We had come to talk to him about dialogue and responsibility, and he was showing us what dialogue was about. At its heart is humility, a letting go of power. Focused on love, this approach recognizes and respects the other, not as one among many, but as a unique individual. Trust then grows with mutual assurance, and pathways are found together which respond to God and His creation, embodying hope. All of these virtues were not just discussed but lived in Hocaefendi, showing us, that dialogue is primarily about discovery of the self, each other, our world and God.

Fethullah Gülen’s contribution to Islam, to other religions and more widely, was precisely to show how truth could only be found through such dialogue. It is focused on our relationships, not in intellectual abstraction, enabling us to continually see the world differently (metanoia). This is why autocrats fear dialogue, seeking to silence different voices, and impose their perspective of the world, held in place by fear.

Because of that dynamic Gülen died away from his homeland, which in one sense is a tragedy. He did not get to see the reemergence of democracy in Turkey. In another sense though, the democracy he thirsted for never has and never will flourish fully in our world. This is democracy as dialogue, not simply representation, which seeks to engage everyone in sharing responsibility, a democracy which is always learning, always refreshing itself, always asking questions not just of those in power but of the ordinary person. Gülen gently challenged everybody to serve, to take and share responsibility for each other. Genuine dialogue nurtures freedom through relationships, freedom found in building peace. 

His enduring gift was the creation of the Hizmet Movement. The very term ‘service’ counters any temptation to reconfigure religion as a focus of power, nationalistic or otherwise. It looks outwards to share power and create, and so Hizmet’s home was always destined to move beyond national boundaries. But as Gülen taught us, global reach is not about elevation. Hence, he always resisted attempts to elevate himself, as leader or thinker. Instead, he brought people down to earth, the here and now, to the particular in which the universal love of God is to be found. For that, people of all religions and all nations owe him their gratitude. 

There is often mixed joy and sorrow when traveling abroad, sometimes discovered in the journeying, sometimes found at the destination. Such a mixture was mine on a recent trip with Hizmet to India, where interfaith dialogue and its wonderful fruits across the many faiths of that subcontinent were very clearly evident, but that alongside increasing communal discord and even serious and extensive street violence in the face of protests against government policies of division and exclusion. Unfortunately, such social upheavals are today not limited to India; they seem to be spreading like fires in drought-stricken forests around the world, engulfing too many developing and developed countries, alike.

Early one morning around 2am, when sleep evaded me, I deeply felt the poignancy of this turbulent travel, while my mind drifted to recollect some stories often told of St Francis of Assisi preaching not only to human beings but to birds, as well as other creatures of creation:

When he drew nigh unto Bevagna he came unto a spot wherein a great multitude of birds of divers species were gathered together. When the holy man of God perceived them, he ran with all speed unto the place and greeted them as if they shared in human understanding. They on their part all awaited him and turned toward him, those that were perched on bushes bending their heads as he drew nigh them, and looking on him in unwonted wise, while he came right among them, and diligently exhorted them all to hear the word of God, saying: “My brothers the birds, much ought ye to praise your Creator, Who hath clothed you with feathers and given you wings to fly, and hath made over unto you the pure air, and careth for you without your taking thought for yourselves.” While he was speaking unto them these and other like words, the little birds—behaving themselves in wondrous wise—began to stretch their necks, to spread their wings, to open their beaks, and to look intently on him. He, with wondrous fervour of spirit, passed in and out among them, touching them with his habit, nor did one of them move from the spot until he had made the sign of the Cross over them and given them leave; then, with the blessing of the man of God, they all flew away together. All these things were witnessed by his companions that stood awaiting him by the way. Returning unto them, the simple and holy man began to blame himself for neglect in that he had not afore then preached unto the birds. [Saint Bonaventura, The Life of Saint Francis, 12.3]

And so I wondered (dreamed?), what might the birds tell us of their lives and struggles in this newly disruptive age?

The Birds: A Parable

Once upon a time, there was a bountiful flock of birds, all with iridescent blue-green plumage and a melodic trilling song of thanks through God for their heritage as a single community: together they preened, together they sang, together they lived and thrived upon the resource-laden land God gifted to their stewardship.

As time passed, other flocks were drawn to this same rich territory, as well, all with their varied distinctive plumage—fiery yellows and reds, subdued grayish-browns, and dazzling whites—and all with their individual God-given songs of praise.

The original flock generously welcomed all these newcomers, judging that sharing was better than selfish hoarding, opening better than closing ranks, and accepting different characteristics better than demanding uniformity in attributes. Together they fashioned a unity in their very diversity, sharing the riches of the land, extolling their variegated colors in songs to their Creator, generating a harmonious chorale that exemplified the Creator’s love for all of His making, as stewards of land and of one another, together…together. Generations passed in peace, colors and songs filled the land, and unity was manifested.

But a season came when a spirit of fearful possessiveness arose among some of the descendants of the blue-green flock, who began looking askance at those whose colors and songs differed. “What place have these foreigners amongst us? Have they not intruded into our way of life, depleted our resources and now threaten our very existence? Let them depart to other lands, apart from us, with their own kind.”

Though few in actual number in the beginning, these dissident voices seeded fear and discord, which took root and grew widely where once unity had thrived. For although the ones they called “foreigners” had passed many generations upon the shared land and even now comprised only a small proportion of the overall population, hardship borne of dissimulation had come to many of the birds across all the flocks. Stewardship of the land had been overshadowed by exploitation of resources for the benefit of a greedy few, and the detriment of many. Now, a scapegoat was needed to divert attention from the real causes of increasing distress and hardship.

Arbitrary hierarchies were manufactured and enforced, purporting to be inherent and according to “purity” of color and song. Only those deemed worthy now had a proper place in society, and their numbers were strictly circumscribed by documented ancestry via sole descent from the first flock. All others were relegated to some separate, ignoble status. And now, uniformity and unison in song, rather than harmony of distinctives, became the priority: “How else could the Creator receive proper praise? So-called harmony was really just cacophony, and no God could be pleased with that!” If the song were different, it had no arena, even when the song was echoing celestial praise; if the bird’s color and song were different, the bird was no longer welcomed, it had no place.

Unity was shattered, harmony disappeared, estrangement normalized. Jealously ostracizing others became the common rule. Harsh words became the norm…violence the ready remedy…destruction, injury and death the ultimate result.

More fully awake, now, I considered, “Can the birds recover themselves? Can they listen anew to St Francis’ call together joyously to offer praise to their Creator and so be content? Or is it too late?”

Perhaps more importantly, is there more than a fanciful story, here? what might these birds tell us of today’s challenges to our societies…to our very humanity? Can we, today, respond to the call of St Francis as did the birds of the field near Bevagna, to live together in peace unto the praise our Creator, seeking only His commendation?

When President Trump recently visited India, banners were emblazoned with the slogan that the world’s oldest democracy was meeting with the world’s largest democracy. Thomas Mann, in 1947 testimony before a U.S. congressional committee, noted a depressing increase in “spiritual intolerance, political inquisitions, and declining legal security,” that typically foreshadows an ultimate breakdown in democracy itself, which can only finally usher in a breakdown in societal peace and prosperity (subsequently realized in the fever of McCarthyism in the US, and the violent partition of India). Where there is no sense of the sacred through acceptance of difference and mutuality in dialogue, there is eventually only polarization: there will be those who agree to think the same way who are called friends; while all the rest are demonized as enemies. And where there are only friends and enemies, insiders and outsiders, “us” and “them,” civil war—metaphoric at least, actual bloodletting at worst—is inevitable.

So, can India recover itself? It was once the standard bearer of secular/multi-faith democracy in the developing world—or is it too late? Can we in the US recover ourselves? We were once the standard bearer of an immigrant-filled country grounded on practicing civil discourse in the developed world—or is it too late?

