Only he can be a leader who never loses hope.
Bapu Ke Ashirwad
February 12, 1946

What could be a more accurate, and simpler, definition of a leader than this? Bapu – more commonly known as Mohandas Gandhi – both believed in, and embodied, this statement. His hope to bring about change in society never waned, even after he was thrown out of a train at Peitermaritzburg Station in South Africa. He did not give up hope after the outbreak of violence by Satyagrahis in Chauri Chaura, during the first Civil Disobedience movement in 1920, which he suspended despite the fact that most of his colleagues felt they were on the verge of victory. Only Bapu was confident that he could suspend the movement and revive it later, when he was more assured about the readiness of his people and their discipline.

It is all too easy for leaders to become hostages to their followers, especially if they are fearful of possible backlash that could result from admonishing or criticizing them. Movements and protests can spiral out of a leader’s control and further devolve into chaos and violence. This lack of control, and discipline, is the opposite of leadership. A leader is one who has the ability to navigate the actions of his or her followers, ensuring they do not violate their principles: he or she should not succumb to populism. Bapu exhibited this ability throughout his entire life, both as a public entity and in his Ashram (religious) life.

Bapu founded one ashram in Ahmedabad, India, in 1915. He performed many Ashram rituals himself, and made these into a daily practice, which the Ashramites saw and emulated. He eventually went on to develop a system of virtues which he called the “11 Vows” (Ekadashi Vrat):

1. Ahimsa (Non-violence)
2. Satya (Truth)
3. Asteya (Not stealing)
4. Bhramhcharya (Celibacy or Fidelity)
5. Aparigraha (Non-possession)
6. Sharira-Shrama (Physical labor)
7. Aswada (Control of the Palate)
8. Sarvatra Bhayavarjana (Fearlessness)
9. Sarva Dharma Samanatva (Respect for all religions)
10. Swadeshi (Using local produce)
11. Sparshabhavana (Abolishing practice of untouchability)

He lived by these principles without preaching them or making a show of doing so. “An ounce of practice is of more significance than a ton of preaching,” Bapu believed, and so it was easy for his followers to believe him and follow suit. Today, leaders thrive on preaching and confusing their adherents. They also frown upon and discourage the habit of asking questions or allowing their followers to express discontent or dissent.

When Bapu announced the next Non-Cooperation Movement, he declared that he would march from Sabarmati to Dandi, which was a distance of 341 miles, and that he would pick up a fist full of salt from the sea shore and declare that he had broken the draconian Salt Monopoly that so hurt India. The British Imperial Regime had imposed a barbaric 3500% tax on the production and consumption of domestic salt. This act of defiance was meant to help declare India to be independent; however, many senior leaders of the Indian National Congress (INC) were not convinced and were opposed to his proposal. Sardar Patel, a senior leader of the INC, was one of the people who disagreed and argued about the foolishness of the proposal. Bapu gave him a patient hearing and finally convinced Sardar, who then took responsibility for organizing the protest. It was Sardar who actually finalized the route of the march and spread the message of the Salt Satyagraha (form of nonviolence resistance). Sardar was the first Indian leader who was arrested and imprisoned, even before Bapu began the Salt March, which explains why Sardar Saheb was absent while Bapu marched to Dandi.

Another senior leader of the INC to voice his dissent, was Motilal Nehru. He wrote a twenty-two-page letter to Bapu, with a point by point explanation of why Bapu’s proposed move would fail and put his future leadership in danger; he also explained how the INC would lose the people’s trust and support. In his reply, Bapu wrote:

“Adarniya Motilalji, Kar Ke Dekhien – Respected Motilalji, please give it a try.”

Any other leader would have taken such a short reply as an insult and rejected Bapu’s leadership; however, Motilalji accepted Bapu’s decision. After Bapu had symbolically broken the Salt Law at Dandi and asked the people to follow, Motilalji declared that he would help break the Salt Law by leading his own satyagraha in the city of Allhabad.

By then, the Viceroy had ordered that all satyagrahas must be crushed by any means and its leaders must be immediately arrested, so that the movement would become leaderless and flounder. After announcing his intention to perform satyagraha, when Motilalji reached his home, the Police Commissioner was waiting for him with an arrest warrant. The last thing Motilalji did before going to prison was to send a telegram to Bapu stating the following:

“Adarniya Gandhiji, Karne se Pehle hi Dekhliya! – Respected Gandhiji, I have realized its power even before trying it out!”

This was the confidence of a true leader and such was his honesty and humility that his subordinates and contemporaries had the freedom to question his decisions and seek that he convince them before they obeyed. This also illustrates the fact that a great leader had the resolve and confidence to go it alone without becoming a hostage to the opposition of those who disagreed with him or defied his decision. As Gurudev wrote:

“Joki tor haak shunee koi na aashe tomi ekla Chalo Re…: When no one heeds your call, oh unfortunate one, walk alone.”

Bapu had the courage to tread a lonely path.  This is a hallmark of a great leader.

Bapu never aspired to become a leader. His ambition was always to serve the people and the cause to the best of his ability, and the honesty of his method was always of paramount importance, even more so than his desired objective. This sets him apart from the majority of other leaders.

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.

If on occasion we are able to block out the horror of September 11, those who travel by air are brought back to the reality of it whenever we go through the intensive and intrusive airport security screening now required at every airport in this country, and for that matter throughout the world.

Immediately following 9/11, questions and uninformed, insufficient answers were too often offered in hate-filled newspaper articles and on radio and television stations. Too often, the conversations were by their very nature laced with Islamophobia. The content too often demonstrated our collective ignorance as a people and nation about Islam, the Holy Qur’an, imams, mosques, and what really was the definition of Jihad?

As a counterweight, and spurred primarily by religious leaders in the three Abrahamic faiths, interfaith dialogues and summits began to appear first in America and then throughout the world. As a result, Islam, which had pretty much been a foreign word in America’s religious vocabulary, was now on the lips of everyone.

