Beyond Surface level peace: understanding the implications of negative peace
“Peace is not merely the absence of some negative force- war, tension, confusion, but it is the presence of some positive forces – justice, goodwill, the power of kingdom of god”
- Martin Luther king jr-
Is the absence of conflict the same as the peace, or it is merely a silence that precedes the storm? In our quest for harmony, it is crucial to differentiate between the mere absence of violence & the presence of a true sustainable peace. This distinction leads us to the concept of negative & positive peace. It is well known that human being pay much interest in peace from the ancient time until now. And we live in the society filled with violence & in an effort the curb levels of violence. But unfortunately, we are misled into believing that we can use injustice & violence to attain a “peaceful society”. In order to have a deep understanding of the issue, it is necessary to know its true meaning.
The theory of peace has undergone changes in 1964 and galtung’s view on peace & violence have changed to a broadened focus on the causes and effects of violence and peace. Gatlung (1969) defines violence as being “present when human beings are being influenced so that their actual somatic and mental realization are below their potential realization”) p.168
This extended definition of violence leads to an extended definition of violence leads to an extended definition of peace. Where peace is not merely and absence of direct violence (negative peace) but also absence of structural violence (positive peace).
Negative and Positive Peace: A Dual Framework
According to Johan Galtung, the term ‘peace’ & ‘violence’ are linked. Johan Galtung argues that with a very slight different notion of violence, it can respectively develop a more slight understanding of peace. If it achieve the absence of direct violence in society but still have systems in place that prohibit people from reaching their full potential.
“ The reason for the use of terms ‘negative’ &’ positive’ is clearly seen; the absence of personal violence doesn’t lead to a positively defined condition, whereas the absence of structural violence is what we have referred to as social justice, which is positively defined condition (egalitarian distribution of power & resources) – Galtung 1969
The negative peace often thought of us as the only type of peace when there is no fighting or violence. It is a peace without justice, it is a false sense of peace that often comes at the cost of justice. In a negative peace situation, it may not see conflict out in the open, but the tension is boiling just beneath the surface because the conflict was never reconcile. Peace as absence of violence is called the traditional notion of peace. It’s not only the absence of violence. It’s the notion of structural violence too. If we want to go one step further, it’s about positive peace.
According to him both negative peace and positive peace integrated leads to the sustainable peace. Negative peace can be defined mostly as the absence of violence. Actions taken in order to achieve negative peace, there are those that aim to prevent or stop explicit violence from occurring.
Beyond its critisations on negative peace due to its inherent limitations, negative peace is often considered a foundational step towards achieving positive peace. Because direct violence undermines trust and social cohesion within communities, posing g significant challenges positive peace. Acts of direct violence, create a climate of fear and insecurity, eroding the bonds of trust that are essential for peaceful coexistence. Individuals and communities affected by direct violence may become wary of one another, leading to increased social divisions and alienation. Moreover, the individual, collective and Trans generational trauma pose barriers to peace building. Process such as dialogue, reconciliation and transitional justice require trust, empathy and ability to engage with opposing group, which may not be possible when coping with mental health and psychosocial issues, as survivors may struggle to overdo e feelings of anger, resentment, and distrust towards perpetuators and authorities. This is breakdown in trust and social cohesion not only undermines the stability of communities but also impedes the establishment of inclusive and participatory processes for conflict resolution and reconciliation, hindering progress towards positive peace.
The Limitations of Negative Peace
While negative peace is an essential first step, stopping at this juncture is problematic. it’s primary criticism it its temporality & superficiality. It doesn’t resolve the underlying social, economic or political tensions that lead to conflict, it only focuses on putting end to the visible & immediate manifestations of violence, such as armed confrontations & physical attacks. . However, beneath the surface – the tension is boiling such as historical grievances, social inequalities, political exclusion & economic disparities, neglecting the underlying tensions means that the violence is suppress only, but it has the potential for the recurrence. It may end the hostilities, but it doesn’t means it fosters reconciliation or build trust among conflicting parties. As anytime conflict will explode cause of the root causes. It is inherently unstable & temporary. It may not necessarily lead to sustainable peace. In some cases, it can create a fragile peace.
Achieving negative peace , this does not mean the relationship between that warring parties has been restored, if structural violence is not addressed, only negative peace can be achieved which is simply as the absence of direct violence. For example, although the Good Friday agreements in Ireland managed to limit direct violence by removing weapons from communities, it failed to address structural violence as sectarianism is still prevalent in those communities. Therefore only negative peace was achieving which has been unstable and prone to breaking down in recent years. As a result of this instability in the system , the structural violence present in Ireland may lead to increased direct violence in the future as tensions rise, showing how the failure to address structural violence leads to increased violence in the future, this demonstrates how in order to achieving positive peace, solving structural violence is paramount.
True, sustainable peace what Galtung calls positive peace cannot be achieved without addressing both direct and structural violence. Negative peace, while an important first step, remains insufficient on its own. Only by tackling the root causes of conflict inequalities, injustices, and exclusions. can we move toward a peace that is not just the absence of violence but the presence of justice, reconciliation, and harmony.
References:
1. Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167-191.
2. Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural Violence. Journal of Peace Research, 27(3), 291-305.
3. McGarry, J., & O'Leary, B. (2004). The Northern Ireland Conflict: Consociational Engagements. Oxford University Press.