May the Creator grant that we all together comprehend and affirm His path of acceptance, affirmation, and peacemaking:

The Spirit has never ceased brooding over the waters … ever creating, superintending, re-creating, all that is, according to the counsel of God’s own purposive will. Together with the angels and saints, we rejoice in faith, hope and love, as the Only Holy One continually, eternally renews the face of the heavens and the earth.
Our Only Creator
through His creation
is creating us
is sustaining us
is provisioning us
is re-creating us
unto the restoration
of all His creation.

One morning, an office friend gets my attention and asks, “Have I (ever) given you this book?”

The face on the well-designed cover is familiar. It is that of a thoughtful Fethullah Gülen. My mind flies to Turkey, Gülen’s home country, and then to the state of Pennsylvania, where Gülen has been living since 1999. Gülen’s thoughts are for his homeland, who’s democratic backsliding has led to so much grief and suffering.

The title, “No return from Democracy,” is worth chewing on. With all the endless definitions and consequent divergent practices of democracy, which country on earth can claim to have been there? What kind of democracy? There are many different forms. Since when has democracy been a destination, so that pilgrims can talk of coming back? Isn’t democracy a country’s tool for achieving a certain level of freedom and perfection rather than a purpose?

The sub-title, “A survey of interviews with Fethullah Gülen,” leaves me hanging. It forces me to take refuge to the back page. The “avant-garde” French touch referring to Fethullah Gülen’s ideas turns into a real kicker. It renders it difficult to resist digging deeper into this man’s imprint on Turkey’s affairs and beyond, as well as his multi-dimensional scholarly, religious, and ethical life.

Who is Fethullah Gülen and why is he so concerned with democracy? To begin with, why should any of us be concerned with democracy?

From the back cover I get the impression of an archive rather than the mentioned survey of Gülen’s scholarly thoughts and engraved faith and ethical views setting a positive democratization formula for our times and future political systems. If I were asked to name two major aspects that affect the world most today, I would point at democracy and climate change. The democratic world and the climate are in mortal danger as humanity turns its back to solidarity, mutual assistance, and generosity and instead engages in bloody, destructive wars and violence.

Now what makes it worse is that some perpetrators of violence – whether individuals or groups – claim to be working in God’s interests, even though their atrocities contradict the very purpose of His creation. Examples of such violence abound.   

Forgetting our duty towards God, our neighbors, and even our very selves has led rare people like Fethullah Gülen to emerge in the hopes of putting the world back on track. Their job is three-fold. First, they must make society (individual members or groups) aware of the fact that there is no such thing as violence for God’s sake. Second, these people stress that the religion of the perpetrators has nothing to do with crime. It is not a vice to be a Muslim just as it is not a virtue to be a Christian. Third, these rare people are teaching that spiritual values also apply to those who choose to accede to political powers.

In this regard, “No return from democracy” should be read carefully, understood and taken as a reference tool for those in search a truly democratic society, be it in Turkey or any other country. Eleven chapters and an appendix by Gülen himself condemning the coup attempt and denouncing terrorism send a clear and unequivocal message to the world; namely, that “A Muslim cannot be a terrorist and a terrorist cannot be a Muslim. A person cannot go to heaven by killing a person.”

In consonance with the letter and spirit of the book, the lead chapter responds to fundamental and thought provoking questions like, “Can Islam and democracy be reconciled? Can a Muslim also be a democrat? Can Muslims fully practice their religion in a democratic order? What kind of regime does Islam envisage? Does a theocratic regime exist in Islam? What is meant by an Islamic order?”

Gülen laments (p. 12), “… it is painful to see how those who speak on Islam and democracy and claim to pronounce in the name of religion have come to the understanding that Islam and democracy cannot be reconciled…” He argues this is wrong because it is built on a superficial comparison that “Islam is based on the rule of God, while democracy is the view of humans…” He observes that on the contrary the true picture is one of “sovereignty (being) taken from individual oppressors and dictators and given to community members.” He cites “the era of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs of Islam” as “the application of this democratic norm of democracy” (quoted in The Muslim World, July 2005 Edition).

Accepting that there is no conflict between Islam and democracy, should we take such basic attainments as pluralism and human rights as having been invented in the West, or can they be accepted as universal values? Have they been applied in Muslim societies? In other words, is Islam conducive to democracy?

Gülen confidently asserts yes (p. 13): “None of these values (have) emerged only in the West and in modern times.” And for that matter, “we see that in its process of development, democracy has many different applications and that it has undergone many modifications and revisions.” He cites an assortment of prefixes of democracy like social, liberal, Christian, etc. “In some cases,” he says, “even one of these forms … may not consider the other as democracy.”

He goes on to reveal (p. 13, 14) “the principles and form of government that form the basis of democracy are compatible with Islamic values. Consultation, justice, freedom of religion, protection of the rights of individuals and minorities, the people’s say in the election of those who will govern them and the latter being held accountable for their actions, and prevention of the oppression of the majority or minority, can be cited as examples of the values and principles espoused by both Islam and democracy” (quoted in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, December 6, 2012).

In an interview with Ashrq Al-Awsat on March 24, 2014, Gülen pointed out (p. 17) “we sadly observe that in countries where democracy is demonized, human violations, moral and legal turmoil, and religious and ethnic disputes and conflicts abound. Currently, democracy is evolving to become a common asset and custom, as it were, of the entire human race…”

Gülen tackles this issue very broadly across many years and in a wide range of media outlets, including: Le Monde (April 28, 1998); Zaman (March 24, 2004); the New York Times (June 11, 2010); TRT, Turkish Radio and Television (June 2, 1995); NTV (February 27, 1998); Kanal D Television (April 16, 1997); and the Financial Times, as well as interviews with individual journalists.

The gist of all his conversations is that “democracy is a rule by the people. It is a profound form of ‘republic.’ It is (the republic’s) soul; it is the more humane dimension of it. For this reason, in a sense … it always existed in the past, although it was not named.”

He continued, saying (p. 21):

“We can even talk about a republic and the existence of a democracy without a name during the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. …Maybe between the systems there is an overlap. It is possible to reconcile them. For this reason, it could be thought that a republic and democracy might make a proper ground for Islam, Islamic thought, and the possibility of practicing Islam. Considering them as against Islam, in my opinion, is a wrong interpretation, a wrong approach…”

No Return from Democracy is an archive of Gülen’s unflinching insistence on taking the path of democracy and focusing on dialogue and coexistence. Throughout the chapter on dialogue and coexistence, Gülen is at his best when presenting tolerance, dialogue, and conciliation as the antidotes to violence. He demonstrates his level of exposure when he borrows a word from Socrates (470-399 BC) by emphasizing that “those who wish to reform the world must first reform themselves.”

Like Gülen, we should never lose hope “because problems can be solved with time” and we “should not try to find fault with religion because it does not allow for conflict…At the core of all this is being respectful to different ideas…and accepting people as they are, no matter what they believe in and what philosophy or ideology they pursue” (New York Times, 2010, and Asharq Al-Awsat, 2014).

No Return from Democracy: A Survey of Interviews with Fethullah Gülen
By Faruk Mercan
Blue Dome Press
2017 pp. 240
9781682060179

Since July 15, 2016, following a deplorable coup attempt, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has systematically persecuted innocent people — arresting, detaining, firing and otherwise ruining the lives of more than 300,000 Turkish citizens, be they Kurds, Alevis, secularists, leftists, journalists, academics or participants of Hizmet, the peaceful humanitarian movement with which I am associated.

As the coup attempt unfolded, I fiercely denounced it and denied any involvement. Furthermore, I said that anyone who participated in the putsch betrayed my ideals. Nevertheless, and without evidence, Erdogan immediately accused me of orchestrating it from 5,000 miles away.

The next day, the government produced lists of thousands of individuals whom they tied to Hizmet — for opening a bank account, teaching at a school or reporting for a newspaper — and treated such an affiliation as a crime and began destroying their lives. The lists included people who had been dead for months and people who had been serving at NATO’s European headquarters at the time. International watchdogs have reported numerous abductions, in addition to torture and deaths in detention. The government pursued innocent people outside Turkey, pressuring Malaysia, for instance, to deport three Hizmet sympathizers in May 2017, including a school principal who has lived there for more than a decade, to face certain imprisonment and likely torture.