But in truth, ignorance about Islam continues to drive our reactive behavior toward one of the three great Abrahamic faiths. It is hard to believe, but in a recent poll conducted by the Pew Foundation, 40 percent of Americans still believe that President Barack Obama is a Muslim, because of his name. There continue to be concerns expressed in this country by American Muslims about their place in American culture and society. Where do they belong, and can they ever really belong, without being under a microscope all the time? My friend Eboo Patel, founder of the Inter Faith Youth Core in Chicago, has said, “I am more afraid now than I was after 9/11.”

And yet, within this capsule of ignorance and fear of the “other,” I believe that as a nation there is another reason why we as Americans have had such a hard time dealing with the horrors of September 11. As a nation, we have never had the opportunity to grieve over the horrible loss of life, the indelible visual experience of all that was attached to that fateful September morning ten years ago.

Ten years ago as a nation we were embraced quite frankly by almost every nation in the global community, offering help, prayers, and whatever support was needed at this time of national crisis. And yet, our immediate response as a nation was to seek retribution and frontier justice. Wanted “dead or alive” was a regrettable pronouncement offered by some. And the taunt to those who were religious terrorists was “bring ’em on.” As the nation gathered in prayer at Washington National cathedral, President Bush unfortunately misspoke and used the word “crusade” in his speech to the nation-a word that was frightening, and historically painful and confrontational to millions in the Muslim world.

Because of the reflexive need to immediately “strike back” at the perpetrators and planners of the 9/11 attacks, we never really had the opportunity to grieve as a nation. When we do not grieve over a great loss, we tend to have overly emotional, often unhelpful knee-jerk responses. Anger and aggression can be the first response to significant loss in one’s family, or in the larger human family. And without time to grieve, think and process, responses can be illogical and result in bad decisions.

For much of the last decade, we have not found the time to grieve over the horrors of September 11, 2001. Yet the hard work of interfaith conversation and interaction emanating from religious scholars, denominational leaders, and theologians of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have led the way to places where people of faith have had wonderful opportunities. Through the discipline of prayer, the blessings of shared compassion, and the core teachings of their religious traditions, they have had a significant impact on moving not only America, but many other nations, from retribution to reconciliation, from theological illiteracy to literacy, from xenophobia to respect, tolerance, and acceptance of the “other.”

9/11 scarred the psyche of America, but also the public image of Islam. And yet the Jesus of Christianity reminds his followers that at the very center of their belief system is the word reconciliation—embraced by unconditional love and the quest for a peace that passes all understanding.

And it is no accident that Islam has as its radius the word salam (peace). The teachings of both Jesus and Muhammad have much in common regarding care for the “other.” Peace and divine love is at the heart of both Christianity and Islam. And it is that quest that now leads us to continue the healing process that must move forward between the brothers and sisters of Abraham. For it is the promise of the one God that true holiness can be found within the unity of our diversity.

It is now time, ten years later, to embrace the moment and make whole that which has been broken by the ignorance, fear, and illiteracy that too often define our understandings of religion. Much of that work has been undertaken in Washington D.C. through the creative efforts of the Rumi Forum, Washington National Cathedral’s Center for Global Justice and Reconciliation, Georgetown University, and the Brookings Institution through the U.S. Islamic World Forum.

Many efforts have begun in other parts of the world to engage in work that promises to positively impact the present opportunity—to seek the path of wholeness and reconciliation rather than division and violence. This is a journey begun by both Jesus and the Prophet Muhammad that now defines a new decade, a decade not solely focused on the 9/11 tragedy, but one that must become part of the global community. It is a journey made sacred by all those who lost their lives in New York City, Pennsylvania, and Washington and by the efforts of interfaith leaders throughout the world.

It is a new time, a new decade, where life promises to overcome the sting of death, where hate is trumped by the power of God’s love, and where people of faith have the courage to speak out against those who use religion for their own selfish desires for control and power, rather than as a means through which all can experience the reconciling love of God.

As a country, and as people of faith, we cannot make this journey alone. We will need partners and colleagues of other faith traditions that believe that this is the moment when we stand together, shoulder to shoulder, and proclaim that no one has the right to take another person’s life in the name of God.

It is indeed a tremendous challenge to come to terms with the perplexity of religion and politics in our time. As acts of terrorism are wreaking havoc in many parts of the world, people turn to religion both to find the cause and the healing. Questions abound. Can religion be a source for tolerance and reconciliation in the 21st century, or is it a breeding ground for hatred and violence? Is religion being hijacked from inside by misguided believers and by cynic political extremists? Grand theories of conspiracy against specific religions or political systems instill anxiety among ordinary people.

As the 9/11 tragedy in the USA is indelibly inscribed as a watershed in world history, so will 22.7.2011 for ever be remembered as a massacre that changed Norway. The first was a heinous act of people who misrepresented Islam to punish and humiliate a world power seen to be responsible for the suffering of millions of Muslims around the world. The other was directed against the State itself and the political leadership of Norway, by a person who used Christian imagery to express his hatred of Muslims. The perpetrator sees Norway’s multiculturalism and open society as submission to a dangerous and foreign religion. He saw himself as true crusader for a Christian Europe. I believe it is fair to say that none of the perpetrators of these tragic events genuinely represent the religion they profess. Their unspeakable acts of violence against fellow human beings constitute a crime not only against humanity, but against God under whatever name.

These watershed events are reminders that to unravel the perverse mindset of extremists one has to go beyond personal faith and beliefs and look to other constitutive factors of psychological, social, cultural and political nature. Such factors do not provide an excuse for the horrendous acts of terror, but they indicate the complexity that needs to be addressed in curing this cancer in the body of humanity. But also collective and individual perceptions of oppression, marginalization and disrespect, feed a legitimate sense of loss and betrayal that offers a breeding ground for fanaticism and revenge. No single historic religion is without a history of inbred violence, be it Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or others.

