In Community Conflict, Rules Still Matter

The philosopher John Locke once wrote, “Where-ever Law ends, tyranny begins.”

Each community forms its rules for good reasons. They define its character, and, ideally, protect its comforts and other benefits. They offer a degree of certainty, stability, and accountability with respect to the form and functions of the community in which its members have chosen to live.

Sometimes, however, in a community conflict resolution process, the idea emerges that the rules of the community don’t really matter. The idea might be floated by either side, or even by the neutral mediator sitting between them and seeking a resolution for their concerns.

Sometimes, the idea is right. Sometimes, the authority of a rule must recede in order to find a resolution. This is particularly true where the rule itself is the source of the conflict. In such cases, the community might be better to change its rule than to coerce compliance.

Alternatively, a limited or temporary exemption is appropriate. Conflicts involving the need for accommodation of a disability or other trait protected under human rights legislation often have this characteristic. A rule in a condominium that prohibits pets, for example, may need to be overlooked or exempted from, on at least a one-off basis, in favour of a resident’s need for a support animal of some kind.

Even where these approaches apply, it is often not that the rule was wrong, but simply that sometimes special circumstances require special exceptions.

However, the idea also gets floated where it has no superior justification, but simply because one party seeks an exemption to satisfy their own personal want or interest. In those cases, it must be remembered that the dispute may not concern just the individuals directly engaged in the dialogue, but that the outcome could impact everyone who shares interest and involvement in the community. In such cases, compromise that involves exemption might not be the right conclusion; defense of the rule may need to take precedence over the desire for a resolution.

Between special exemption on the one hand and strict enforcement on the other are a range of options that parties in a community-centred conflict might discover through honest and genuine dialogue, but underlying their conversation must be acknowledgement that the community’s rules matter to more than just the disputing parties, and that no exemption should be lightly either sought or given.

[Image generated by AI.]