In April, the president won a narrow referendum victory— amid allegations of serious fraud — to form an “executive presidency” without checks and balances, enabling him to control all three branches of the government. To be sure, through purges and corruption, much of this power was already in his hands. I fear for the Turkish people as they enter this new stage of authoritarianism.

It didn’t start this way. The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) came into power in 2002 by promising democratic reforms in pursuit of European Union membership. But as time went on, Erdogan became increasingly intolerant of dissent. He facilitated the transfer of many media outlets to his cronies through government regulatory agencies. In June of 2013, he crushed the Gezi Park protesters. In December of that year, when his cabinet members were implicated in a massive graft probe, he responded by subjugating the judiciary and the media. The “temporary” state of emergency declared after last July 15 is still in effect. According to Amnesty International, one-third of all imprisoned journalists in the world are in Turkish prisons.

Erdogan’s persecution of his people is not simply a domestic matter. The ongoing pursuit of civil society, journalists, academics and Kurds in Turkey is threatening the long-term stability of the country. The Turkish population already is strongly polarized on the AKP regime. A Turkey under a dictatorial regime, providing haven to violent radicals and pushing its Kurdish citizens into desperation, would be a nightmare for Middle East security.

The people of Turkey need the support of their allies around the world to restore their democracy.

Two measures are critical to reversing the democratic regression in Turkey.

First, a new civilian constitution should be drafted through a democratic process involving the input of all segments of society and that is on par with international legal and humanitarian norms, and drawing lessons from the success of long-term democracies in the West.

Second, a school curriculum that emphasizes democratic and pluralistic values and encourages critical thinking must be developed. Every student must learn the importance of balancing state powers with individual rights, the separation of powers, judicial independence and press freedom, and the dangers of extreme nationalism, politicization of religion and veneration of the state or any leader.

Before either of those things can happen, however, the Turkish government must stop the repression of its people and redress the rights of individuals who have been wronged by Erdogan without due process.

I probably will not live to see Turkey become an exemplary democracy, but I pray that the downward authoritarian drift can be stopped before it is too late.

The First Period

This first phase saw a rise in conservatism, fueled by quasi-taxpayer revolts and an increasing oligarchical minority seeking to control all aspects of government and business.

As this early period of conservatism rose, it became evident that the desire by many for smaller, more responsive government and less taxes would not be met. Evidence would later surface that the oligarchy, much in the manner of the 19th century “robber barons,” colluded to gather power and wealth for themselves while using the taxpayer’s own dissatisfaction against them.

Governments became, in fact, larger and more military oriented, subservient to the demands of business and the oligarchy for less and less regulation. With each increment in the reduction of environmental and other regulations came a concurrent reduction in personal liberties.

Believing there was a need for more energy, restrictions against the mining of coal, the drilling for oil and natural gas, and seeking alternative ways to obtain fossil fuels were reduced and/or eliminated. The need for more and more of these fossil fuels led to more global conflicts, as countries sought to find and secure the rapidly diminishing supplies of fossil fuel. This in turn necessitated increased military, defense, and security-based spending. Wars became the norm rather than the exception, which created an age gap, as an entire generation was squandered fighting in these conflicts.

The reduction or removal of environmental-based regulations, long proclaimed by conservatives as barriers to economic growth, led to an increase in air and water pollution levels, and the destruction of natural habitats, which in turn had a devastating impact on the planet in general. The increase in pollution levels and lack of regulations would also have an adverse effect on the general health of the world’s human population. The air quality in many cities around the world literally forced governments to shut down because people could not go outside. Infant mortality, once dropping, began to rise.

Faced with an increase in military, defense, and security-based spending, many governments had to cut back on humanitarian spending, education, and basic research. At first, this was accepted by the many who had sought the elimination of such projects.

And while attempts to resist these steps were made at the local level, they were decidedly limited in their impact. Hospitals – taken over by health insurance companies (under the mantra that businesses knew how to make hospitals work) and driven by the bottom-line mentality that suggested each hospital had to make a profit – began to close, leaving many people without any medical assistance. It quickly became apparent that only a relative few, the rich and powerful that constituted the oligarchy, would have medical care.

As businesses responded to the demands of the oligarchy, wages were reduced with the declaration that businesses could not pay living wages and make a profit. The effect of this mentality began to show towards the latter portion of this first period.

Eventually, due to the increased military spending and the falling wages of the majority, businesses began to fail. There was a sense that a Great Depression, far greater than any before, was imminent.

At the same time, loss of income and the failure of many businesses triggered a revival in debtors’ prisons, where people who could not pay their bills were jailed until someone could pay their debts for them. The false logic of this solution – that people who were not able to pay their own bills would be able to pay the bills of their friends – escaped those whose only concern was the bottom line.

Responding to other latent demands of the conservatives, laws against discrimination were also repealed. Discrimination based on race, sexual and gender identity, and ethnic origin rose precipitously.

Organized religion, already in decline as the 21st century began, saw its decline rapidly increase. Along with a rise in political conservatism was a rise in religious conservatism. Those associated with these fundamentalist movements sought a stricter interpretation of their respective Holy Scriptures (oftentimes in direct contradiction to what was the commonly accepted ideas of the Scriptures), as well as the need for greater cooperation between governments and religions.

These now fundamentalist religions began to openly push a more Calvinistic view: that wealth and power were the hallmarks of a righteous life, poverty was the sign of a sinful life, and that one’s status in life was already determined.

Educational systems, already under attack at the beginning of the 21st century, were slowly transformed from centers of creativity and thought into indoctrination academies, dedicated to teaching basic knowledge without additional thought and supportive of the discriminatory nature of society. The goal of the early 21st century school was the development of trained, unquestioning workers who accepted minimum wage jobs with limited benefits and no job protections.

Colleges which did not support the overall view of the oligarchy and conservative establishment quickly found themselves under attack and without funds.
Technology development stagnated as individuals capable of maintaining and supporting existing technology were no longer available. And with the loss of general research and support funds, there was no research being done on the next generation of technology or areas such as alternative energy research. An interesting side-effect to this loss of technologically skilled workers was that defense projects begun in the late 20th and early 21st century, almost all of which relied heavily on technology, were not able to be repaired as military units had no one to deal with the support function, leaving many of the weapons procured for multiple millions of dollars unusable.

Workers were quickly stripped of the rights and privileges, all of which had been gained through the workers’ movements of the mid-20th century. Unions, already suffering massive blows, were quickly eliminated as the conservative central government declared that businesses did better without them. As workers dealt with increasingly inhospitable working conditions and uncaring management, there was a concurrent rise in workplace violence as stress levels increased.

Clearly, the consequences of changes begun at the beginning of the 21st century were not what its supporters had wanted or even imagined. It was a world beset by climate and environmental problems, embroiled in many different global wars, and divided by racial, gender, and ethnic identities.

The move into the 21st century instead began to look like a movement backwards in time, echoing the rise of Nazism in the early and mid-1930s.

The Second Period

The second phase of the 21st century would be labeled by some as a time of creative anarchy.

The beginnings of this phase were marked by what became known as the 4th or “Greater” Faith Revival. Frustrated by the failure of the organized church and religious groups to respond to the increasingly discriminatory   nature of society, individuals began leaving organized religions. Faced with the need find comfort in a time of need, individuals began meeting, often in secret, in the homes of believers or other non-traditional venues, such as coffee houses or book stores.

Echoing the days of the early Christian church, these small groups began ministering to the poor and needy, the homeless and sick, the persecuted and forgotten. These groups flourished because they offered solutions that the current power and social structures could not solve or ignored completely. While at first these groups were defined in the traditional sense, they quickly became places to study other faiths and find ways to utilize the common points of all faiths to change the role of society outside traditional thought. It was recognized that faith was an individual’s relationship with God and that each relationship was unique.
Groups increasingly shut out of traditional political, economic, and social structures began forming their own political, economic, and social structures. These groups no longer willingly supported the traditional organized structures. An underground economy, first begun in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, utilizing “bitcoins” and micro-banks, supported these small groups.