While the reaction in the USA and some European countries after 9/11 was crusader language and large-scale cancellation of fundamental civil and political rights, the reaction in Norway, eloquently and consistently expressed by the Prime Minister and other political leaders, and hailed by the vast majority of the population, has been to call for an even more inclusive democracy, and more respect of human dignity and human rights for all. The message was clear; the way forward is not revenge, nor curtailing of fundamental freedoms, but increased openness to a more multicultural and multi-religious society. Religious leaders and communities have reacted in unison against the exploitation of their faith and spirituality using hatred and fear. They join the call for tolerance and mutual respect. In all honesty, it has to be added that some pockets of conservative Christians have expressed sympathy for the opinions of the terrorist, although not for his criminal acts. The same goes for some politicians on the far right of the political spectrum.

It is my humble opinion that the reaction of official Norway sets a standard for others to follow in countries where far-right ideologies and fundamentalist religious movements and individuals threaten to destabilize society. A model of reconciled diversity is the only way to the future in our globalized world. This is the message of our youth, those who lost their lives and those who barely escaped. They are the victors. Terrorists will always be the losers. This is the spirit of Norway. The political battle to sustain this legacy will show the strength of our nation.

Dr. Gunnar Stalsett, Bishop emeritus of Oslo
Former Vice Chair of the Nobel Peace Prize committee
Moderator of the European Council of Religious Leaders, Religions for Peace

The United States and many other developed countries are becoming more multi cultural, multi ethnic, and multi racial than ever before. This may to a certain extent cause less communication, interconnectedness or dialogue between diverse individuals. This lack of communication and dialogue, especially in education, manifests itself as less participation and involvement, which negatively affects educational success. Since educational success is highly associated with parental and community involvement, social capital plays a critical role in improving overall successes in education. Educators and policy makers should seek new ways and strategies to improve social capital with greater efficacy. This also includes reexamining leadership styles, practices and setting exemplary leadership frameworks.

1. Social capital

Due to the abstract nature of the concept, social capital is mostly defined by its functions or manifestations. In other words, definitions mostly answer the question of what social capital does rather than what it is. Don Cohen and Laurence Prusak (2001) refer to social capital as a dynamic and even organic phenomenon. Their approach also emphasizes social capital’s role and function, rather than social capital itself. They underline (1) how social capital works in organizations, (2) how investments are made in social capital, and (3) the return that these organizations and individuals experience from these investments (p. 3). In this framework, Cohen and Prusak (2001) offer the working definition of social capital as “the stock of active connections among people.” Yet, there seems to be a more concrete definition offered by The World Bank Social Capital Initiative (1998). According to The World Bank Social Capital Initiative, social capital is the “internal, social and cultural coherence of society, the norms and values that govern interactions among people and the institutions in which they are embedded” (p. iii). Thus, social capital is seen as the glue that holds societies together. Consequently. without social capital, society at large will collapse. Due to its importance, researchers from different fields, such including political science, economics and education, investigate social capital, as many people see social capital as a solution to persistent social problems.

2. Social capital and education

In the world of education, social capital is formed by social networks connecting families, schools and communities. In other words, parental and community involvement are the forms of social capital which are most associated with academic success. The World Bank (1998) argues that there is evidence that schools are more successful when parents and community members are actively involved. Discussions about school issues, parental monitoring, active tutoring, providing encouragement, attending school events, responding to school obligations, etc are all examples of parental involvement. Less effective community involvement examples include (1) supporting schools financially, (2) participating in school events, and (3) involving schools in community meetings. Community involvements render teachers more committed. Furthermore, it effects students’ general achievement, including achievement in reading, math, or other specific curricular areas, as well as IQ scores and an array of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes.

3. Education and leadership

Even a cursory review of the leadership literature reveals that there are multiple definitions of leadership, and these all arise from mainly different perceptions and specific disciplinary conceptualizations. For example, some authors choose to treat leadership as a psychological fact while others see it as sociological (Pierce & Newstrom, 2008). In different disciplines, such as education or health, the definitions are based upon the references of that particular discipline. Therefore, a wide range of definitions of leadership are offered, but not a single model or term given. Accordingly, while some leadership approaches focus on the different characteristics between the followers and the leaders, others look at internal or external variables such as representation and effectiveness.

In education, leadership is mostly represented in schools by school administrations. Specifically, principals and teachers are expected to possess the leadership skills necessary to run their schools. Leadership practices are not only expectations but also obligations and requirements as part of the profession. This is especially true for principals. Since they form school policies, they’re considered critical for academic and disciplinary success.

Kouzes and Posner (2007) see the concept of leadership as a practice rather than as a personality type. After several case analyses, surveys and questionnaires, they uncovered five leadership practices common to personal-best leadership experiences as guidance for all leaders. These five practices of exemplary leadership are essentials and applicable for all leaders who want ot get extraordinary things done in organizations, including educational institutions. The five practices are: (1) modeling the way, (2) inspiring a shared vision, (3) challenging the process, (4) enabling others to act, and (5) encouraging the heart.

