The people decide what style of government to have, not the international community

With each step we take in the pursuit of peace we are to learn. The past one hundred years we have been fixated on the attachment of peace, freedom and democracy. With each situation that I have either been involved or aware of, I have slowly come to realize that peace and freedom are not always teamed with democracy.

The vision of democracy being one person one vote, elected government, responsible representation, and people governing themselves are all valid points. However, we have learned from the RUSA through the years 2000 – 2008 that a democracy can also be tyrannical. We also see that only 35% of the population actually votes. We also know that few people in the RUSA feel they are the government.  This great beacon of hope is proving to be false and we have to rebuild the mindset as to what peace and freedom really are.

There is a saying which states “no government acts without the will of the people”. This is very true. Without the will of the people no government will last. Therefore no matter what style of government, the people have to agree.

There are terms of brutality that occur when governments abuse power such as the case with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, military rule in Burma. In both cases the will of the people had been crushed due to violence and fear. Such situations are realities we work to see an end of. It is through the will of the people that we seek an end to such realities.

The will of the people to govern themselves is not conditional to democracy, it is a basic human desire. As we look back into the history of indigenous governance here in Canada, there is evidence of democratic rule for thousands of years. These governance systems are now being recognized as the spark for all democratic models used today.

As we seek to resolve violent conflicts in the world we have to let go of the quick jump to democracy. Instead we need to focus on the peaceful order of day to day life.  The common push for democracy may actually stifle the ingenuity to develop a new system of governance. We must understand that the people will choose their own system of governance.

As the transition takes place there will be a need for order. Although we all wish for the benevolent dictator is such circumstances, none has come forth. We are left with the use of a similar system to the now defunct United Nations Trustee Council. This Council was to oversee the transitional governance of a state while it worked out the details of how governance was to take place.

The priority of any peaceful transition is first to end the violence and ensure order is maintained. After that is accomplished the people will engaged in negotiatied governace. This process will decide how the people want to govern themselves.

Choice, freedom and governance

Choice and being able to make choices are fundamental for freedom. By no means does that freedom have to be wrapped in a democratic style of governance. However we have come to link the two as if one can not live without the other. With all the revolutions in the Middle East we are living through a time where freedom of choice is being expressed by the people. Often these people live in Autocratic societies.

Now, as an outsider, I know that I should have no say in how these people choose to be governed, that is up to them. When I hear leaders (as has Canada’s leader) call for regime change, I feel the bullet of oppression rip through the right to self-determination. I am all for ending the violence in these revolutionized countries but I do not want to support war mongering or anything else that will cause more bloodshed. Furthermore I do not want to force a system of government on anyone.

In Syria we have many countries flapping their mouths off about regime change. These same countries are providing support as well in the form of weapons and training. What is really surprising is that the support is given to opposition forces that have very little support amongst the people within Syria. By supporting these opposition forces we are supporting a group that represents a minority seeking power and using force to get that power. This is the very thing the revolution sought to end in the first place.

Over the course of events in Syria I have sided with the plan in which Russia and China have always stated. That being a coalition of leaders meeting with the Syrian government to hammer out a peace plan. Doing this will ensure sovereignty, legitimacy and hopefully a quicker agreement to a ceasefire agreement. At the outset the other three permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have fought those plans, which in the meantime more people of been killed. Somehow the popular perception has it that Russian and China are the ones that have been blocking peace efforts. The fact is opposite.

The people of Syria need to be given the chance to exercise their will to run their own country. That is their right and their freedom. If they want to be ruled by a monarchy or dictator so be it. What ever format they choose to make that choice we must support. Now of course the international community has to abide by international law and human rights. So we can not support a system that selects a leader by shooting each other.

Now to throw even more mud into the mix. The international community may be ethically bound to stop  violent conflicts, legally there are no grounds to do so unless such violence spills into neighbouring countries. This has not happened in Syria. However there are forces outside of Syria going in.