Despite the seeming chaos, these small groups, founded in faith and a belief in the people, began making changes that supported everyone, even those outside their small group. These changes in turn began to weaken traditional structures, both political and social.

In addition, from almost the start of these small groups, it was understood that there was a limit to the size of the group. And once that size limit   was reached, it would be necessary to split into two or more groups to maintain the innovative and creative nature of the group. This limiting principle proved a necessity for the future success of the movement.

Utilizing the new underground economy, people found ways to do what the oligarchy had long been doing, and that is to avoid paying taxes. Conflicts between the oligarchy and their political representatives arose as the political representatives sought ways to fund governments and the members of the oligarchy refused to pay. This led to multiple funding crises in countries around the world.

The graduation of the classes of 2020, the “classes of vision,” provided the critical mass necessary to transform the small underground groups into the basis for a world-wide movement that transcended traditional social, economic, political, and geographical boundaries. This paved the way for the third phase of the 21st century to begin and flourish.

The Third Period

In this third phase, small groups, formed in protest to traditional processes, began developing ways to work together. Democracy became more localized as these groups used the social media communication methods first established during the Arab Spring of 2010. These methods allowed groups to communicate and work together without the need for centralized governments.

This was typified by the change in government operations in the United States. Recognizing the efficiency of the small group approach, members of the United States House of Representatives and Senate began operating out of their home and district offices, with Congress meeting as a large collection

of town and group meetings. While there were still government offices in Washington, D. C., the bulk of the government business was conducted electronically. This in turn made government more responsive to the needs and interests of the local population and less to that of the oligarchy that had risen to power just a few years earlier.

There was also a shift, fueled in part by the underground economy but also by the change in the way government worked, in overall government spending.

Big companies, long considered the essential role-model, could not adapt to the small group mentality of the new economy and began to collapse or were replaced by more responsive local industries and businesses.

Agriculture became increasingly “community supported agriculture” with less reliance on fertilizers, insecticides, and other chemicals to bolster production.

The third period of the 21st century saw a major decrease in military, defense, and security spending. As small groups began working and communicating with each other, there was less and less of a need for a continued military presence in each country. With money no longer being spent this way, additional funds were directed towards increased spending on humanitarian and research efforts.

Healthcare became universal as individuals, having gone through a time where there was no healthcare and faced with serious healthcare-related issues, saw the need for a universal system. And surprisingly, the cost which so many people proclaimed would rise dramatically, was reduced to virtually nothing. Concurrently, great strides were made in the area of medical research, achieving goals long thought impossible to meet.

The third period of the 21st century saw the promise of space exploration, first achieved in the late 20th century but cast aside due to limited funds, again become a reality. A truly permanent presence in low-earth orbit around the globe was established and exploratory manned missions to the other planets, and beyond, were begun.

The transition to the 22nd century

As Earth’s population moved into the 22nd century and beyond, the boundaries of the earth’s gravity that had for so long, figuratively and actually, bound mankind to its surface, there was a renewed human spirit that transcended political and geographical boundaries.

There was an increased focus on faith as it became evident that, without faith, the outcome of the 21st century might have been something terribly different.

And while there were those who would continue to proclaim that it would be better to be bigger, the evidence showed that there was a greater sense of security and stability, of health and happiness, in the small group model.

During the 18th and 19th centuries, people sought ways to establish peaceful communities by withdrawing from society. Such communities were always doomed from the beginning because one can never truly escape from society. But as the 21st century came to a close and the 22nd century began, people found a way to come close to those Utopian goals. And while there were and will probably always be differences between individuals, both in small groups and across the planet, the understanding of how to work between groups to resolve differences without violence, destruction, or warfare, helped humanity achieve a lasting peace.

A consocational democracy is a type of democracy which emphasizes the importance of power-sharing and decision-making among different segments in society. But is consociational democracy the most suitable form of democracy when it comes to establishing lasting peace in post-conflict societies?

Consocational democracy addresses problems in democratic state building that result from deep segmentation. These divisions as a result are easily defined and measured where real boundaries (political or otherwise) exist. As a result of these environmental and social conditions there exists a natural tendency for competition and the supporting of ethnically-based parties (Andeweg 2000).

The consocational framework is dependent on elite cooperation. This is the centerpiece of the model and is based on the premise that communal violence between groups is often exacerbated by elites so that when these elites have a voice in government, they have a vested interest in maintaining its integrity. Although elite meddling in conflict is the most potent, it is not the only incendiary in inter-group relations (Andeweg 2000).

Under the current model where a society has the characteristics necessitating a consocational framework, the sub-groups have two choices: to remain a part of the country or to separate. These two forces pull on individuals of each group in which decisions are often based on various factors. Those societies that do not cooperate are termed “centrifugal.” In this case, the sub-groups emphasize separation over integration. Consocationalism is a top-down integration/cooperation mechanism that seeks to overcome centrifugal forces (Andeweg 2000).

Loyaltiyes and state building

One of the forces that create these centrifugal tendencies is also one of the characteristics that make communal life possible i.e. group loyalty. According to A.A.M. Kinneging (2004) loyalty, “pertains to a bond that withstands the passing of time and the winds of change: a bond that is conceived of as lasting, permanent, unbreakable, even holy” (Kinneging 2004, 68). This definition of loyalty indicates how intractable it is when integrating many different groups with different loyalties under one government. In this case, as Kinneging points out, the community is higher than the individual. In ethnically homogenous countries this presents no problem and allows democracy to flourish at all levels. Often times this is not the case in heterogeneous societies where either the state enforces a loyalty to its institutions, such as in the republican liberal democracy model, while still maintaining individual rights or enforces it in such a way that violates individual rights in an undemocratic manner.

Loyalties typically follow racial or religious lines. They can even be more fragmented such as loyalty to one’s town or city. Evidence can be seen in the sport’s world. Loyalty is typically to a person or an institution (Healy 2007). Loyalty to the nation-state has been somewhat of a recent phenomenon. The lack of loyalty can be detrimental to state integrity when it is towards another group. The lack of loyalty between sub-groups is something that consocationalism does not address as it represents an administrative/electoral solution to a heavily divided society. It does not address the psychological/emotional element that loyalty forms a part of and which in essence is the backbone of society.

Lijphart envisioned consocationalism as a temporary solution in which it was only meant as a transitory phase to greater levels of democratic cooperation (Andeweg 2000). This of course assumes that through elite cooperation and living peacefully alongside each other under one roof, it is possible that these groups would eventually reconcile their differences and move to greater integration. Unfortunately, there is the other direction such as entrenched differences that only get worse with time that may stalemate/postpone the conflict i.e. not resolving the conflicts (Fox & Miller 2007). Still, consocational democracy is considered the best option for deeply stratified societies because it recognizes, among other things, that some sub-groups have a complete way of life that requires a certain level of autonomy from the state.

The risk in this approach is that these sub-groups may look at the government as a burden or unnecessary overhang on complete control of their affairs. In response, the state may have a few choices at its disposal that may either create incentives such as the consocational framework or force a state identity upon all sub-groups, essentially eliminating them.

Bosnia: Adversarial communities under one roof

Bosnia is composed of three adversarial communities that have existed since the 15th century. Primarily, these communities came into existence around a particular religion. These religions of interest in the Bosnian case are Orthodox Christianity, Catholic Christianity and Islam. The Serbian people primarily follow Orthodox Christianity, the Croatians follow Catholic Christianity, and the Bosniacs follow Islam. These communities erupted into full-fledged war in the early 90’s when the Orthodox Serbs engaged in genocide against the Muslim Bosniacs (Kasapovic 2005).

These people were subject to the first consocational system of the world, the millet system which was implemented by the Ottoman Empire shortly after conquering the area that is now the former Yugoslavia. The millet system, which has roots in the religion of Islam, gave different religious communities their own autonomy headed by an elite (millet bashi) who was responsible for different religious and civil areas. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the various nation-states that emerged did not act so kindly on the remaining Muslim groups and either forced them to leave or massacred them. The Bosniacs represented a unique example as well as other indigenous ethnic groups who converted to Islam during Ottoman rule (Katsikas 2009).

