Peace is possible
Peace Nihilism
Peace nihilism – the widespread assumption that wars are inevitable and that peace activism is futile – must be eliminated if we, the people, are to successfully move our governments to taking peace seriously.
Some people believe that the human beings are incorrigibly violent war-fighting animals. In its most extreme form it is expressed in the “Hydraulic” belief that it is necessary to have a war periodically to relieve some war-fighting urge. There is no scientific evidence for the existence of this urge. Some peoples get involved in wars far less than others, and some peoples (for instance, the Danes), having once in their history been warlike Vikings, are now numbered among the most peaceful and civilised nations.
The belief that it is pointless to campaign for peace, because governments will not listen, may arise in some people as a way of achieving certainty in a dangerously uncertain world. If the world finds itself in WW3, the pessimist has the satisfaction of being able to say “I told you so”. This is a small consolation when set against the fact that WW3 will put an end to civilisation.
Peace nihilism is often the result of disappointment that a Government ignored a peace demonstration (for instance the Blair Government’s discounting of the massive, one million person demonstration against the Iraq War), or that their MP failed to answer a letter the person sent. Such reversals and disappointments are inevitable in the struggle against a deeply ingrained habit. We are bound to come up against obstacles laid down by the military industrial complex which is the only section of humanity which profits from war.
Nothing comes of nihilism. Pessimism leads to depression and inaction. Peace campaigning is effective at very least in helping activists to lose the feeling of dread and powerlessness in the face of news that is full of stories of military violence. Peace advocacy is a matter of persistence and consciousness of the vital necessity of helping to create a more peaceful world, and when a significant minority leaves nihilism behind, we will have a mass movement to bring pressure on our rulers, because the vast majority of people do want to live peaceful lives.
Not perfect, just better
We are not talking here about absolute and perfect peace. Pacifism is a respected tradition, upheld by valuable and effective groups such as the Quakers, but absolute pacifism is a difficult position for a government or a political party to uphold. Quakers did come into power in the early history of the USA, but had to resign when their state came under attack. Our aim here is to reduce the frequency and intensity of war rather than to abolish it completely.
Inner peace
Peace must start within the individual, but it must not end there.
We cannot win a debate about peace by shouting angrily at the opposition, but equally we cannot bring about world peace by concentrating on inner calmness and remaining silent about injustice, oppression and militarism.
Too often, the search for inner peace become an alternative to the search for international peace. In reality, the search for peace should be balanced between personal and political.
Democratic duty
Political activity should be an integral part of life within a democracy. If we want our democratic government to do a particular thing we should let our democratic representative know what we want. If we want less militarism and more international dialogue, we need to express our desires to the right person.
Real, liberal democracy is clearly the best way of running a country in comparison with populism and authoritarianism, but it only works if we engage with our elected representatives and join with others to bring about change.
Peace is possible, but it will only happen if people continue to call for a more peaceful world.
Related Questions
A More Peaceful World 
Leave a comment