Constitution key in reducing business disputes

gentleman is now busy courting politicians who he feels can help him to fight his employer.
Despite the fact that he was working for this particular employer for 30 years as a senior manager, he is now alleging that he has been victimised on racial grounds. The following questions beg for an explanation.

Why was racism not an issue during the 30 years he was at the helm of the company?
How can racism become an issue if this gentleman was at the helm of this particular company for a long time?
This implies that if racism is an issue at this particular company, this manager concerned could have been the weapon to suppress his fellow black guys for the past 30 years.

If we are to give this gentleman a benefit of doubt, it follows racism is good if it does not affect this manager.
The employer alleges that this particular chief executive officer has been relieved of his responsibility due to incompetence. Is politics supposed to be abused to defend mediocrity?
A friend of mine told me about a religious dispute, which is going on at their church.

The founder member of this particular church recently passed on. The church members are fighting for the control of the church and its assets.
To make matters worse, there is no fine distinction between the church assets and the founder’s assets.
As a result the church has now been split into two hostile factions. He told me about how politicians have been roped in to “solve” the embarrassing feud, which has manifested its ugly head through violence.

In short, he told how the dispute has been badly handled by both sides. I asked him whether the politicians involved are Christians. He told me that some of them are not.
In a nutshell it can be deduced that people are desperate to find easier solutions out of their economic social and religious differences without following proper laid down procedures.
Having discussed how people in various spectrum of life are meddling with politics in order to cut short their journey towards dispute resolution it might be interesting to understand what a politician is.

Allow me then to analyse the two definitions provided below. Politician is derived from the word politics.
Politics is derived from words “poly” meaning “many” and “tics” meaning blood-sucking parasites.
A politician can be defined as a seeker or holder of public office who is more concerned about winning favour of retaining power than maintaining principles. (Dictionary.reference.com)
This definition shows us the populist tendencies of politicians. Politicians like any opportunity that makes them relevant.

They like to be with people and help people. They have a tendency to agree to give help even where they have no relevant skill and knowledge.
They are servants of the electorate. In most cases they do not voluntarily talk about their limitations
A politician or political leader is also, “an individual who is involved in influencing public policy and decision-making”. (Wikipedia)
This definition implies that the role of politicians is to serve the interest of the majority.

Though experience has demonstrated that they can be manipulated to serve the interest of the few selfish individuals.
Politicians are useful in leading and shaping the direction of the country but they can be abused to settle petty domestic disputes.
It might also be interesting to understand the differences between the arbitrator and politician and also find areas of common ground.

An arbitrator must be a neutral person chosen to arbitrate a disagreement as opposed to seeking recourse in the courts of law.
The court process is slower and more expensive. In addition, court process can invite unnecessary negative publicity.
If the subject of dispute is highly technical, arbitrators with an appropriate degree of expertise can be appointed.

If the disagreement is on interpretation of legal issues, an arbitrator with a legal background would be desirable. Feuding parties can only go to the courts as a last resort.
In most cases arbitrators are chosen from people with legal background.
It is not a function of an arbitrator to threaten any of the feuding parties but his role is to find the common ground and advise the parties without fear or exerting any pressure.

The arbitrator is supposed to gather facts from both sides and evaluate the merits of each party‘s submission and come up with a reasonable solution based on the facts on the ground.
Can politicians be good arbitrators?

It will be grossly inaccurate if I paint all politicians with the same brush. Some politicians can be good arbitrators provided they don’t resort to using pressure to get results.
They have relevant experience in the field under dispute. They allow the feuding parties to air their discontentment.

They are acceptable and chosen to both parties. They don’t abuse state institutions in an effort to solve disputes
Politicians are also involved in arbitrating political impasse in other countries, for instance former South African president Thabo Mbeki was actively involved in finding a lasting solution for the Darfur region conflict.

The way we prevent future areas of disputes defines how we can separate men from boys in the scheme of things.
In most cases prevention is better than cure. Therefore these are some of the recommended arrangements which can be applied to reduce business disputes.

Partners in a business deal must have a written shareholder agreement, which specifies the rights of each shareholder, percentage of shareholding and how capital was raised in the company.
It should also indicate how directors were elected/or fired, how each shareholder should dispose of their shareholding, how disputes will be handled and the dates when an agreement was signed.

This applies to all businesses (whether family, SMEs formed by friends, etc). It is recommended to use legal practitioners to design these agreements or to seek legal opinion before signing these agreements.

There must a properly written constitution to govern the operations of other organisations.
The constitution also specifies how each party relates to the other. It is mandatory for the following organisations to have constitutions whether they are voluntary organisations, non-governmental organisations, charity organisations, clubs, pressure groups, etc.

Though this appears as if it is common knowledge, recent developments have shown that some of these organisations are operating without one or most of their office bearers or without the knowledge of their constitution.