. But if the process reaches a decision, the practitioner suggests recording it in writing. Ideally, the participants draft the document themselves, with help from the Miandar in phrasing it, and then sign it. It becomes the foundation for their future relationship, and the practitioner withdraws. The Miandar may contact them two or three weeks later to see whether further assistance is needed. The practitioner’s involvement then ends.
Reported figures for Miandari processes worldwide indicate an 80% success rate. Although striking, this is explained here by the principles discussed above and the demanding conditions established from the outset. These qualities give a strong reason to use this approach to reducing tension in businesses, associations, schools and families.
In Iran, the greatest obstacle is limited familiarity with Miandari and the misunderstandings created by its broad semantic field. In Scandinavian countries, particularly Sweden, people become accustomed to it from childhood and use it to address tensions. In Iran, those who benefit from it or come to understand it need to discuss its strengths.
Miandari is a civic practice rather than a method found in religious texts. Such texts often discuss conflict and tension, sometimes proposing violent responses and sometimes appropriate ones. Nevertheless, the compassionate spirit of religions can sometimes be recognised in processes of mutual understanding.
Interpersonal or group tensions can continue as long as we remain certain that the problem lies with the other person and the solution lies with us. Miandari helps us revise that belief: part of the problem, however small, may also lie with me, and part of the solution with the other person. My solution therefore lies in my openness towards the other. My strength lies in relinquishing power.
