The we dare suggest that the peace

The word Peace in itself holds no meaning.

It is not having theopposite meaning of violence. A hungry people’s idea of peace is a fullstomach. A nation having warfare may state the non-existence of violence aspeace, even though it may come at the price of hunger. A man may seek peacefrom the mundane tension of the everyday life. A priest may find peace in communionwith God, perhaps even death, the ultimate representation of God’sembrace.  Many would suggest that peace is the antithesis of violenceand war (“What Is Peace?”, 2017).

But is it logical to view the differentinstances of peace, in various societies, with the same glasses? Can we daresuggest that the peace that exists in a ‘Just’ and tolerant culture iscomparable to that of an unjust and fundamentalist society that keep its residentsin line through fear? If that is the case, then we should accept theconflict-free regimes of dictators and tyrants as peaceful (Rummel,1975,35).  One may derive from the aboveargument that peace is not a static phase that either exists or not. It is adynamic feature of society that has less to do with violence and more to dowith human interactions and mindset (Rummel,1975, 36). There exists arelationship between peace and conflict, such that the conditions necessary forpeace and any changes in such conditions make conflict more likely or lesslikely (Rummel,1975, 36). We need to consider the idea that peace does notexist in a vacuum.

We might be better off treating peace as a social contract,such that we as the members of society achieve peace through negotiations,adjustments, resolutions, and decisions. Such a scenario makes peace an active,dynamic part of community and not a passive tenet (Rummel,1975, 102). It isthrough our cooperative existence and interaction that we bring about thesocial contract that is necessary for peace. Peace also holds a pivotalrelation to power. It is only through a balance of power that we can bringabout the genuine and worthwhile instance of peace (Rummel,1975, 102). Peace can both be external and internal from the point ofview of an individual (Rummel,1975, 40).

As a social construct, peace islimited to the outer sphere where the interactions and actions of other membersof society play a role in bringing about the peaceful environment. But if wewere to consider human nature we would find the flaw in such an arrangement(“What Is Peace?”, 2017). If a person is not at peace with himself and hisrole in society, it will only lead to dissatisfaction and resentment, and itwon’t be long before the same chaos leaks to the external world. Perhaps we maycall the internal peace a ‘spiritual peace.’ If the expectations and wishes ofan individual are not congruent with the social reality, there can be no peace.The social reality that is evidenced in the world in theforms of social contracts, political entities, national and internationalinteractions, are just the manifestation of the expectations, values andmeaning inherent in the minds of the people that are party to the socialcontract, i.e., Peace (, 2017).