In Syria, the path to peace is to support the people of Syria. That path is through the existing government and a ceasefire agreement with all opposition forces. This is the support in which the international community has always been asked to provide: The support of the current government to uphold the current laws and constitution of the sovereign state.  With that the international community has limited that support if a government is actively killing its own people such as genocides. In such a case regime change is deemed necessary.

In conclusion, the international community must support the people in its right to choose the system and the leadership of their own country. Those rights must be protected up to the point where the system used threatens regional peace or threatens an unequal section of the population (what ever that is).

Peace and conflict

Often I find it quite amusing that I focus on areas of violent conflict and yet I work in the area of peace. Sometimes I wonder if there is any improvement. Now there are times when I say that there has been great improvement. Plus the academic results suggest that we live in a more peaceful world.

We do have to recognize that we are coming out of the most deadly century known to us. Two world wars, El Salvador, Zaire/Congo, Cold war, Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Afghanistan twice, Rwanda, Columbia, Indonesia, Kashmir, Yugoslavia and the list goes on.  Being a more peaceful time was not all that difficult considering the non-stop fighting we have just come out of.

One of the elements that sparks many of these wars is the desire for change in leadership.  I know that is a simple cause to state but it is a reality. The buzz phrase is “regime change”, which has a certain identity of corruption, brutality and violence attached to it. Of course the reality is that even in the most peaceful country an election can bring regime change.

In the grand idea of unity, we are all striving to live in a country where regime change is done peacefully. It is difficult to think of anyone that would want to live in a country where you are oppressed, fearful and living with violence every day.  However for many that is exactly what life is like the entire time they are alive.

It is odd that the average person is a very peaceful being yet we have the governments they elect being very violent. For example the RUSA, most people in this country are very peaceful so you wonder how can their government be so violent? Where is the disconnect? We can see the same thing in Israel and Palestine, the average person is against the use of violence, yet it has been a constant part of life since 1948.

At some point there is a major disconnect between the people and the leadership of this world. We spend more energy on killing each other than we do on helping it seems. Many governments are willing to engage in violent wars with no thought of an end strategy other than kill as many as possible. When it comes to peace efforts most leaders bark about the cost, it takes too long, it is messy, it is not done right and/or it is too complex. Such thinking just leaves me in a spiral of futility.

As I sit back and relax I realize that there is no need to worry about when our tasks will be finished. That day will come for each of us when we die, but the task will still need to be worked upon. It is the legacy of peace that is left for others. We are all human and we all deserve an equal opportunity to live a peaceful life. So with that I sense that being closed minded means you just found the edge of understanding, the frustration you feel is telling you to expand your understanding of life and others.

Elections in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

28 Nov 2011 was the date for the people to decide the leader of that country. Since that date there have been many reports concerning the lack of legitimacy of those elections.  Millions of votes were found illegal as well as procedural violations cited. As I am writing this article many protesters are now in the streets complaining about the election. At this very moment, the government has shut down radio stations and detained those that protest.

None of this is a shock because we had understood the reality of life in that country. However the situation needs to be resolved. As sad as it is, the current government must be allowed to govern, even though there is no doubt that the current leader has abused power.  That leaves us with the question of what to do?

Now as I have said many times, life is insane and this is one of those situations where a persons’ morals are in direct conflict with reality. We can be certain that any challenge to power will be met with violent force. The use of violence is not the choice of a peaceful person but when you are left with no options you must defend yourself. With that in mind it must be understood that no government rules without the will of the people.

The method or tactic being used by the current leader to hold power/control, is a combination of fear, corruption, loyalty and entitlement. In order to defeat the current leader there has to be a sustained focus on the use of those tactics and strong alternatives to every policy being offered. These alternatives have to be communicated. This is the task for the people of the country and they are doing many of these. The opposition is also using the other four tactics as well and that is where the international community can help.

We all have opinions but when it comes to international politics there has been a code of not talking publicly about who should lead what country. That is one reason why Russia and China do not speak about changing the leadership in Syria. Anyway, the NGO community does not have such restraints so many governments use that avenue to voice such concerns. For me I have no idea if the current leader would is any better or worse than the opposition leader and that needs to be a focus.