These communities have historical differences that cannot disappear overnight. The Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croatians owe their divide to the Great Schism in the 11th century between Constantinople and Rome (Norwich 1999). The Muslim Bosniacs and Orthodox Serbs owe their divide to Serb defeat at the hands of the Ottomans in the 14th century (Kinross 2003). Although present-day communities probably give little thought to these events, the mimetic transmission of hatred means that these communities are seemingly locked in an adversarial relationship.

After the 1995 Dayton Peace Accord, a consocational-type government was established. Kasapovic described it as an “asymmetrical confederation” in which the country is divided into two parts with one part being more consocational between Bosniacs and Croatians and the other representing a more homogenous state of Serbs. At the national level equal representation is given to the three groups, mutual veto exists, autonomy is given to each group, and consensus is maintained (Kasapovic 2005).

More than fifteen years after the Dayton Peace Accord there is peace, but as Kasapovic pointed out, this is only because all groups consented to peace. Kasapovic notes that the state is still highly unstable because there is no consensus on its organization and there are continuing external threats that may tear the country apart (Kasapovic 2005). This instability means that these groups, by and large, have not resolved their differences.

He argues that there are three reasons for this inefficiency of the model of consocational democracy, one “at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state, and one more at the level of the Federation as a state sub-entity: no consensus on the state, no consensus on the political system, no consistent strategy of international actors in establishing a democratic state, and the unfavorable two-segmental structure of the Federation with one segment outnumbering the other” (Kasapovic 2005, 9).

The fact remains that despite living in a consocational-type system for six centuries, the different groups that compose Bosnia’s adversarial groups have not cooperated at any level that would have caused them to avoid the deluge in the early 90’s. This indicates that although these people are living together under one country, they harbor distrust or hatred of those who compose the other group. The fact that they are all part of one country appears to have no influence on the perceptions towards the other group.

Considering that this conflict has been ongoing at varying intensities for several hundred years, an unfreezing process is needed. The concept of unfreezing has its roots with the organization theorist Kurt Lewin who proposed an unfreezing, moving/changing, and re-freezing process. In the process, values are changed and thus can be labeled change management. The re-freezing may have more clout with individual organizations, but the re-freezing creates an organized way of thinking akin to concepts of efficiency i.e. an established uniform identity (Levasseur 2001).

The involvement of religious leaders has importance in this case. Since these conflicts involved Christian and Muslim communities which are international religions, and since these conflicts also involved an international response, these local conflicts have implications that are not only local. International religious leaders should remember to be sensitive to religious sentiments despite their distance from Bosnia.

Haynes pointed out that one of the problems of the roles religious leaders face is that they lack the capacity to build a strategy for peace (Haynes 2009). As members of an international faith, these leaders would have access to a large network of resources that would facilitate them in their role as peace-makers. One of the aspects that may be appropriately addressed in Bosnia is training these leaders to both acquire these resources as well as use them appropriately. This would make their role far more influential than the elites.

The side effect is that many of these religious leaders may have instigated violence against the other or continue to preach hatred towards the other. These leaders need to either be isolated by the national government or reprimanded severely by those leaders of international representation. The globalized world makes all this possible. The world in this essence can either be a harbinger of peace or a catalyst for war at the local level.

Religious leaders should be engaged in dialog with each other as much as other community members are engaged in workshops both inventing solutions and implementing them. Once a healthy environment of dialog is fostered, then either naturally or through planned social action, inclusive networks should be developed. These networks can create cooperation and community.

Lastly, the existence of these networks means that the state as a reactionary entity becomes a mirror of that society. In this case, the consocational model of governance might work and if possible a more unified democratic format may be chosen. The result would be a multi-group democratic state with shared loyalties to the state, one’s own group, and to another group. This does not guarantee continued peace, but at least secures it much more tightly than as proposed under the consocational framework alone.

Hummel is a doctoral candidate at the School of Public Administration, Florida Atlantic University.

References

• Andeweg, Ruby B. 2000. “Consociational democracy,” Annual Review of Political Science 3, no. 1: 509-536.
• Fox, Charles & Hugh Miller. 2007. Postmodern Public Administration, Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.
• Haynes, Jeffrey. 2009. “Conflict, Conflict Resolution and Peace-building: The Role of Religion in Mozambique, Nigeria and Cambodia,” Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 47, no.1: 52-75.
• Healy, Mary. 2007. “School Choice, Brand Loyalty and Civic Loyalty,” Journal of Philosophy of Education 41, no. 4: 743-756.
• Kasapovic, Mirjana. 2005. “Bosnia and Herzegovina: Consociational or Liberal Democracy,” Croatian Political Science Review 42, no. 5: 3-30.
• Katsikas, Stefanos. 2009. “Millets in Nation-states: The Case of Greek and Bulgarian Muslims,” Nationalities Papers 37, no. 2: 177-201.
• Kinneging, Andreas A. M. 2004. “Loyalty in the Modern World,” Modern Age 46, no. 1/2: 68.
• Kinross, Lord. 2003. The Ottoman Empire, London: Folio Society.
• Levasseur, Robert E. 2001. “People Skills: Change Management Tools – Lewin’s Change Model,” Interfaces 31, no. 4: 3.
• Norwich, John J. 1999. A Short History of Byzantium, New York: Vintage Books.

Historical events mentioned in the Holy Qur’an reveal critical clues about the social arrangements of the tribes onto which God has sent His messengers. By scrutinizing on these parables one can easily notice that whenever a prophet is sent to a group of people, his message was denied at first by the ruling clique of that social order. In various places of the Holy Qur’an, these people, who are at the climax of the society and who oppose the prophets and their followers, are addressed as al-mala’ (the chieftains). Mala’ is a distinctive group in tribal culture because, even though they are small in number, they are rich, influential and well respected. Among the society in which they live, mala’ appears to be the ultimate preservers of the status quo where they have the final say. According to the Qur’an, arrogance is the central characteristic of mala’ which gets in their way of accepting the religion:

“The leading ones among his people, who were arrogant and oppressed the others, said to those that they scorned, to those among them who were believers: “Do you really know and consider Sālih as one sent by His Lord with a message?” They replied: “We do indeed believe in what he has been sent with.” Those who were arrogant said: “What you have come to believe in we indeed disbelieve.” Then (without enduring any longer to see her as evidence of the truth of Sālih’s message), they cruelly slaughtered the she-camel, and disdainfully disobeyed the command of their Lord, and said: ‘O Sālih! Bring upon us that (punishment) with which you have threatened us, if you are of those sent (by God with the truth)!’” (Al-A’raf, 7:74−77)

Even though mala’ portrays itself as a completely sovereign and self-sustaining group, it necessitates the full obedience of jumhoor (majority of the society) in order to continue its existence. This is the main reason why mala’ has been the foremost opposing group towards the messengers of God. The message sent to people via prophets, and the notions attached to it (e.g. tawheed: accepting that there is no god but God, tasleem: surrendering to the God, tawakkul: reliance on God by accepting that He alone is sufficient for all the needs) in every way undermines the very existence of mala’. The particular teachings of the prophets that turned mala’ against them include:

• Wealth or genealogy does not reflect peoples’ positions before God
• No group of people is inherently superior or inferior
• Worshipping God does not require any mediators

Based on the verses of Qur’an and traditions of the prophets, the methods used by mala’ in order to alienate the prophets and their followers can be categorized and exemplified as follows [1]:

1. Fabricating misconceptions about the prophets, their messages and followers: Claiming that the prophets are wizards, liars and/or mad people. (7: 65-66, 109-110)
2. Ridiculing and mocking. (11:38)
3. Encouraging materialism and denying the afterlife. Using material tendencies to divert the attention of people from the teachings of religion towards worldly pleasures. (23:24, 25, 33)
4. Violence: Torturing and killing prophets and followers publicly or secretly, casting them out of their homelands. (7:121-124; 127)
5. Creating fear among the laypeople either through violence against the believers or through misconceptions (7:90; 7:88)

Mala’ in the present day

The intervention between individuals and high moral values, for the sake of personal interests, is still continuing to this very day, only changing its form. So Mala’ still executes a very subtle yet effective plan to protect the socio-economic status of the “privileged,” at the expense of depriving society of morals. In the modern times, thanks to the blooming ideas of freedom and democracy, it has been well accepted that social orders, in fact, sustain themselves much proficiently in the absence of an aristocrat group which is meant to rule the rest of the society. That is the main reason why, in today’s societies, it is not as easy to refer to a specific group as mala’ as it was in the past. However, according to some theories, mala’ has never ceased its existence. According to these claims, even though today’s democracies are designed in the best way to reflect the majority’s opinion on governments, mala’ has generated novel ways to control society without being exposed as a distinctive group. Mala’ of modern times prefer to perform its methods behind the scenes by simply making laypeople believe that it does not exist. It is not involved in matters openly as it used to be but rather reaches its objectives via manipulating majority thinking [2].