4. Exemplary leadership, K-12 education, and social capital

To improve and benefit from the existing social capital in a family, school and community, the five practices of leadership proposed by Kouzes and Posner may be implemented in K-12 institutions. Accordingly, this model may improve academic and disciplinary success in K-12 education. The following titles will focus on possible actions, attitudes or procedures to improve social capital as conducted by school principals and teachers.

a. Model the way

Behaviors are more important than the title that people carry in organizations. It is through behavior that people win the respect of other members of an organization. If leaders want to gain commitment and better standards, they must be models of the behavior they expect from others. Overall, leaders model the way (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). School principals and teachers should act and behave in the best way possible, as exemplary models, towards colleagues, parents and community members if they wish to utilize and improve social capital. Modeling the way can be done by more involvement and participation in the activities organized in and out school. However, principals and teachers should prioritize their needs when they are choosing activities and events. For instance, different ethnic and cultural groups in a community can isolate themselves, since other members of the community may not want to communicate. Although these different groups may open their activities to all community members, lack of communication and dialogue creates isolation and, as explained before, cause lack of trust, reciprocal respect, interaction and safety, all of which are essential to building social capital. Thus, principals and teachers should prioritize communication and dialogue rather than basic social needs such as entertainment. Modeling the way can also include mutual family visits, joining social organizations and participating in community workshops, conferences and diversity meetings. In short, principals and teachers should represent – model the way – rather than present what social capital requires as a discourse.

b. Inspire a shared vision

Keenness, interest, diligence, inspiration, enthusiasm, dreams and imagination are essential factors for leaders in an organization (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). When leaders are visionary, and if their visions are realistic and if they have confidence in their capacity and skill, remarkable achievement can be realized. According to Kouzes and Posner (2007), every organization and social movement begins with a dream. Dream is a force which helps shape the future. However, dreams cannot work alone and must be shared. Leaders with dreams, or even leaders with more tangible projects, may not initiate an organized movement or substantive change. People will not follow leaders unless they accept the vision or dream as their own. To do so, leaders need to inspire people to share their vision.

A shared vision is as important as modeling the way in the process to utilize and improve social capital. People need to be convinced about the benefits of social capital in academic and disciplinary success in schools. Since many studies (Dika & Singh, 2002) show positive links between high social capital and overall success in K-12 education, making people believe in its benefits may not prove a difficult task for principals and teachers. However, a simple belief does not help much with improving social capital. Kouzes and Posner’s (2007) second practice of exemplary leadership, which is inspire a shared vision, might help leaders, principals and teachers achieve sufficient utilization and improvement in education. The visions and dreams may include (1) high involvement in activities and events, (2) strong connections with parents and community members, and (3) moral and financial support. The first step towards realizing such visions is telling them to the targeted individuals. The second is paralleling the visions with people’s expectations, hopes, and dreams. To do so, principals and teachers should engage in dialogue, not only with their colleagues, but also with parents and community members. The third involves further interaction and dialogue with people to amend or modify the vision for more effective utilization, if needed. Thus, plans and preparations for the planned goal or for the better utilization and improvement of social capital can be improved, and thus become more appealing.

c. Challenge the process

Leadership cases mostly involve a case of change or are perceived to be a challenge to the status quo. Studies done by Kouzes and Posner (2007) confirm this. For example, leaders may challenge a system, its processes or procedures so that they obtain new or better products, processes, services, systems, or outcomes. Challenge might involve an innovative product, a cutting-edge service, a revolutionary piece of legislation, or a reformed cadre of different personnel.

In a school environments, change and challenge occurs in and through the existing policies, internal culture and the status quo. To achieve a significant or better organized transformation, school leaders, primarily principals, happen to take risks. Change might be perceived as a challenge in different forms to the existing attitudes, means, methods and personnel. It might not be seen within the framework or practice of the existing action-plans that allege to benefit social capital within a community. By and large, attempts to improve or further utilize social capital can be perceived as a challenge if there is already some resistance to and confrontation with the rank-and-file towards the process of change and development in any community. As for schools, school leaders can challenge the attitudes and processes that are not effective and valuable for better social capital. Their action plans need to include overall participation, steady attendance, constant involvement, frequent visits and positive relations which would invoke further responses, participation, and contribution from individual families or lager communities. Challenging stagnant, unpromising, unproductive methods, means, or processes with a positive attitude is usually acknowledged as a needed form of action and practice towards achieving objectives.

d. Enable others to act

Leadership is about team work, and cannot be restricted to a small group of loyalists. It must include peers, managers, customers, clients, and citizens – all those who have a stake in the vision. The command-and-control techniques of the Industrial Revolution are no longer applicable. Leaders must work to make people feel strong, capable, and committed. They need to enable others to act and to participate in team efforts in order to accomplish either an organized movement or significant change (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).

Kouzes and Posner’s fourth practice of exemplary leadership is an essential instrument, especially when a single person leads an activity or a project in an organization. This is true for schools principals. At schools, principals give direct orders to realize internal and external procedures. In many cases, teachers, parents, and community members fulfill or complete these orders without becoming a part of them. Teachers, parents, and community members need to be inspired and encouraged to feel like team members who can actively participate in utilizing and improving social capital for their schools. For instance, teachers should be able to contribute to an event organization not only as guests but also as team members who arrange the event. Parents and community members should also be enabled to work as team members working towards improvements or success. Rather than simply participate, they can get involved in the events and organizations, at least to a certain extent, as controllers, coordinators, sponsors, or organizers. This simple involvement naturally attracts and increases the level of interest in school and overall education by society at large, and of course results in the improvement and utilization of social capital accordingly.

e. Encourage the heart

Encouraging the heart is another practice of exemplary leadership offered by Kouzes and Posner (2007). It is essential for leaders, because people get exhausted, frustrated, disenchanted, and often temped to give up. Leaders encourage the hearts of their constituents to carry on. Encouragement may come in many forms, ranging from dramatic gestures to simple actions. For instance, in recognition of performance of the constituents, a simply participating in their celebrations encourages people’s hearts. Such simple actions show that their performance is recognized and appreciated by the leader (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). .

Similar to principals, teachers, as leaders, also should encourage the hearts of their students and students’ parents. Teacher-parent contacts, interactions and dialogues should be accommodated between individuals for academic success and educational progress.

Conclusion

As argued, there are several factors that promote academic and disciplinary success in K-12 education. Educators, in most cases, have the initiative and inherent power to utilize and modify these factors. Social capital is one of these factors and has a critical role for the overall success in schools, especially in K-12 education. Statistics and research show positive links between improved social capital and educational success in the US and elsewhere.

