For the purpose of this editorial let us understand Perspective, simply as a “point of view” which implies the view from a given point and place. We are all encouraged to understand the world, and we interpret the world from the place, space and time where we are located. And naturally it is by no means a fixed point since we are always in motion. Our viewpoints are decisive in defining our understanding and vision of the world. The existence of diverse view points is inescapable. In fact the collective viewpoints demonstrate the perspective of a nation.
It is therefore only natural that there are diverse and even conflicting points of view because we all are located in many and different places at the same time. This diversity merely represents the wealth of humanity. Without the presence of this diversity, there would be no change; humanity would be static, perpetually constant and without perspective. Hence, to respect diversity is not just a universal principle. It is a condition of humanity.
Our definition of peace therefore would depend on our point of view. Depending on where we are located, we will either construct peace, as a status quo of injustice – which is to suffer peacefully – or peace as a dynamic reality of a dignified existence. This understanding suggests the existence of opposing paths of humanity. For this reason the pursuit of power and the struggle for rights make humanization and dehumanization as inevitable destinations in the course of human history. The presence of these contradictions is not decisive, but what is decisive is how we address these contradictions.
It is for people themselves to determine the course towards either humanization or dehumanization. The idea that eventually defines the path towards either of these destinations is the crucial question of; to what extent can a people deliberately and consciously exercise its self-determining capacities. For peace to be made possible we must overcome the presence of contradictions in a dialectical manner so that in the other possible world we strive for, we do not have one absolutism pitted against the other. The other possible world invariably is concerned with the question of a ‘shared humanity.’
The question of peace is in essence directly related to the idea of a shared humanity, for no peace would be possible to sustain or even arrive at if it does not lead to a condition of a shared humanity. In other words, it does not limit peace as mere absence of war and violence, but it constructs peace as a dynamic and interdependent existential reality in which people live with dignity; and can freely determine and exercise their freedom. A shared humanity is constantly conscious and engaged with the process of defining and building the future.
The existing dominant paradigms of peace has been obsessed with the ‘other’ and the more walls that it builds; the more it will have to tear down, when it finally realizes that all of humanity actually needs each other. The monotheism of force has been at the center of state response to conflicting interests and historical experiences show that this lack of critical imagination and the arrogance of power perpetuates the assumption that the hammer is the only means available to deal with people who disagree with you.
Sadly, when the tool is the hammer, the power imbalance takes over the language of justpeace, which the powers that be define it as ‘suffer peacefully.’ All that this perspective has done is to create the image of an enemy of the ‘other’ and pursues the idea that asserts the efficacy of force. The perpetual resort to force manifests a deepening belief in force as a method above all else which inevitably stands out as a monolithic structure.
Hence the endeavor to find a third way to conflict is not about who the ‘others’ are, it really is about we are and how we respond to issues of injustice. How we address injustice of all forms is decisive to whether we can build a peaceful world. By injustice it primarily implies state and structural violence and subsequently all other forms of violence that prevents the fullness of a dignified humanity. To make peace a living reality, we must without a doubt recognize that it is impossible and undesirable to ‘eliminate the other.’ If our response to conflict is more violence, than in the final analysis, we would end up being no better, possibly even worse. We must explore and create value-based approaches to address conflicting interests in more creative, imaginative and peaceful ways, in which the use of force has no role. This new paradigm should constitute processes that will empower and guide the people to exercise and implement the idea of a dignified shared existence.
At such a time as this we need to critically reflect on the direction that we find ourselves moving. This period of human crisis should be a time for us to engage in self-criticism and to truthfully examine our present status and find concrete ways in which we can transcend the present and move to the future. Through honest dialogue we can explore together new and respectful approaches to address conflicting interests in more creative, imaginative and peaceful ways. Peace becomes meaningful when we are able to overcome the core issues of conflict, and not by avoiding them. By transforming injustice to justice, peace is possible.