The focus for achieving peace in the DRC needs to be concerned with the independence of the Electoral Commission and strong education concerning peaceful societies. The institutions of the country and the average citizen need to be given great support so they feel safe in voting how they want. Right now is the time to begin that support in preparation for the next election.

All too often we only focus months before the date of elections. This not so alarming in a peaceful society but in a post-conflict society this lack of attention is harmful. As we witnessed in the past election, the Electoral Commission was poorly organized during the election. Also the opposition leader openly supported the use of violence no matter what the outcome.

The international community needs to step up the efforts to educate the people and those working in government. The education has to be focused on the responsibility of the people and the institutions to support the rule of a free and fair society. The chaos of conflict will grip any country as long as the ideology of disconnection exists. We have to get the people to practice the knowledge which holds a country in peace. That time is now because it can not be done in a months time, it will take years. As it stands now we have years before the next election in the DRC. Get to work now.

Libya 14 Feb 2012

In the past month or two there has been very little news in the mainstream media about Libya. Everyone must feel that the transition is going well. This is the time to increase the attention on Libya and raise the level of support.

The situation in Libya has improved since the revolution but the transition is still a work in progress. Security is still the main focus of peace due to the amount of weapons in the hands of “irresponsible people”. The hope is that these people will transition into the national army. We have to acknowledge the reality that some will continue to operate in conflict with the peace. We still have gang violence in Canada so why would there not be such activity in Libya?

I recall a conversation I had in 2003 with a number of soldiers while we shared a few beverages concerning Haiti.  We were talking about the best way to clear that country of weapons. The tactic most agreed to was a dragnet tactic (I can not recall the military term, perhaps it was “sweep”). Although each soldier noted that it would never be used because of the time and cost. There is another reason too. The argument against such a tactic is that once you have gone over the area you have to go over it again and again.

Dragnet tactics is simple to understand as dragging a net across the ground. You can see it being used in wars where battle lines drawn, World War Two for example. With situations such as Libya, there are no lines, other than the existing international borders. The tactics used in such cases are what is known as sector security reform.

Sector security is the setting up of military posts and that post is in charge of a certain area or sector. This method has been around for centuries. Basically it is the same as the local police station in any town. They have a defined sector to patrol and hold. France and Britain used it here in North America building forts and out posts. It is the most popular method of war/peace operations today.

The situation in Libya is best suited for sector security because of the tribal composition, weak national army and lack of legitimate authority held by the Libyan government. To ensure that sustainable peace returns to Libya, a strong communication effort must be implemented. There was a major effort in the later days of November and that needs to be followed up with another very soon.

The Tribal leaders have to meet again and discuss the issue of sustainable peace. This has to be the main focus for the people at the moment. The communication effort must focus on the security of each tribe and the efforts that each tribal leader has taken to secure the legitimacy of the current government.

If democracy is what the people want, these talks need to share authority and responsibility of sustaining peace. The grand vision of Libya has to be framed in the view of individual peace as it relates to national peace. Each person needs to feel their part in being responsible for a peaceful country. The armed groups need to understand that power is not being taken away, it is being shared. The best way forward is to share the responsibility of protection. Any tribe or group that violently works against this idea will only be maintaining a cycle of instability.

Libya may seem to be off the news headlines right now but this is the time when efforts must be stepped up. The lack of attention is a point where things can go wrong quickly. To me it feels like a calm before the storm.  

The economic situation in Greece.

The economic situation in Greece.

At what point does it sink in with the people of Greece that rioting will not solve the situation. The situation is dire indeed but the people of Greece must understand that they are part of the problem. I guess everyone forgot the labour strike that put the cost of the Olympics games out of reach.

That labour strike has a direct impact on the economic situation today in Greece. Even more astounding is the fact that the rest of Europe has bailed out Greece, the thanks they get (Germany in particular)is more pressure to give even more money. To me, the actions of the Greek people resembles a temper tantrum of spoiled children.