Environments with improved social capital have better educational success, whereas low social capital environments have lower educational success, with high dropout rates and lower tests scores. Although studies clearly support the importance of developing social capital, further proposals, action plans, or practices are still needed to improve and utilize the social capital in K12 education. These proposals can be set by specific disciplines and also by interdisciplinary approaches, such as sociology, psychology, and education.

Erkan Acar is a PhD candidate in education at Marywood University, Pennsylvania.

References

• Cohen, D. & Prusak, L. (2001). In good company. How social capital makes organizations work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Coleman, S., J., (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, (supplement) 95-120.
• Dika, S.L. & Singh, K., (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 31-60.
• Fukuyama, F., (1999). Social capital and civil society. Retrieved September, 1, 2008, from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/seminar/1999/reforms/fukuyama.html
• Kao, G., (2004). Social capital and its relevance to minority and immigrant populations.
• Sociology of Education, 77(2), 172-175.
• Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z., (2007). Leadership the challenge (5rd Ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
• Pierce, J., L. & Newstrom, J.,W., (2008). Leadership & the leadership process: Readings, self-assessments & applications (International Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• The World Bank Social Capital Initiative, (1998). The initiative on defining, monitoring and measuring social capital. Social Capital Working Paper, 1.

As citizens of this macro-reality, we can often feel as if we are but pawns in the vast global chess game being played by multinational corporations, traditional superpowers, new and emerging nuclear powers, and the economic pushbuttons of development and consumer capitalism. Within such a world, some may find it difficult to believe that our individual choices can make a difference in our communities. So what if a few dozen or even a few hundred people in our city get together for an interfaith meal? So what if families from different cultures living together in a town get to know each other? What difference does it make in the end? Political powers and other forces call the larger shots and will send us all into war and conflict if they so desire. Human nature being what it is, we will succumb to our baser instincts in hard times no matter how many positive interfaith or intercultural experiences we’ve had with others.

Critics of interfaith dialogue often make this case. They point to examples from Bosnia, the Middle East, Kashmir, Punjab, Rwanda and elsewhere to illustrate that people who coexist peacefully for centuries can be manipulated into barbarically killing each other relatively quickly. Tyrants, insurgents and other power-seekers have learned that cultural, ethnic, and/or religious differences can form natural fault lines in a given communal fabric, which can be exploited by skillful media messaging and the opportunistic staging of current events into powerfully persuasive political theater. Once the mass media have been harnessed, if not outright hijacked, power seekers can move populations as if mountains – whipping up mass fear, anger, hysteria and eventually an appetite for genocide.

Interfaith dialogue seems no match for these gargantuan modern monstrosities. And, in many cases, it isn’t. The warmly felt bonds of interfaith harmony that thrive in times of relative peace and prosperity chill easily in times of strife and hardship, especially when political, economic or national security interests are at stake. In such times, usually all but a few individuals will succumb to fear, and then retreat to their respective religio-ethnic corners to prepare for a fight. The individuals who maintain their commitment to peaceful coexistence with their neighbors resist the fight, try to save their friends who have suddenly become “the enemy” because of their religion or ethnicity, and often lose their lives in the process. They may be heroes, to be sure, but they are dead. And they do not win in the end; the warmongers do – at least, most of the time.

But not all the time. Occasionally, we find exceptions to this all too common trajectory in human socio-political relations. Situations wherein populations held themselves together despite enormous pressures to fight and kill one another. Where community leaders resisted the gravitational pull of hatred that strips them of their voices and replaces them with those of fear mongers and peddlers of hatred. When we find these exceptions, we must review and analyze the exact conditions that made them possible in the first place, and determine if they can be replicated in other situations of strife and war.

I encountered such an exceptional situation this past spring while visiting Croatia. Fuzine is one of several quaint mountain villages in the district of Gorski Kotar in northern end of the Dalmatian coast of Croatia. I recently listened to the former governor of the district and a local radio producer tell their stories from the period of the war in 1991.

A Yugoslavian Army base camp was built near the district, on top of a hill. Normally, the existence of this base would have been the beginning of the end for peaceful relations between the Croat and Serbian villages of the district. Croats would view the base as a danger and a provocation, as well as a support camp to the Serbian villages. The Serbians, for their part, would have used the base as a “back-up” for their own violence against their Croat neighbors. Since violence begets violence, Croats or Serbs would make the first strike and the cycle would begin. Many would die, the villages would be destroyed, and the resulting “life” would resemble existence on the surface of the moon.

That’s not what happened.

In a stunning turn of events, the municipal leaders of all the villages – Serb and Croat – approached the base commanders and established a relationship with them. After several meetings, it became clear that none of them wanted either to shoot at each other or to be shot. So, they made a written agreement that constituted the “terms” of their coexistence during those months. For example, when the Yugoslav army was required to fire on the villages, per orders from up the chain of command, they warned the citizens ahead of time and instructed them on how to survive the barrage. They provided the citizens with maps of the mines they laid. The village leaders returned the favor and provided base commanders with a “heads up” when they were forced, by public opinion and the radical fringe, to fire on the army base. The local radio producer treated the army base as another “village” in the district and reported its news, events, and played music for the troops, etc. They called the families of wounded guards to apologize – and did so publicly on the radio – when radical elements in their midst broke the agreement and fired on the soldiers. Media reports stayed ahead of the rumor mills, reported the facts of things, and controlled the message to minimize the inflammatory impact of the angry rhetoric coming from other sources.

As a result of the extraordinary bravery and commitment from people on both sides, no one from the district was killed and no one was taken to a wartime prison camp.

Leaders on both sides suffered consequences. Two of the base commanders went to prison for 12 years. One of them disappeared into the mists of “the system” while the other was killed by civilians after being released. The radio producer in Gorski Kotar was banned from media and only recently has begun to work again. Other city leaders voluntarily disappeared into anonymity – this story was kept quiet at first – so as to avoid persecution and death for their actions.