These theories might be quite stirring but they are still in need of conclusive evidence. On the other hand, if we re-examine Qur’anic verses explaining the tactics employed by mala’, we can easily notice that similar practices are still being used for various propaganda purposes, especially in the mass media. According to Noam Chomsky, institute professor* of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the mass media is the ultimate milieu of spreading propaganda in the contemporary world. In his book Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, Chomsky claims that in modern societies propaganda is the ultimate strategy employed by the elite clique to be able to pacify the masses and control them: “In what’s nowadays called a totalitarian state, or a military state, it’s easy you just hold a bludgeon over their (society’s) heads and if they get out of line you just smash them over the head. But as societies become more free and democratic, you lose that capacity. Therefore you have to turn to the techniques of propaganda. The logic is clear. Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.” Chomsky summarizes the methodology of propaganda as follows: “The people in the public relations industry aren’t there for the fun of it. They are doing work. They are trying to instill the right (!) values. In fact they have a conception of what a democracy ought to be. It ought to be a system in which the specialized class are trained to do their work for the service of the masters, the people who own the society, and the rest of the population ought to be deprived of any form of organization because organization just causes trouble. They ought to be just sitting alone in front of the television set and having drilled into their heads daily the message which says the only value in life is to have more commodities, or to live like that rich middle class family you’re watching…” [3].

Propaganda

The methodology of modern day propaganda was introduced at the first quarter of the twentieth century by Edward Bernays (1891-1995), so-called father of public relations, whose marketing skills made him one of the most popular advertisers of the time. According to Bernays, an advertisement could make consumers want things they do not need if it is prepared with the right tools; the tools that are capable of manipulating human thinking [4]. Nevertheless, these techniques necessitated a profound understanding of consumer psychology. Even though Bernays was not a psychologist by training, he had a very robust source from which he could obtain intriguing ideas about the ways the human mind work: his uncle, Sigmund Freud.

Freud was not a big supporter of the United States and he would not hesitate to criticize America openly. However, by means of his nephew Bernays, his ideas have influenced US lifestyle profoundly. Freud believed that human beings were in fact irrational creatures controlled by their primal fears and unconscious, selfish and bodily desires. Based on this assumption, Bernays concluded that instead of being logically persuasive, advertisements had to link the mass produced goods to people’s subconscious in order to be appealing. One of Bernays’ first advertisement campaigns is a great example of how this new approach worked: George W. Hill, president of American Tobacco Company, hired Bernays in 1929 with the intention of convincing American women to smoke. This was not an easy task in the 1920s because in that era smoking was perceived as a masculine habit, one which was unthinkable for women. After discussing with various psychoanalysts, Bernays decided to start an advertisement campaign called “The torches of freedom” which portrayed smoking as a symbolism of free women [4]. To this end Bernays used mass media to distribute images of top models wearing the most fashionable outfits of the time to create a “free woman” image whose indispensable constituent was smoking cigarettes. The campaign turned out to be a triumph for the American Tobacco Company. Soon smoking became a central habit for modern American women. Ironically, American women became addicted to tobacco on their quest for freedom. Even today majority of advertisements targeting women are based on similar slogans.

Manufacture of consent

After his successful advertisement campaign with the American Tobacco Company, Bernays worked for other big US corporations such as CBS, Procter and Gamble, General Motors and General Electrics. His achievements in the marketing sector started to influence political thinkers as well, such as renowned journalist and political commentator Walter Lippmann (1889-1974). Lippmann believed that mobs could not be entrusted with decision-making, thus, in the interests of power, ordinary people (or in his own words “the bewildered herd”) needed to be managed by enlightened experts. In the art of democracy public management was supposed to be obtained not by force but by what he called the “manufacture of consent.” In his articles he defined this concept as follows: “… the manufacture of consent is capable of great refinements no one, I think, denies. The process by which public opinions arise is certainly no less intricate than it has appeared in these pages and the opportunities for manipulation open to anyone who understands the process are plain enough…The creation of consent is not a new art. It is a very old one which was supposed to have died out with the appearance of democracy. But it has not died out. It has, in fact, improved enormously in technique, because it is now based on analysis rather than on rule of thumb. And so, as a result of psychological research, coupled with the modern means of communication, the practice of democracy has turned a corner. A revolution is taking place, infinitely more significant than any shifting of economic power.”

The revolution indeed took place. As Lippmann has foreseen the techniques introduced by Bernays, it has been vastly used by world powers in order to manipulate communities’ thinking. One of the most infamous examples is for sure the Nazi Party’s anti-Jewish propaganda before and during World War II. Dr. Joseph Goebbels, who worked as the Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, was a passionate admirer of Bernays even though Bernays had Jewish origins. He tried to meet Bernays several times in his lifetime. He even claimed that he had one of his books autographed by Bernays. Goebbels used propaganda techniques to psychologically prepare German society for the annihilation of Jewish people. Unfortunately, it was neither the first nor the last case where propaganda techniques were employed to alienate a group of people because of their race, nation or religious beliefs.

True freedom

In 1990, Edward Bernays was named one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th century by Life Magazine. In his book Propaganda, Bernays describes the extent of manipulation quite frankly: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind” [4].

Such means of social manipulation is indeed discomforting to consider, but remains a reality. In the contemporary world, the means through which propaganda spreads is stronger than ever. A single touch on our smart phones, let alone watching television or surfing the internet, can be sufficient to expose ourselves to a bombardment of manipulative advertisements, news and ideas. Consequently, the inevitable question that is raised is: “How is it possible to live and think freely without being controlled and manipulated by sources of propaganda?” Unfortunately, solution to this problem is not a trivial one. Rather than using logical arguments to modify society’s mindset, modern day propagandists try to change people’s lifestyles in order to influence their way of thinking. A quote credited to Prophet Muhammad’s companion, Umar ibn al-Khattab, underlines this threat quite successfully “He who does not live in the way of his beliefs starts to believe in the way he lives.” Perhaps, under such circumstances, the least we should do is to filter out materials that are intended to change our moral values bit by bit. In particular, elements of mass media tirelessly impose that an individual cannot be completely free unless he performs whatever he desires. Any external factor that prevents people from obtaining what they like is represented as a restriction to freedom. By doing so it is made sure that religious and moral disciplines do not interfere with people’s decisions and they are left alone with their yearnings. As a result, instead of becoming free men, society is being transformed into slaves of egoism and consumerism. In my opinion, being able to defy such threats depends on following the footsteps of the people who managed to reduce mala’s influence in the most effective yet peaceful ways, namely the messengers of God. Frugal but dignified lifestyles of prophets Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all) and alike should be our points of references instead of the characters displayed on billboards, movies and television series. We should constantly remind ourselves the moral teachings which state that true freedom can only be achieved by freeing ourselves from selfish desires.