The riots are founded on the tough measures the government has to make. The people are yelling that the government is poorly managing the country. It is these situations where frustration is so raw that peace is hard to maintain. It is true that money has been misspent. However, what is not being made clear is that the average person in Greece has demanded the government continue to pay for salaries that were out of reach. The people are just as much to blame for this as the politicians and the grand example is the labour strikes just before the Olympics.

This is another example of fingers pointing to every possible place other than the self to lay blame. Being a peaceful person means owning up to your part of the mess and working to solve it. Burning buildings, throwing rocks destroying your own city only makes matters worse. At this particular moment the cycle of violence will continue in Greece.

The term “tough love” may have to be used in this case. The world needs to stand up and tell the people of Greece, not the government, the people of Greece that no more bailouts are coming. Germany has given all it can and that well is dry. If the people of Greece want to completely destroy their own country well that is their choice and they can clean it up too.

Abject stupidity is a dance that no one can be saved from once it has begun and the people of Greece are well on their way to the dance floor. This is the root of frustration because the outside world can see the dance unfold. Yet the warnings are falling on deaf ears. I can not think of one riot that helped the economy- at all. Oh wait, I guess World War Two did end the Great Depression. But really, is killing people a path to economic prosperity?

Not sure if anyone is concerned with the amount of instability which currently rings the Mediterranean Sea, I am. I know how fast peace can be lost. At the moment, there is a great deal of unrest in that region which we have not seen since World War Two. However, the confidence of the world that nothing will engulf that region in total chaos is a pleasant point to hold on to.

The people of Greece have to shoulder some of the responsibility to solve the economic situation in their country. Rioting is a poor method of doing that.

Indigenous History

Methods of governance have been around since two people had the need to work together, whenever that is. As society grew so did the rules of interaction. Most of these rules were passed along through speech, which is known as oral history. This form of information sharing is the largest form of passing information that we have. Many civilizations use oral history to this day. Truth and Reconciliation processes hinge on the people “telling their stories”.

Oral history has long been discounted because those that doubted it were dishonest people.  Even today we share that dishonesty with the phrase “get it in writing”. Yet there is the foundation of a person that often points to character when they are described as “a person of their word”. I am mentioning this because at the moment I am researching the unwritten governance models of the First Nations people in Canada.

I have learned that many of the governance models British philosophers used were based on information gained through knowledge of First Nations diplomacy. People such as Bentham, Locke, Smith and Keynes have all been influenced by the logic in governance used by the First Nations. The reason this is not well known rests on the fact that the First Nations people used oral history rather than written history. Their words meant something but words are easily forgotten.

Here in Canada we have a dark history of treatment towards the First Nations. That history has created a real mess as it has been eroding the fabric of life for millions of Canadians. However we are fortunate enough to understand the loss of knowledge is too great to let it go. We have a great mountain of work ahead of us.

As I worked in areas of violent conflict, the cultural methods of peace were always sought for. In the past twenty years, here in Canada we have looked into our past and retrieved the idea of restorative justice models from First Nations governance.  There will be more changes to our system as we progress.

There is no one turning point because there have been so many points of great progress. For example in 2001 Canada, the people of Nunavut negotiated the largest government and land control transfer ever undertaken in the world. This is one moment when the history of the First Nations was understood as Canada’s history. The entire people of Canada are beneficiaries of the collected efforts of all history in this country. The good and the bad, we all own it and we are all part of it. The history of the Inuit is the history of Canada, as are the histories of all the nations that make up Canada.

Within this information I have been learning, I can see a different future. I can understand the contributions to our culture as it changes. What is even more important to me is that I know I live the words I write here. I listen, learn, understand, change in order to provide a world more peaceful than the one I was born into.

Libyians need to talk

Lately I have been working with a group to manage the process of transition in Libya. The main element that is on the minds of most people in Libya deals with the question;  What has been accomplished since the revolt? This question indicates a lack of information getting to the people, difficulties in the management of the process and the presence of the old guard mentality.

It would be unwise to think that violence would not take place in the coming months or years. The reason is because the people (any people in the world) do not change their methods in such a short time frame. Libya still has a large component of people that believe in the same governing style as the past government did. Mix that reality with the strong desire for quick change by the public. That scenario is like putting a match near gasoline.

