Technical inclusion without morality impedes peace

Causes of dissent need to be arrested

Sunday Observer staffer Afreeha Jawad sees the moral ground of stakeholders as vital in conflict resolution. Upholding the technical framework of majority centered nation state - an imposed system of about 200 years is no solution to the ongoing ethnic conflict. Power sharing is a matter concerning the heart and certainly cannot be solved through technicalities.

Significantly, the need to move towards a unipolar world order has brought about an aversion to dissent. The globalisation process itself being the current trend setter in this regard is a denial of heterogeneity or diversity and is non-accommodative of dissent. A one world order or a unipolar world is in itself not a bad idea provided it is characterised by morality. Yet going by past and present performances, the current trend into what is unipolar has fallen short of moral credentials because of the intense economic motives operative behind closed doors yet quite openly visible where the rich and powerful continuously stand to gain.

In this situation, outstanding is the ever widening state of social inequity, conflict and mayhem. Ever rising socio/econ/political/religio/ ethnic dissent is apparent stemming from inequity which in turn is the result of a unipolar world order.

Causes of dissent untouched

The systemic layout is such that looking the other way is a much preferred state when it comes to arresting the causes of dissent. The surface skimming endeavour of doing away with dissent by imprisonment or death penalty is deemed best solution in arresting conflict and what is called 'deviant' behaviour while probing into its causes remains untouched for the threat it poses to those in control of the unipolar world order with the US torch-bearing followed by its appendages.

Stunningly, British Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Kim Howells had this to say in unearthing the roots of strife and conflict.

"We in Britain have some experience in ending conflict in Northern Ireland. That province is at peace and it took about 30 years to get to that point. We learnt the hard way that security measures will only get you so far and eventually you must if you wish to move towards a lasting peace - be willing to address the underlying causes of conflict."

This profound utterance is to be absorbed heavily not only in relation to national conflict but also worldwide socio/econ/cultural/religio/racial/ ethnic dissent. Treating the wound's surface would not suffice. A thorough examination into its causes will surely end systemic dissent instead of the much preferred way out such as the State repressive mechanism of police, army and navy.

Against this backdrop Saddam Hussein certainly has full space reservation in future writing of world history though it is far from writer intention to hail him as a paragon of virtue.

Yet who then is one such to give a ruling on his life - they themselves being miscreants of an unjust world order. Unfair trade practices, dumping of sub-standard goods in third world countries, social stratification, divisiveness, arms trade and manufacture, drug trafficking, exploitation of women and children and a whole host of nefarious activities speaks volumes for those that sit on what they believe is moral judgement.

Yet systemic dissent is frowned at. The global widespread of economic disagreement for instance sees a multitude in the underclass storm the World Trade Organisation venues the world over whenever such assembly is held. Farmer presence is glaring as they vehemently protest over unfair trade practices. The police are soon brought on the scene. The crowd is dispersed. No remedial measures are taken for policy reversal. The status quo continues.

Technical and moral exclusion/inclusion

Exclusion in any form does not augur well in achieving social development goals of human dignity, equity and justice dispensation. Yet moral exclusion is to be admired and appreciated for it is then that signs of statesmanship begin to shed light. For instance Nelson Mandela on the eve of his release from jail astounded the entire world when he said, "I will not step out of here until every single white man is safe."

To exclude a crowd on moral grounds is in larger interest and certainly a character test. Undoubtedly it is not only the technical inclusion of stakeholders alone in crisis situation that matters but the moral inclusion of those that endeavour to bring justice and equality to ones that express systemic dissent.

Moral exclusion and inclusion over what is technical should be resorted to in conflict resolution if peace is to be arrived at. All stakeholders in conflict resolution may not be equipped with a broader vision of statesmanship - some with vested interests in prolonging the conflict, others with a 'cash in' mind set. Hence the political authority's need to resort to moral exclusion and inclusion becomes all the more important while this authority itself needs moral commitment into power sharing devoid of showing the 'carrot and stick'.

Aversion to dissent

The aversion to dissent is only to be expected in nation state environs where majoritarianism holds sway. While within states majority will rests with the majority power centred unitary state that discriminates ethno/religio/minorities, in the global scene powerful players render injustice to poorer nations who in turn become economic minorities.

Intolerance of dissent has been evergreen in mankind's history. Religious hegemony coming off the church saw the entry of Martin Luther and Calvin in 16th Century Europe triggering off the Reformation and Protestantism. While one worked towards religious emancipation where god via church was repudiated by the church the other spoke of the need for thrift and hard work as part of faith.

In signing the Magna Carter of 1215 it put an end to cruel monarchical executions that wrote off lives voicing dissent.

Civil and political liberties thus came to be, yet the world has a long way to go in the full realisation of such rights including the UN Covenant on socio/econ/and cultural rights. Dissent will as before play centre stage in the future as well as long as social inequity continues.

[email protected]