Upon analysis, a few things stand out about this exceptional situation. First of all, there were conditions on the ground that the village leaders exploited to their advantage. The Gorski Kotar district was somewhat geographically remote from the heart of the fighting during the war. As such, neither the base nor the villagers had direct daily involvement in the heart of the war’s operations. Without interventions for peace that could have certainly changed, and the district could have become an additional center or “theater” of the war; however, the interventions took advantage of the district’s “off the beaten path” status. An additional opportunity came in the fact that one of the base commanders was nearing retirement, weary of his job and of fighting, and was inclined to strike a deal with the villagers as long as he could save face. Therefore, when village leaders approached him and his colleagues with a plan for peaceful coexistence, they were ready to negotiate a plan that would let both sides fly under the radar of the larger war and possibly come away from it largely unscathed.

Secondly, media leaders took their share of responsibility for the creation and maintenance of the arrangement with the base camp, as well as for keeping the peace between the villages during particularly tense weeks. Put simply, radio and print media controlled the message in favor of peace. When infractions to the agreement happened from time to time, from both sides, reporting of the story was done in the least inflammatory way possible. For example, when the base camp did an obligatory firing on the villages (after warning the villagers of the times and locations) and accidentally damaged the radio transmission tower, the base commander sent his own soldiers to repair it immediately so that broadcasts could resume as soon as possible. More importantly, this fact was reported to the community so as to minimize anger and outrage over the incident. In short, media operatives used their power for peace and not for war. They recognized the power of media to incite, enflame, and create the larger narrative in which people experience things in their communities. Through skillful messaging and the coordination of communication lines, they maintained and nurtured the agreement for peace through its many months, creating the very conditions for peaceful coexistence.

Finally, we can see that community leaders in the villages refused to relinquish immediately their roles as leaders to the larger forces of the army. They easily could have done otherwise. Once the base camp was established, they could have decided that war was now inevitable, that their little villages stood no chance to resist the war tide rolling towards them, and that each village needed to now begin fortifying themselves against the army and each other, and prepare to fight and die.

They didn’t do this. Instead, they banded together, created a plan, and took a huge risk in walking up the hill to the base camp and presenting it to the commanders. The creativity, courage and will power this required of them simply cannot be overstated. In the end, this human element is what makes the ultimate difference. Human beings are endowed with self-consciousness, agency and imagination, which allows us to not only visualize alternative scenarios in any given situation, but also to imagine and implement alternative courses of action within them – for ourselves and for others. These leaders together resisted the war tide, created an alternative possibility for their district, and bravely took radical steps to implement it. And it worked. Not flawlessly, but enough to keep their people, their homes and their way of life from going up in flames.

Can what happened in Gorski Kotar work everywhere? No and yes. No, in the sense that certain conditions in place on the ground in this district that contributed to the peace are not in place ubiquitously. Most army base commanders aren’t open to illegal agreements with “enemy” villagers. Not all regional or district leaders – in the media or otherwise – have working relations good enough to band together in wartime to create and implement such a thing as this. Many other factors prevent any one exception, such as what happened in Gorski Kotar, from providing a stable template for peace easily applicable to any other situation. These situations are exceptions, after all.

Nevertheless, what happened here can be instructive for other areas. The positive and necessary role of media in maintaining the peace agreement in Gorski Kotar is abundantly clear. Those who find themselves in similar situations of religious and ethnic conflict will do well to procure access to media, if possible, sooner rather than later in order to shape the messaging toward peace and restraint, away from hatred and violence. Today’s 21st century media technology resists totalitarian control in important ways, as recent events in Iran, China and even North Korea indicate. Those with skills can exploit media for peace as well as for war.

Finally, in the end, much turns on the simple power of human agency and choice, and the willingness of people to join together and exercise that agency in the direction of peace in the face of seemingly impossible circumstances. Of course, such principled action plans don’t always make a difference. In fact, such plans may often fail in times of war. But, they certainly have no chance of success at all if people give up on the fight from the beginning and refuse even to attempt to alter the course of things. On this point, people on the brink of war in all sorts of situations have at least a chance – perhaps not a big chance, but a chance nevertheless – to turn the tide in another direction, or at least to reduce the body count and carnage.

I am haunted by an image one of the community leaders in Gorski Kotar used in telling us their story when we met with them. The radio producer told us that media flies “as fast as a bird, as fast as the speed of light” even; however, it typically arrives after the dead bodies already lay on the ground. The producer and the other leaders in the community wanted to avoid bodies on the ground altogether. They wanted media to be faster than the dead.

It seems, in this case at least, they succeeded.

B. Jill Carroll is an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at Rice University.

While these conflicts are represented and justified in terms of religion, historical linkages and occurrence, resources, election or ethnicity, a critical look at these “points of division” increasingly clarifies certain underlying currents: group affiliation, attachment and solidarity. It is this affiliation, attachment and solidarity that have informed the increasingly common dichotomy of people, locally and sometimes internationally, between the “we” and the “them,” “the in-groups” and “the out-groups” or, as is used among the Yorubas in western Nigeria, between the “Omo-ilus” and the “Ara-ilus.”

In the Yoruba language the Omo-ilus denotes a group of people who belong to a particular area in terms of religion and culture, and not only reside in such areas, but are attached to the land. Conversely, the Ara-ilus are people who find themselves in the same area as the Omo-ilus, but who are considered aliens by the latter because of history, religion, tribe, etc. Therefore, there is a clear division to the extent that an Omo-ilu tends not to see an Ara-ilu as his tribal brother even when the latter has stayed in the Ilu (village or locality) for more than 20 years, or even where he was born in the Ilu and haz imbibed some of the culture of the land, including its religion. Though elsewhere, this division is termed the native-settler syndrome, the underlying logic is similar.