At the moment there needs to be a very aggressive communication plan set out in tandem with an equal diplomacy effort to all tribes, rebel groups, political parties, religious factions and any other element of society that exists. Both the communication plan and the diplomacy effort need to reach out to as many people as possible.

The message must inform everyone that a period of time is needed to quell the element of violence that is still fresh in peoples’ minds. With that the diplomacy effort needs to ensure that all armed factions are informed as to the process of transition, steps that each faction must take to secure the peace and where they can assist with the transition process.

When and if violence does occur it will most likely start because people are not satisfied with the speed of transition or feel left out of the process. The only tool that is available to ensure violence does not take place is through communication. A government that uses threats of violence dies the same way – just as the past government went. Also it must be acknowledged that this is the time where a relapse of war can take hold. The next few months are tenuous as the patience of the people begins to wear thin, thus the need for a robust effort to reach out extensively.

The communication and diplomacy points to a large education program for the entire country. Goals need to be set, validated, marked and evaluated constantly.  The people need to know what state the police, army and court systems are in. People need to know the people that are in charge and what their plans are. Right now there is not enough information getting to the people and there is no clear idea of what is going on.

Large public events/speeches need to take place. Newspaper articles written, radio and television interviews need to take place. If these actions are not taken we may see violence erupt.

Syrian Intervention

The revolutions that are ongoing in Syria have been deemed an internal problem by almost every world leading organization.  The UN Security Council quickly decided that Syria is experiencing a civil war.  As I have mentioned before that designation allows the Security Council the moral standpoint of non-intervention.  However, there still exists the pesky ideology of “Responsibility to Protect”.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), ideology was born in 2001.  It was the brain storm of the “soft” or “smart” power countries.  The crux of this ideology is that sovereignty can be broken if there is cause enough to do so. Criteria for breaking sovereignty would be a ruling government failing to stop a violent uprising or conducting a violent rampage upon its own people, for example Yugoslavia and Rwanda.  There are other cases that can be pointed to as well such as Cambodia and Somalia. 

There is no magical number or line in which we can point to and say this is the line for action.  The world is just not that easy or simple.  Also there are many scales of account to consider.  A civil war is by nature a challenge to the ruling government.  As brutal as it may seem such a condition of chaos must be allowed to play itself out, case in point is Ireland, Egypt, Tunisia and Georgia.  The murky cases are Libya, Kashmir Region, Sri Lanka and others.  Even the countries named here are debated whether or not they indicate civil war, terrorism, gang violence, failing states or what have you.

 With all of this judging of circumstances we have the politics of intervention.  The questions swirl around about; why should we intervene, is there capacity to intervene and who should lead the intervention.  In addition to those questions there is always predicting how long it will take to quell the violence.  I myself have come to understand that the only answer is – as long as it takes.  It may take months, years or even decades.  To be completely honest time is a reason the UN Security Council stays out.  Well not just time but the longer the war the higher the death count.  Few countries have the will to be engaged in a single combat for extended periods of time, unless it is happening in their own area. 

With the case of 5 000 dead in Syria and counting, is a significant portion of the population.  The Arab Observers have seen enough and are being recalled due to an unsafe environment.   The Arab Council had seen a need for intervention as it did with Libya.  The different between Libya and Syria is the location of Syria, the area is extremely volatile.

Now on the surface of all that is peaceful this would be the exact area where the UN Security Council should deploy.  This region holds the crucible of tension in most wars today – religion/ideology.  The only reason I can see for not having a greater presence is the hypocrisy in political will of the world leaders.  Killing 5 000 people because they asked for a different government is a crime against humanity in my view.

The debate about who fired the first shot will forever go on.  In some sense that is an important fact yet, the thousandth shot is just as important.  In such a debate this is called “stacking bodies”.  The side that has the most bodies is the side that has incurred the most harm, therefore is justified in all their actions.  In the world of peace relations, justification is not an excuse for killing.  Killing is part of the “eye for and eye” game theory.  In the end we are all dead if we follow that theory through. 