*Institute Professor is the highest title that can be awarded to a faculty member at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

References

[1] Muhammad Alshareef. Perished Nations, online lecture series.

[2] Bernays, Edward. 2004. Propaganda, Ig Publishers.

[3] Chomsky, Noam. 2002. Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, Seven Stories Press.

[4] Curtis, Adam. 2002. Century of the Self, BBC.

September 21, 2012, Friday – Four Seasons Hotel, Beşiktaş, Istanbul

A year ago, Norway would be listed among the few top countries unlikely for violence in the world; until July 22, 2011, when Anders Breivik bombed the government buildings and killed 77 people and injured at least 150, all of them his fellow citizens. Breivik said he committed these attacks on the grounds of saving Europe from immigrant Muslims.

This act of violence that was “worst-of-the-worst” marked a threshold for a new era in which the entire world has painfully grasped the fact that no country and nation is immune from terrorism. Norway, however, was different in responding to it; immediately after these attacks Norwegian officials visited Muslim groups and mosques and emphasized their call for an even more inclusive democracy and human dignity.

This panel aims not to delve into the investigation of the massacre but to commemorate this spirit of inclusiveness as depicted by Norwegian officials. We aim to bring to attention in this example the universal values of human dignity, reconciliation, understanding, role of democracy and faith for global peace. Turkey is an interesting setting for this panel per a variety of opportunities and challenges in terms of ongoing terrorism in this country for several decades, Turkey’s EU accession process as a growing democracy in the region, and also as a country where religion and secularism seem to have developed a unique form of coexistence.

What I would like to say in this paper is from a glocal perspective even though the case study I will offer at the end is local. That does not mean that I believe that Ireland is the centre of the universe, though for three decades at the end of the twentieth century we had that tragic privilege. An introverted narrative is negative, be it Irish, British, American, Canadian or wherever. My Irish case study is informed and underpinned by global perspective and is therefore, I hope, a glocal story. I would also like to explore two key components of peacebuilding which education can address, indeed I believe, must address, if humanity is to live at peace on the planet as well as with the planet.

PEACEBUILDING THROUGH EDUCATION

In June of this year Aung San Sui Kyi visited Europe. She is a woman who has suffered greatly, remains committed to non-violence, and is a champion for democracy in her own Burma. She reminds us that peacebuilding is about building democracy, which is essential to sustainable peace.

Just over two decades ago many of us sat glued to the television screen. The image is indelible, that of Nelson Mandela finally emerging from his Robben Island prison compound. He walked to freedom to lead, with others, the transformation of apartheid South Africa into a Rainbow Nation. It’s still a work in progress. Mandela has reminded us that peace building is the creation of a pluralist, participative democracy. Peace building is pro-democracy and it is about actively creating rainbow nations and societies, pluralist, participative democracies – at least! Education has a crucial role to play in all of this.

Education for pluralist democracy

Democracy is developing. There is no finished product and there is no one model to be imposed universally irrespective of contexts and cultures. It is not a flawless system either. Winston Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst of political systems, except for all the others.” Democracy is about freedom. What the promise of freedom and potential for democracy does induce is an almost universal abhorrence of tyranny. Dictatorships, totalitarian regimes and fascist states do not last and do not satisfy the deepest longings and needs for freedom and participative belonging. Whatever past history, newly liberated nations usually move towards democracy. In 1918 when Czechoslovakia was born, its President said, “Our whole history inclines us towards the democratic Powers.” That was repeated in 1989-91 by leaders of all the countries of the ex-Soviet bloc (Norman 1997, 131).

Education for pluralist democracy as part of peace building needs to engage history. Democracy has a lineage, a family tree and young people and adults should be aware of it.

The Greeks invented politics and it began with our city states. The polis needed governance and there was a recognition of a public good, a shared public interest and common concerns, and over these issues there could be argument, debate, discussion, decision and policy making. The assembly of citizens was known as the ecclesia, though it was far from being fully participative. It was only for wealthy males, people of power, excluded women and certainly had no place for slaves and lower classes. Athenian democracy lasted for 185 years. It had limited participation and Plato even thought that democracy meant the rule of the incompetent. Democracy was forgotten for a millennium.

European democracy owes more perhaps to the democratic practices of the Viking world. Popular assemblies enter European history in the 9th century in Sweden and Denmark. Iceland’s national assembly came into being in 930 CE. Long before England had such a democratic assembly, it existed in the Manx assembly, the Isle of Man, a small island between Britain and Ireland with a Viking history. The Manx Tynwald or assembly is also 9th century. Wherever the Vikings went, Nordic democracy went with them.

In the modern era the two great shapers of democracy were the French Revolution and the American Revolution. Any education in pluralist democracy needs to be aware of these seismic events. The history of the 18th-19th century Europe was a history of wars and conflict, and absolutist monarchies and imperial powers. The first political revolution of a new time in European history happened outside of Europe and it led to the dissolution of the first British Empire. It began in 1773 with the Boston Tea Party and a decade later at the Paris Peace Conference American Independence was recognised. Now the people of North America “could work out their problems virtually untroubled by foreign intervention, a blessing to much that was to follow” (Roberts 1997, 347). Popular sovereignty was embodied in the opening words of the Constitution, “We the People.” All governments derive their just powers from the assent of the governed. The American Revolution was a landmark in world history.

Then followed the French Revolution and by 1789, notwithstanding the Terror, great reforms were achieved.

The formal abolition of feudalism, legal privilege and theocratic absolutism, and the organisation of society on individualist and secular foundations were the heart of the principles of ’89 distilled in a Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen… legal equality and legal protection of individual rights, the separation of Church and State and religious toleration were their institutional expression. The derivation of authority from popular sovereignty acting through a unified National Assembly, before whose legislation no privilege of locality or group could stand… (Roberts 1997, 353-354).

Modern democracy is born and by 1900 the principle of democracy was an idea, albeit still resented in some parts of Europe, whose time had come. An education process needs to engage with the historical development of democracy. We may have little consensus about its essence and it remains flawed in practice. “We the People” may even be impossible, strictly speaking, in practice. But democracy as a theory of governance and the ordering of the public good has promoted “all the virtues, from freedom, justice and equality to the rule of law, the respect for human rights, and the promotion of political pluralism and of civil society” (Davies 1997, 131).

Democracy is not amoral. It implies a need to be underpinned by a value system. Values and ethics are the foundation of democracy at work. Peace building is an ethical task, it needs democracy and the values and ethics that underpin democracy. Democracy involves pluralism and freedom, it also requires tolerance or respect. The education process needs to draw the distinction between passive tolerance and active tolerance. The former is the tolerance of indifference. The latter is “The attitude of one who positively co-lives with the other because one respects the other and accepts the multi-faceted richness of reality” (Boff 2011, 8-9). At the heart of any education for democracy is justice, especially justice as distributive and restorative. Democracy is for human, social flourishing. And distributive and restorative justice are core to peace building.

Education for global citizenship

Yale historian, Jay Winter, believes that a new kind of vision emerged at the end of the dark 20th century after the momentous events of the late 1980s and early ’90s. It is a vision set in the framework of globalisation which aims to create a new kind of politics called the “politics of global citizenship.” It has also been described as “globalisation – from – below.”

Global citizens are emerging out of an array of transnational social forces animated by environmental concerns, human rights, hostility to patriarchy, and the vision of humane community based on the unity of diverse cultures seeking an end to poverty, oppression, humiliation, and collective violence. (Winter 2006, 169-170)

A new kind of political consciousness is developing which is transnational and is flowing across national borders. It is a glocal movement holding together the local and global. “Global citizenship is a political project helping people to imagine a different kind of world.” Citizenship is not tied to the state, it is “participation in a transnational set of struggles for dignity and justice” (Winter 2006, 170). The nation state is no longer primary. We are no longer just Irish, American, Turkish or Indian citizens but global citizens, in a different and larger solidarity on environmental rights, women’s rights and human rights. Transnational citizenship is about all of these glocal justice issues none of which is limited by national boundaries. Community now is in the local and the global.

