Digging Deeper into Peace Studies—Peacebuilding
Many people believe that the current time, the 21th century, is the most peaceful era throughout history. In the 20th century, the world had fought two major wars, World War I and World War II. Both wars brought numerous casualties and serious consequences. After World War II ended in 1945, major powers tend not to confront one another and try to maintain international peace, which is an occurrence of harmony characterized by lack of violence behaviors and the freedom from fear of violence. Many powers face this problem when conflicts and confrontations occur: what kinds of action are necessary to build peace? To what extend does democracy help eliminating direct, structural, and cultural violence? This post is going to argue that effective communication and the appreciation of the differences of the others are vital factors that maintain peace. Democracy, on the other hand, does help reduce direct and structural, yet it is not effective in eliminating cultural violence.
Some people argue that if Neville Chamberlin, the British Prime Minister, had effective communication skills during the Munich Agreement, World War II would be preventable. In 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin, French leader Edouard Daladier, and German leader Adolf Hitler gathered in Munich to solve the crisis of the Sudetenland. During that time, Hitler wanted to expand the German territory by gaining the German areas in Czechoslovakia, also known as the Sudetenland. In react to the German ambition, Neville Chamberlin claimed that his policy, appeasement, had gained “peace for our time”. Appeasement is a policy that allows the aggressor to take actions because other powers don’t want to have a war. Historians argued that if Neville Chamberlin could stand up against the German leader, World War II could be prevented. Because of the absent of effective communication between the German leader and others, World War II happened. Thus, effective communication is one of the actions that are vital in order to maintain international peace.
Besides effective communication, the understanding and apprehension of the differences of other people is also important to build peace. During World War I, many people believe the main trigger was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the archduke of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, by the Serbians. Relationship between the Australian-Hungarian and the Balkan Peninsula had a deep involvement of colonialism and nationalism. During that period, Austrian-Hungarian Empire, which was major populated by Austrians and Hungarians, desired to control the Balkan Peninsula, which were majorly Slavic people. Ethnic tensions between the Austrians, Hungarians and Slavic people increased, which led to the trigger of World War I. Also, when Russia and Germany collided, they only thought of their own interest. Yet, if people appreciate the differences of other people, World War I could be prevented. Russia, France, and England wouldn’t have a war with Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. The appreciation of other people’s cultures, races, and classes is important and it is an effective way to build peace.
Some people believe that democracy is an effective way to prevent direct, structural, and cultural violence, others believe that that democracy is only a form of government and has nothing to do with reducing violence. After the Enlightenment in the 1800s, people started to develop theories of how the government should act and form. One important philosopher was John Locke, who proposed the importance of Life, Liberty, and Property. These three curtail elements later formed this type of government, democracy. Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens are meant to participate equally—either directly or, through elected representatives, indirectly—in a proposal, development and establishment of the laws by which their society is run. On the other hand, direct violence is a form of violence that people are physically engaged in a conflict, such as wars and physical abuses. Structural violence is a discrimination against other people such as racism and classism. Cultural violence is a form of violence that is rooted within people’s culture. Democracy is helpful at reducing direct and structural violence. Yet, it is proved to be ineffective at eliminating cultural violence.
A democratic nation is required to listen to its citizens’ opinion. While written in the Constitution, the president or Prime Minister has limited power. The system, checks and balances, was created to equalize the power of the three branches, executive, legislature, and judiciary. A country that its government is required to listen and take its people’s opinions is less likely going to have wars with other country. Each branch, as stated before, have limited power and is continuously checking on one another. Therefore, democracy is helpful at reducing direct violence.
Democracy is also helpful at reducing the level of structural violence because it tends to protect all of its citizen, no matter the differences between one another. Structural violence is a form of discrimination against another group of people based on their differences. A democratic nation helps reducing structural violence because it tends to protect all of its citizens. Thus, democracy is helpful at reducing structural violence.
Not like direct or structural violence, cultural violence is a form of violence that might not be presented and it is rooted in people’s hearts. Although democracy is useful at reducing the level of direct violence and structural violence, it could not eliminate cultural violence. Cultural violence is formed due to that culture’s history. Therefore, democracy has no ability to help reduce cultural violence.