I say it is time that the people of Syria be relieved and the world step in to stop the killing.

Conflict resolution information

Conflict often starts from within us internally then it becomes external and its growth more complex when we do not manage it immediately and appropriately. We should always first concentrate on internal resolution of conflict then external management; we should therefore change our PERCEPTION, ATITUDES and BEHAVIOUR, first before we seek to change others.

Most times we choose reactive methods for solving problems (force, arbitration, adjudication, and negotiation) but they only provide short term solutions.  The most effective method for conflict resolution is to use proactive methods (mediation, resolution and transformation) because they are outward looking and address the root causes of conflict.

Many times we say we want peace but we rarely act to work towards peace or we do not know how to achieve it.  To attain peace we should practice active peace.  Active peace is the process of understanding, co-operation, transforming and solving. 

Conflict Management and Resolution Styles  

1) Force: Force is a violent way of conflict management where the view of the other party is accepted by the other one by force (parents and children, teachers and students, boss and an employee etc.)

2) Adjudication: This is where the conflicting parties go to the third party to resolve their problem and abide by the decision of the third party due to his judicial or legal powers.  He can force the two parties to comply with his decision (LCs, police, and court of law).

3) Arbitration: This is whereby the two conflicting parties choose the third party to solve their problems.  They will abide by the decision of the third party because of his social status (religion leaders, community leaders, elders, etc)

4) Negotiation:  This is where no third party is involved; the two parties in conflict tend to work out their differences by themselves. This depends on perceived power or status of the parties; these can work well if the parties have equal power and status.

5) Mediation:  This is a method of conflict resolution where the two parties in conflict are assisted by the third party who is neutral to reach an agreement.  The third party does not judge or censor on behalf of any of the two parties, he only helps them to reach a solution.

6) Resolution:  This is when the two conflicting parties attempt to solve their problems; in such a way that new constructive relationships are built after the problem is resolved.

7) Transformation: This is the highest level of conflict resolution where the two parties involved in conflict choose to build a new and permanent relationship; the decision is taken from the bottom of their hearts and minds. 

Transitional chaos in Libya

The people of Libya have completed another phase of revolution.  The violent overthrow of the past government is complete.  Now the new government is in the dire situation of producing results demanded by the people.  The first demand is to bring law, security and predictable government more quickly.

In the pursuit of those demands the new government of Libya has asked the international community to release the financial sanctions put upon Libya.  What is surprising is that the financial sanctions are still enforce while the weapons sanctions have been lifted.  Think about that piece of idiocy for a moment.  A country that is well stocked with weapons to the point where stock piles are found daily is allowed to bring in more weapons.  Yet the money to run government, police, hospitals, schools, transit and a host of other infrastructure is still on hold.  Who makes the decision to lift the sanctions – UN Security Council.

It is even more absurd when you hear the list of priorities for the return to peace.  Number one is the locating and documenting existing weapons in Libya.  Second is the reintegration of the 75 000 fighters into society.  Third priority is to quell the rise in gang violence.   

There were enough more guns and ammunition to oust the last leader yet they need more to secure the peace?   In addition, you will not have any money to pay the police, military, doctors, teachers or government agencies to run these operations.  To be fair, there are funds made available.  It is just frustrating to see that weapon sanctions get lifted before financial sanctions. 

As the Libyan government deals with the transition, the public needs to be engaged as well.  The people need an outlet to express their experiences.  There needs to be a reintegration program on a mass scale that the entire society can go through.  In the past these have been called Truth and Reconciliation Commissions.  No matter what the name is, such programs are needed. 

The biggest test is going to be the elections, which are supposed to take place next June.  Already people are becoming agitated with the slow progress of transition.  This is to be expected as a violent revolution is a very highly intense atmosphere and peace is not.  People want change now and that is impossible.  What needs to be done is to engage with the people.  There needs to be mass discussions on the vision of Libya.

