starting with peace?

Does developing and growing a culture of peace begin by looking at places of conflict, or does it begin by analysing peace where it exists?

What is the common denominator when we look at peaceful countries? From other bloggers, here is a Global Peace Index.

We talk about educating for a culture of peace, but try to do that by looking at conflict. I prefer the idea of looking at peace, and wondering what the lessons in it are.

This morning I received an email protesting about an art exhibition involving the death of a dog. What was done in the name of art was so shocking I couldn't bring myself to link to it here. The artist claimed that he was bringing the plight of such animals to public attention. He certainly did that, but the debate seems to be more about his approach and the cruelty witnessed in the gallery than about dealing with the animal rights issue. The end never justifies the means. There is always a better way.

I went back to read more about the GPI: The methodology itself is an interesting comment on mankind. The discussion papers are far more comfortable reading than the email I reeled from this morning.

From the May 2007 Discussion paper "Peace and Sustainability: cornerstones to survival in the 21st Century" page 12 (reprinted without permission from www.visionofhumanity.com) we get the following:

Characteristics of a Culture of Peace
Peaceful nations demonstrate certain
characteristics or attributes. Nations at the
top of the Global Peace Index manage to
balance the interests of the private and public
sectors in ways that result in most people
feeling that they have a “stake” in the State
and social system. These components are
best secured by the State being committed to
creating a positive environment for business
and by business supporting the State. Both
need to be committed to promoting the public
good and reasonable degrees of equity and or
equality of opportunity for all peoples in the
system.
Peaceful nations embrace the concept of
inclusiveness. If we extend this concept
to humanity as a whole, it presents a
starting point for the beginnings of global
peacefulness.
Most peaceful societies tend to have a
range of formal and informal mechanisms
for dealing with grievances, conflicts of
interest, and questions of marginalisation and
exclusion. In particular, they have deliberate
and intentional mechanisms for balancing
majority prerogatives and minority rights.
They also tend to have mechanisms for
containing conflict which is inevitable and
essential to the effective functioning of all
systems. Many would argue that creative
friction constructively channelled is the fuel
of progress.
Peaceful societies have strong sanctions
against direct violence. This is reflected in
an independent and an effective police,
legal and judicial system which is capable of
controlling and preventing direct violence.
It is also reflected in high levels of sensitivity
against violence as an acceptable way of
settling disputes. What is interesting is that
some of the nations ranking in the top twenty
have not always been peaceful. They have
changed over the years. This means that
violent behaviour is not permanent: it can
be reversed. Decision-makers can realise that
violence is not the most effective instrument
for advancing national interests.
The top twenty nations of the Global Peace
Index also tend to have quite modest military
systems that are largely non-offensive, even if
some of them such as Japan are large in per
capita terms. Most also tend to pursue what
can be called cooperative or common security
strategies, advancing national interests and
pursuing national security in collaboration
with others. They also tend to play active and
responsible roles in regional and multilateral
institutions. They view the United Nations
as the cornerstone of a critical set of global
institutions for generating what can be called
the international rule of law and the peaceful
settlement of disputes.
An awareness of the attributes of peace can
provide politicians and decision-makers with
a tool to develop peace initiatives, and to
create and sustain more peaceful societies.
The effectiveness of government actions can
then be measured through the Global Peace
Index. This information allows governments
to better understand what they can do to
reduce violence and conflict. And, with
this awareness, business could make more
confident investment decisions on the basis of
actual and predicted stability in a community
or nation.

While the tone is general it is not hard to extract from this some specific guidelines to apply to society.

The 2008 discussion paper looks at
"The Study of Industries that Prosper in Peace -
the ‘Peace Industry’".

Whether we like it or not, peace seems to be about the distribution of resources and wealth. From the 2008 discussion paper (page 11) comes the following:

The great 18th century
French philosopher Montesquieu in his
dissertation on the separation of powers,
‘The Spirit of the Laws’ states:
“The natural effect of commerce is to bring
about peace. Two nations which trade
together render themselves reciprocally
dependent; if the one has an interest in
buying and the other has an interest in
selling; as all unions are based on mutual
needs.”

When we teach a child how to care for a puppy we show the right way, not the wrong way. Does too much exposure to violence de-sensitise us? I think it could. It takes so many positives to correct the damage done by one negative. We tend to be "negatively geared" when we are vulnerable.

Philosophically I am anti-consumerism. If trade and exchange can contribute to peace then I might have to re-think this position.