The “group thesis” as an explanatory paradigm postulated by Arthur Bentley is not new in the social sciences, but its essence and relevance has been a subject of academic standoffs, while the respective groups continue to move towards violent settlement of issues. Even the global system has not been left out in this segmentation of the humanities. While Huntington spoke about a “clash of civilizations,” President George W. Bush partitioned the world into “Our Allies” and the “Axis of Evil,” even as some Arab scholars and leaders publicized an “Arab Renaissance”-sometimes termed “Arabism”-which splits the Northern African countries from other parts of Africa, and in other, more Machiavellian usage justifies conflicts in places like Darfur, Sudan. All these assertions and points of view tend to perceive of the global system as a mixture of groups with mutually exclusive interest and existences. These patterns of thinking, though gaining grounds, qualify as perhaps the greatest form of communal self-deceit. Men will always remain interrelated and interdependent on one another.

It is within this milieu that I propose Justobification, a simple interpersonal disposition to be adopted or adapted by these various groups. Justobification is a personal experiment that has helped me understand, to a large extent, someone from “another group.” Today that someone is my wife. It is simple and replicable in a wider context. Most importantly, it is adaptable in attempting to address some of these socially constructed divisions with a sense of love and respect, emphasizing centripetal rather than centrifugal forces. Justobification is a story, spanning nine years of my life and culminating in my marriage to my friend, classmate and, now, wife, Justina Olatuga. We had different backgrounds in terms of religion, state of origin (a key means of division and appropriation in Nigeria), family background and differing opinions on a number of issues. Though we belonged to the same Yoruba ethnic group in Nigeria, the aforementioned differences created a dialectical summation which made us Omo-ilu and Ara-ilu simultaneously, depending on whether we are in my native Lagos State or in her Ondo State in Nigeria. To complicate issues, our parents are religious leaders: a Pastor and an Alhaji. Justobification is in itself, and originally, an attempt to merge my native name and hers to form a word: Justina and Tobi. It was coined by a colleague of ours who had, unknown to us, watched us since we stated our friendship in 1999. But beyond his coinage, I proceed to justify Justobification.

I have always had the belief that one’s position and stage in life is determined by a number of factors. These factors have been broadly identified as nature or nurture. By nature, it presupposes the fact that a human being’s way of seeing things is shaped by the way he or she was born. Thus, often it is said in some cultures that a fat person is usually friendly and lively, or a baby with a gap in its tooth means that it will be a socialite when it grows up. More clearly, race and ethnicity are key nature-factors; for instance, people who are born by European parents see themselves as Europeans just as an African, in the strictest form, gives birth to an African, though nurture also has a role to play in the formation of racial or ethnic identities.

The nurture angle argues that human beings are influenced by those events that they experience and the circumstances in which they find themselves. This means that the opportunity for and location of their education, their friendship, the books they read, their family orientation and so on all being a function of what occurred after birth. In other words, experiences have an enduring impact on the way we see things. As a factor, religion-without any attempt at interpreting the embodiment of the Books-falls under nurture. Thus, a large number of people are Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sango worshipper, etc., most often because their parents belong to such religions.

However, while nature-nurture makes human beings different in terms of their culture, race, tribe, region, religion, etc, this nature-nurture engendered classification has been at the core of local and international crises. These crises are reinforced by the fact that some of the emergent groups tend to view themselves as superior or more civilized or more indigenous than the other, as can be seen in the native-settler violence in Middle Belt of Nigeria, the Hutu-Tutsi violence in Rwanda, violence in Darfur in Sudan, Kenya with regards to the recent electoral violence, the crisis in Ireland some years ago, pre-1990 apartheid in South Africa among others.

My marriage to Justina exposed me to certain points. First, all religions teach love and respect. Similarly, all ethnic groups, which are likened to race, teach morality in which love and respect are central. There is hardly any religion, race, tribe, etc, that advocates violence and mutual hatred for the followers of other religions or members of other tribes or groups for no just reason. As friends, not only did we love ourselves as creatures of the Almighty, but we also respected our various points of view on nature-nurture factors such as ethnicity, religion, tribe, class, etc. We understood that these views are personal but we also, most importantly, understood that we must not assume that these individual views must be accepted by the other party. The global system can learn from this in the sense that civilizations, to use the words of Huntington, should not claim to be on a mission to civilize another civilization. Instead, efforts should be made to understand and respect the others’ views through love. Love, if present, allows individuals and groups to overlook the mistakes of others. This certainly does not mean that we should ignore human rights violations, injustices, and corruption; more appropriate and influential means of interaction should be used if we truly want to eliminate such violations.

Second, listening to ourselves helped us make sense of some of our beliefs. This helped us scale the hurdle of assumptions and the breaks in communications which are some of the reasons for group related intra/inter-state conflicts. These can be illustrated by such events as the myth of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, the emergent Sunni-Shiite enmity around portions of the middle east, a failure to communicate between the top leaders of Palestine and Israel, the continuous religious vacuum created in the neglect of some Islamic leaders in Somalia (Oshodi, 2009) and the ethno-religious violence in 1994, 2001, 2002 and 2008 in Jos, Nigeria to mention just a few. Listening to people helps one to understand their respective points of view. The importance of listening allows the Ara-ilus and Omo-ilus to understand one another better. For instance, our interactions have helped me understand some aspects of Christianity that I never knew existed. Also, I was able to relate a number of the verses of the Qur’an to her, even before we decided to marry.

Thirdly, Justobification helped me understand that some of the points of difference among groups could be transformed to points of understanding. We achieved this by learning to see our similarities rather than overplay our differences. Even as there were areas where we did not agree, we laid more emphasis on the centripetal forces such as common humanity and love, while understanding the centrifugal forces by listening to each other with respect and understanding. Unfortunately, some group leaders tend to over-blow these differences to a massive level, leading to the emergence of hybrid interpretations which find expression in the various violence and counter-violence among a large number of the nature-nurture groupings of the world.