These discussions will allow the people to vent off the anger of what appears to be slow progress.  Having a person in place for the people to scream at, take that energy and produce positive feedback.  This is the realm of community development.  It may be the smallest of items that will bring the anger to a level that is acceptable.  Perhaps the local market has been destroyed or the schools or mosque or even a popular community area.  Whichever it is, a discussion with the community will provide answers. 

One thing they certainly do not need is more weapons.

Respect Electoral Process

Where I live we are going through a debate about governance.  How much is too much, is the current system working as well as it should, what are the options for change and do we have the right people in place to manage any change?

These questions are exactly the same questions being asked of politicians in Russia, DRC, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria and every other country to be honest.  There is another factor to consider though, which is the trust we have for debate to be handled with great skill.  Do we have people that will say damaging remarks, even if it the remarks are true?  Then, after the damage is done still feels justified in their actions?  A person that acts in such a manner has no real understanding of peace. 

Peace is about respect for the other.  Knowing how your actions will impact and managing the information you want to get across.  In the case of Syria, the government is actively killing its people.  What is the message there?   The opposition party in DRC made note that violence was going to happen no matter what the result were.  In Russia, there are demonstrations about fraudulent voting procedures.  What is the message there?

In each case we have failures of various degrees in governance.  A strong leader will understand the coming issues of violence and relate the message of peace through words and actions.  A strong peaceful leader will allow opposition to their policies in an open format.  A strong peaceful leader will see and understand the need for rivals to exist.  A strong peaceful leader will have a plan in place to hand over leadership and that plan should be made known.

A strong peaceful leader will have respect for the process of governance.  They will have the ability to communicate with wide spread impact, with trust and with courage to face the threats of defeat peacefully.  These elements are missing in many of our leaders today.  There is a lack of trust that those in power can manage peacefully.  There is trust that the current leaders will act violently and they rule by fear not agreement and support.

There comes a time when leaders have to be given weak support with the knowledge that there is no next time.  Russia and Putin may have that situation in place now?  The people want to see life improve and this has not happened since Putin came into the Kremlin.  He may get his wish and be President again due to possible election fraud but he must understand that this should be his last term.  This should be his last chance to make improvements.  He should not run again.  Doing so is a slap in the face to the people of Russia and the process of governance.

Society and the individual

Society is or can be a reflection of each individual within that society.  The same can be said of all types of relationships that we belong to, such as a team, organization, family, marriage, friendships and so on.  As I think about those connections, the mind spins into many realms of being or belonging.  Who do I choose to be with and belong to? Then I asked why do I choose those relationships?

What is the most important relationship in your life?  I figured that question had to be answered first.  The answer came rather quickly and the most important relationship I have is with my own self.  No one will ever know me as fully as I know myself.  In some ways I feel that is a great loss but it is a reality (anyway that is a side bar thought)

In the time I have spent in peace work, psychology has proven to be a major element of understanding peace.  Societal peace, inner peace and peace with the environment have all been intertwined.  Mostly though when dealing with violent conflict the focus is split between inner peace and societal peace.

Being from Canada I have the luxury of being able to go home to a peaceful country and live where ever I please.  Not so for many of the people I have lived with.  That luxury is not a reality for many and to be honest it has caused a great deal of pain for me to reconcile with.  It has often been thrown in my face without sugar coating.

 “We live here, this is our homeland, where else do we go, we can not leave.” 

Each of those statements stir many memories and emotions as I think about the people that said them.  These people choose to stay in that place because of their attachment, they belong there.  No matter how hellish life gets they will not give up, why?

The only answer I feel is worth repeating is that these people believe in the future of a peaceful day.  It is that singular piece of mindset that has enabled me to work at bringing peace to anywhere I have worked.  There has to be hope in a future that is peaceful.  Even as I think about all the relationships that an average person here in Canada has, they too must make similar decisions as to whether or not a relationship continues. 

As I sit here writing this the economy is in dire condition.  Then I think about all of what I just wrote and I know that the economy will boom again someday.  Think the economy is bad now, imagine what is what like here in Canada during the thirteen hundreds?  Wonder if they even cared?