STWR - Share The World's Resources

6th June 07 - Shirin Ebadi, openDemocracy.org

One of the important tasks of the 21st century is redefining social concepts. I would like to start by redefining the word "peace". The main question here is whether peace means the absence of war. In other words, if a country is not involved in a war, do the people of that country live in an environment of peace?

Definitely no. This definition of peace belongs to a few centuries ago. In the 21st century, peace has to be defined otherwise. For example the devastating situation of Aids patients in the world, specifically in African countries, is even more dangerous than guns and bullets.

A report by Unicef finds that the number of children under 14 years of age who are suffering from Aids in 2006 is 2.1 million (see Children and AIDS: A stocktaking report, January 2007). Many of these children will lose their lives although their country may not be engaged in any armed conflict.

Defining peace

In some fifty poor countries (such as Chad, Guinea Bissau, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Afghanistan and Somalia), as many as one out of every six children dies before reaching the age of 5. The cause of death is malnutrition and not having access to healthcare, vaccination, clean and drinkable water. These children do not lose their lives not to bombs, they die of extreme poverty. This is why we need a new definition of peace. Peace means serenity. One can only feel serene if one's human rights are not violated and one's integrity is protected. Obviously a human being who does not have access to education due to extreme poverty, or who has been sentenced to imprisonment for expressing his/her opinion does not enjoy serenity and does not live in peace. The same is true of a person who has lost his/her home and lives on the streets.

Peace can only be permanent if it is based on two principles - democracy and social justice.

In authoritarian societies, whether religious or political, where the votes of people don't count, where any opposition voice is silenced with imprisonment and/or bullets, peace cannot be permanent. This is the principle of peace as democracy.

In society where a big class distinction exists, peace cannot be established or made permanent either. We can only be happy if our neighbours are not suffering from hunger. How can we hope to establish worldwide peace when 75% of the wealth of the world is in the hands of 1% of the population of the world? This is the principle of peace as social justice.

A report by the International Labour Organisation published in 2004 found that 126 million of the children of the world are engaged in performing dangerous work (see ILO, Global Child Labour Trends, 2000-04). Such violations of social justice must be addressed both at the international and the national levels.

History proves that a society where a big gap exists between the rich and the poor will not be peaceful or secure. In the United States, the richest 1% of the population by 2004 owned more than 16% of the nation's wealth (before capital gains), and as much as 65% of their compatriots. In India, millions of people are born homeless and spend their lives in that condition: they live on the streets, get married on the streets, and die on the streets. Meanwhile, a small proportion of the country's population has access to the most expensive and luxurious homes.

Expanding democracy

Democracy should be redefined too. In its classical meaning, democracy means the government of the majority. But a majority that wins in free elections does not have the right to govern as it wishes. Many dictatorships in the world have (like Hitler's) been elected democratically, meaning by the majority of the vote of the people.. Therefore, winning elections does not guarantee democracy. The majority that gains power through free elections should observe the framework of democracy. Now what is the framework of democracy?

The framework of democracy is human-rights law. That is, the majority that has won power can act only within the framework of the laws of human rights and cannot violate such laws. No majority in power can use religion as an excuse to oppress half of the population of society, in other words women. The oppression that women in Iran are suffering at present is an example of such an excuse. No majority in power should have the right to prevent freedom of speech with the pretext of ideology, as happens in Cuba and China. No majority in power should have the right to limit political freedom, as happens in the United States of America, which restricts - openly or in secret - the activities of (for example) communist parties.

In light of the above, governments do not gain their legitimacy through the votes of people and ballot-boxes alone. They gain their legitimacy through the votes of people and respect for human rights. Excuses for the violation of human rights such as cultural relativism, religion and ideology are not acceptable. Human rights have been derived from religions and civilisations across the world and can be applied to any civilisation and culture.

Related Information from STWR:

Latest articles on Sharing the World’s Resources 

Latest news on Sharing the World’s Resources

Featured video on creating a better world

Featured article: STWR Global Focus – A Basic Plan to Share the World’s Resources

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Write comment