by Benson Agoha
Achieving peace has been elusive for generations and as former US President, John F. Kennedy said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
MC Scott's 'Rome: The Art of War' showed graphically, how power tussles generated conflicts, created and exposed divided loyalties and led to wars that were very crudely and mercilessly fought.
As has been seen again and again, conflict is conflict no matter where it develops. And when it is a product of social dynamics, it often has the same effect, except it is properly managed.
Personal conflicts is a different issue because it exists and revolves within the individual based on his/her peculiar circumstances. In this sense, the process of resolution begins with self analysis and developing the capacity to brace one's self up and face realities.
Still, people can be cruel, even to themselves, and will not make the necessary reality check, when moderation and compromises could make a difference. But who has the right to judge others, really?
Do people show any willingness to understand us when we have rational reasons to cling to our beliefs, even if that translates to 'self-harming' meanness?
Conflicts in groups is such that, whether we like it or not, we often face some element of circumscription. We are reminded of the need to play by the rules, respect the norm, or be ready to face the consequences.
But facing the music can be brutishly applied. There again, the circumstance before a group, test's a leader's capacity to lead - in times of challenge and in times when the group faces adversity.
Oranisations are group's, made up of different implement-bearing personalities and an egg-head, with his litany of aids, to harness the various competences of these members and point them towards a certain goal.
But whether you are in a village group or an organisational settings, crude implements, selfishness, brutal methods or incursions into another's territory as well as hawkish ambitions often create similar ill-feeling and resentment.
For all its achievements, war never manages to solve problems, at least not on a sustainable basis. The reason is that, though it may suppress in the short term, it often leaves frayed nerves.
Overtime, mankind has learnt, and indeed has sought ways to ensure that conflicts, if they cannot be excluded from society, must at least be controlled - contained within rules that are generally recognised and respected.
But have we managed to achieve peace. No. Have we managed to articulate a solution. No. Are we likely to do that in the near future. Not yet. Because as Mahatma Gandhi "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."
The last question has been part of Prem Rewat's message as he traversed continents with his message of peace. Prem has a generous heart and a good message. But the world are just not listening - for the same reason as an individual experiencing internal conflict clings to his beliefs.
But far from his crude ways from generations past, humanity has made many gains. They have learnt to accept that arguments, itself a sign of conflict, do not always have to lead to war. And that efforts can be dispensed in search of peaceful solutions, when disagreements erupt up.
We have learnt that we can always agree to disagree or disagree to agree. If only this is acceptable to all and respected, we should be more positive with peaceful efforts.
But a simple model for peace appears to suggest that a search for mutual co-existence must include the following suggestions:
a) There must be rules that both lovers of conflicts, war mongers and lovers of peace, must be willing and ready to recognise and accept.
b) No matter what you preach, ensure that keeping the peace is your 'watchword'. This posture or mindset encourages avoidance of war and search for peace.
c) If you must fight, ensure you engage in winnable wars. Often times, this is either difficult because people are unable to appropriately analyse their competences or hope for some luck or intervention from higher planes.
d) If the conflict does not look good or the war appears unwinnable, you must know when and how to quit. This gives you the chance to retain an element of grace.
e) If you are already loosing, terribly under-eqquiped, under-tooled or under-manned, recognise when to abort, abdicate and or surrender.
f) Know when to avoid making unacceptable negotiations requests, except you clearly indicate an intension to surrender.
g) If you decide to surrender, expect to be disarmed and make it easier for yourself and members of your group.
h) When you have surrendered, disarmed or not, avoid making further troubles.
Above all, the search for peace must be through 'talk! talk!! talk!!!, not war! war!! war!!!'
* Follow me on Twitter(follow): @bensonagoha and @woolwichonline.
No comments:
Post a Comment