Many people believe that the current time, the 21th century, is the most peaceful era throughout history. In the 20th century, the world had fought two major wars, World War I and World War II. Both wars brought numerous casualties and serious consequences. After World War II ended in 1945, major powers tend not to confront one another and try to maintain international peace, which is an occurrence of harmony characterized by lack of violence behaviors and the freedom from fear of violence. Many powers face this problem when conflicts and confrontations occur: what kinds of action are necessary to build peace? To what extend does democracy help eliminating direct, structural, and cultural violence? This post is going to argue that effective communication and the appreciation of the differences of the others are vital factors that maintain peace. Democracy, on the other hand, does help reduce direct and structural, yet it is not effective in eliminating cultural violence.
Some people argue that if Neville Chamberlin, the British Prime Minister, had effective communication skills during the Munich Agreement, World War II would be preventable. In 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin, French leader Edouard Daladier, and German leader Adolf Hitler gathered in Munich to solve the crisis of the Sudetenland. During that time, Hitler wanted to expand the German territory by gaining the German areas in Czechoslovakia, also known as the Sudetenland. In react to the German ambition, Neville Chamberlin claimed that his policy, appeasement, had gained “peace for our time”. Appeasement is a policy that allows the aggressor to take actions because other powers don’t want to have a war. Historians argued that if Neville Chamberlin could stand up against the German leader, World War II could be prevented. Because of the absent of effective communication between the German leader and others, World War II happened. Thus, effective communication is one of the actions that are vital in order to maintain international peace.
Besides effective communication, the understanding and apprehension of the differences of other people is also important to build peace. During World War I, many people believe the main trigger was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the archduke of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, by the Serbians. Relationship between the Australian-Hungarian and the Balkan Peninsula had a deep involvement of colonialism and nationalism. During that period, Austrian-Hungarian Empire, which was major populated by Austrians and Hungarians, desired to control the Balkan Peninsula, which were majorly Slavic people. Ethnic tensions between the Austrians, Hungarians and Slavic people increased, which led to the trigger of World War I. Also, when Russia and Germany collided, they only thought of their own interest. Yet, if people appreciate the differences of other people, World War I could be prevented. Russia, France, and England wouldn’t have a war with Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. The appreciation of other people’s cultures, races, and classes is important and it is an effective way to build peace.
Some people believe that democracy is an effective way to prevent direct, structural, and cultural violence, others believe that that democracy is only a form of government and has nothing to do with reducing violence. After the Enlightenment in the 1800s, people started to develop theories of how the government should act and form. One important philosopher was John Locke, who proposed the importance of Life, Liberty, and Property. These three curtail elements later formed this type of government, democracy. Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens are meant to participate equally—either directly or, through elected representatives, indirectly—in a proposal, development and establishment of the laws by which their society is run. On the other hand, direct violence is a form of violence that people are physically engaged in a conflict, such as wars and physical abuses. Structural violence is a discrimination against other people such as racism and classism. Cultural violence is a form of violence that is rooted within people’s culture. Democracy is helpful at reducing direct and structural violence. Yet, it is proved to be ineffective at eliminating cultural violence.
A democratic nation is required to listen to its citizens’ opinion. While written in the Constitution, the president or Prime Minister has limited power. The system, checks and balances, was created to equalize the power of the three branches, executive, legislature, and judiciary. A country that its government is required to listen and take its people’s opinions is less likely going to have wars with other country. Each branch, as stated before, have limited power and is continuously checking on one another. Therefore, democracy is helpful at reducing direct violence.
Democracy is also helpful at reducing the level of structural violence because it tends to protect all of its citizen, no matter the differences between one another. Structural violence is a form of discrimination against another group of people based on their differences. A democratic nation helps reducing structural violence because it tends to protect all of its citizens. Thus, democracy is helpful at reducing structural violence.
Not like direct or structural violence, cultural violence is a form of violence that might not be presented and it is rooted in people’s hearts. Although democracy is useful at reducing the level of direct violence and structural violence, it could not eliminate cultural violence. Cultural violence is formed due to that culture’s history. Therefore, democracy has no ability to help reduce cultural violence.