Perhaps this began for many of us as children when we put our name and address on the inside page of a school text book. Name, street, town/city, Ireland, Europe, The World, The Universe! It is now the reality in a globalised world. Transnationalism and global citizenship may still have an unmapped future, but like modern democracy at the beginning of the 20th century this new local – global reality is and will shape who we are in the 21st century. It will be a peace building project stretching us well beyond any introverted narrative. Citizenship education now needs to be global for all ages, and it is not only an alternative to introverted narratives, but also to economic globalisation as the sole determinative factor for human and environmental life on the planet.

A GLOCAL CASE STUDY

I currently work on an initiative called Ethical and Shared Remembering. It is an initiative which will respond to the centenaries of events that occurred in Ireland between 1912-1922 and shaped the rest of the 20th century for the people in Ireland. It was a decade of enormous political change ending with the partition of Ireland, and it was also a decade of brutal violence.

How the centenaries will be handled between 1912-1922 will shape the decades ahead for better or worse. Ethical remembering is an approach that is critical in relation to the militarisation of politics and the violence that was so deeply embedded in culture and practice. Shared remembering is an approach that encourages the protagonists in all their complexity to engage with each other as human beings and to understand better each other’s perspectives on this crucial Irish decade and its legacy. The legacy has left many issues unresolved which have been re-played in the more recen phase of violence and conflict in Ireland. Some of these issues are; nationalism, nation-state, faith and politics, faith and violence, class and labour relations, feminism and equality issues, trauma and peace building. These constitute for any educational programme a generational peace building agenda which needs to be set in a global or glocal context.

There are multiple Irish narratives from this decade. Not only will this initiative try to recover them, especially the alternative, repressed or forgotten narratives, but the events of 100 years ago will be carefully set in the larger global, at least European context of that time. The memory of the Irish narrative(s) has often been introverted, but this community education initiative will seek to provide a larger and more critical perspective on a century ago by placing the events in a more global context. Early 20th century imperialism and the catastrophe of the Great War, provide a larger and rather different perspective.

The framework for an educational exploration will not only include global contextualisation but also narrative hospitality. This is about generosity of spirit and openness to engage with multiple narratives, especially those of one’s sectarian tradition or narrative perspective. Narrative hospitality will also include narrative pluralism and narrative flexibility. These latter two approaches will encourage an openness to recognise that there are multiple histories and diversities of interpretation of historical events and never a fixed or final norm. It is openness to realise that history is a plethora of interpretations, little of which may be about what actually happened even if ever that can be fully known.

Another educational framework will be integrative complexity. This is also getting beyond mono-narrative or mono-truth, simplism or fundamentalist politics or religion. Integrative complexity (IC) is a way of seeing history, culture, politics, faith, the world in all their diversity and complexity and integrating or weaving together the complexities of personal, communal and historical existence, and to see this complexity in the other.

Key to this project will be the development of critical thinking skills in a community where there has been, through the dynamics of violence and conflict, a culture which is unquestioning. The latter has often been understood as being disloyal or unpatriotic. Few people have thought for themselves and this educational methodology will engage with critical reflection on matters of history, politics, religion and cultural identity without reducing their complexity.

Essential to the educational exploration of the past will be future visioning. This is not just about a 2030 vision for Ireland. It is about transcending local nationalist politics of whatever shade and visioning a common good. It will also be about global citizenship, a transnational vision that will require the imaginative creation of a larger identity myth, beyond introversion, and glocal in perspective and complexity. Not only will the initiative encourage the development of an ethical vision for future society but will also unpack the need for ethical leadership in a society where the moral authority of the major institutions has collapsed. The initiative is being delivered through community education programmes, dialogue events, training resources and materials and a series of in-depth publications, and also the use of the arts. The community of ethical and shared remembering will include people from the community development and community relations sector, education, youth, the faith sector, politicians, ex-prisoners, commemorative groups and institutions. This is an initiative which we hope will make a positive contribution through education to peace building as a glocal task.

References

1. Davies, Norman. 1997. Europe: A History, London: Pimlico.
2. Roberts, J.M. 1997. The Penguin History of Europe, London: Penguin Books.
3. Boff, Leonardo. 2011. Virtues: For Another Possible World, Oregon: Cascade Books.
4. Winter, Jay 2006. Dreams of Peace and Freedom: Utopian Moments in the 20th Century, New Haven and London: Yale University Press. The extended quotation is from Richard Falk.

To date, many have spoken for Islam: experts, apologists, extremists, politicians, religious leaders, even fiction writers. In this cacophony of voices everyday Muslims have remained silent. Many have speculated on their silence, promoting causes and foreseeing the clash of civilizations and the end of world.

The silenced majority of Muslims have spoken for Who Speaks for Islam? written by John L. Esposito, professor of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University and Dalia Mogahed, a senior Analyst and Executive Director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, provides a comprehensive analysis on a multiyear, mammoth, Gallup poll data – “the largest study of its kind” – which attempts to answer popular questions such as: Is Islam to blame for extremism? Why is there so much anti-Americanism in the Muslim world? Who are the extremists? What do Muslim women really want?

The Gallup Institution surveyed over 55,000 Muslims in over 35 Muslim populated countries. When we ponder on the role this data may play in the betterment of relations with 1.3 billion inhabitants of the world, we can’t help, but appreciate in depth the painstaking efforts shown in this project. Readers can also read about the challenges and method of the survey at the end of the book.

Most of the answers of the surveyed go against the popular perceptions and shed light on the level of misinformation and distortion we all are exposed to, reminding us one more time of Einstein’s advice that a man should look for what is and not for what he believes should be. Constructed in a comprehensive design and plain language, the data can easily be grasped by say, even the statistics illiterate. Every effort is made to ensure a wider readership. The book is organized in five chapters under five crucial questions:

Who are Muslims?

After exploring the five pillars of Islam (i.e. profession of faith, prayer, fasting during Ramadan, almsgiving, and pilgrimage to Mecca), the books touches upon sensitive issues such as the meaning of jihad, the role of family and culture in Islam, nostalgia for a glorious past, and politics.

Democracy or theocracy?

Many important questions are tackled in this chapter such as: Why is democracy absent in so much of the Muslim world? Is Islam the problem? How do Muslims view democracy? Should support for Sharia make the West panic? What do Muslims believe the chances are of improving relations with the West? Many Muslims view democracy as necessary for progress but skeptical about America and Europe’s intentions in promoting democracy in Muslim countries.

What makes a radical?

Extremists and terrorists were thought to be uneducated, poor, religious fanatics who reject modernization and technology, yet within weeks of 9/11, the media reported the “stunning discovery” that many of the attackers were, like Bin Laden and Dr. Ayman al- Zawahiri, well educated (some of them in western universities), middle to upper class, and from stable family backgrounds. Investigating diagnosis and misdiagnosis, this chapter explores the causes of extremism based on poll data.

What do women want?

When asked by the Gallup Poll of American households, “What do you admire least about Muslims or Islamic world?” American women answer “gender inequality” as among the top responses. Many have engaged in struggle to liberate the Muslim woman, yet her voice rarely makes its way in the discourse. Interesting answers are given by Muslim women to questions, like: How do Muslim women feel about Islam and the Sacred Law (Sharia)? Do they want to be liberated by the West? How do they view gender equality?

Clash or coexistence?

Confronting myths vs. realities, this chapter offers insights into what can be done to end global terrorism. The ability to move beyond presuppositions and stereotypes in our attitudes and policies and to form partnerships that transcend an “us” and “them” view of the world is critical to this cause. According to data findings, public diplomacy, defined as winning minds and hearts, is required. Finally, here is a trial size bite from the book without spoiling it. There is a prevalent assumption about Islam and democracy being incompatible. Yet that the majority of the respondents declared democracy as one of the things they admired most about West. Another impressive finding of this book was the answer Muslims gave to the open ended question: What can the West do to improve relations with Muslims? The answer was: Show respect. Respect comes with better understanding and reading Who Speaks for Islam? may be an important step toward it.

What do you think?