Fourthly, Justobification showed me the importance of prayer for peace and friendship. Though it is unquestionable that prayers are a communication between human beings and the Creator, these prayers often have a psychological effect on us. By praying for a person, you tend to wish such a person well, thereby overcoming any hitherto existing antagonisms or hatreds. I recommend that groups pray for other groups. By this I look, hopefully, for a day when Sunnis pray for Shiites in Iraq, and vice versa in their mosques on frequent occasions, or the day when Christians pray for Muslims, Arabs pray for Americans, Yorubas pray for Hausa-Fulanis, or leaders of larger groups/states pray for others. For instance, the Israeli President pray for Palestinian leaders, or ex-President Bush praying for President Ahmadinajad of Iran, and vice versa. Though this may be considered laughable and debateable, there is no doubt that saying a prayer for peace and friendship will soften the hearts of these groups and their leaders.

In conclusion, even as I write there is the threat of nature-nurture related violence in different parts of the world. Societies are dividing along ethnic, religious, tribal or civilizational line. Sadly, this may continue unless we, as humans, begin to see the need to love, respect, expand points of unity and pray for peace and friendship. Simply put… we could all use a little Justobification.

Abdul-Gafar ‘Tobi’ Oshodi is a lecturer in the Department of Political Science, Lagos State University (LASU), Lagos, Nigeria. Also a trained journalist, Tobi Oshodi specialises in Advanced Specialised Reporting and International Political Economy with bias for the “African Condition.”

References

• Huntington, S. “The Clash of Civilizations,” in Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993.
• Oshodi, T. “Religious Vacuum and the Making of a Failed State: Somalia in the Eyes of the World” a paper presented at the Conference on Religion and International Relations in the Post Cold War Era held at the Uthman Dan Fodio University (UDU) Sokoto, Nigeria, January 16th – 17th, 2009.

I argue against these claims, based upon strong empirical evidence indicating that war does not occur among democratic states, the so-called zone of peace. As democratic regimes replace authoritarian regimes, future generations will study wars as an obsolete part of history.

This article has three parts: tracing the roots of the democratic peace argument and providing supporting evidence, examining the three mechanisms offered to explain the absence of war among democratic states, and critically evaluating the democratic peace argument.

Does democratic peace exist?

One should define democracy before answering the above question. Democracy is a combination of two Greek words: demos (people) and kratos (rule)”rule by the people. In a direct democracy, citizens are directly engaged in the law-making process though a majority system. In a representative democracy, as we have today, citizens use their legislative powers through their elected representatives. Both types also require a constitutional framework through which the majority can exercise its power and through which the individual and collective rights of people are guaranteed.

The roots of democratic peace argument can be traced back to the German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) Perpetual Peace essay, published in 1795.(3) He argued that although state rulers decide to start a war, it is the people who suffer the consequences (e.g., the loss of money, property, and lives). Thus they are reluctant to engage in war. Since rulers of democratic states are accountable to the people, they are less inclined to initiate a war.

Kant also identified commerce as another reason for perpetual peace among democracies. Increasing trade leads states to realize that they have much to loose from conflict and thus reinforces their desire to avoid war. Finally, the existence of a pacific union prevents the outbreak of war between democracies. Such a union reinforces the idea that democracies have common goals and interests, and further mitigates the desire for armed conflict.

Michael Doyle, a former professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton and now assistant secretary general of the UN, revisited Kant’s perpetual peace argument.(4) He showed that, as Kant had predicted, there is no historical case of two democratic states fighting each other. Using the correlates of war data prepared by University of Michigan researchers, he listed all the democratic states and interstate wars occurring after 1815. He pointed out that although wars occurred between non-democratic states and between democratic and non-democratic states, there has been no war between democratic states since 1815.

Doyle listed three different factors to account for this: caution, respect, and interest. Democratic leaders are cautious when initiating military conflict, for otherwise their constituencies will punish them by removing them from power. Rulers of democratic states respect each other because they respect their populations. Democratic rulers may reason that military dictators will not respect the citizens of a democracy because military dictators do not respect their own people. Finally, the level of trade among democratic states is so high that they become dependent on each other. This interdependence decreases the utility of military force during disputes.

Supporters of the democratic peace argument have examined such long-term rivalries Argentina and Britain, Pakistan and India, Greece and Turkey to see whether being a democracy has had any impact on military hostilities between these pairs. Greece and Turkey provide an example of how dictatorships are more prone to war. They have fought three wars, but not when both of them were democratic. This also has been true with Ecuador and Peru, Argentina and Chile, and Brazil and Argentina, all of which have had bitter rivalries. The Falklands War between Argentina and Britain took place when Argentina was a dictatorship and resulted in the military rulers being replaced by a stable democratic regime.

Like inter-state conflicts, civil wars provide another set of empirical support for the democratic peace argument. Democratic states rarely experience civil wars. Why would any group launch a war to control a state when they could pursue their goals peacefully through electoral participation? Democratization is, then, a way to prevent civil wars. Dean Babst and William Eckhardt conducted a 42-year study of all independent countries from 1950 to 1991. Their study found that although 90 percent of dictatorships have experienced some form of civil war, no civil wars occurred in democratic states during that period.(5)

The end of the cold war

The end of the cold war popularized the idea of democratic peace. However, there were some differences about the new world order that was to replace the cold war. Robert Kaplan predicted a coming anarchy,(6) in which a state’s control over its population vanishes and different armed groups create an anarchic environment. Samuel Huntington saw a coming clash of civilizations,(7) in which states belonging to different civilizations would fight each other. John Mearsheimer defined the new world order as back to the future,(8) in which the superpowers’ departure from Europe would create a power vacuum that various European countries would seek to fill through conflict. The democratic peace argument offered an alternative model for the new world order.

American officials upheld the democratic peace argument. In 1992, Secretary of State James Baker said: The cold war has ended, and we now have a chance to forge a democratic peace, an enduring peace built on shared values”democracy and political and economic freedom. The strength of these values in Russia and the other new independent states will be the surest foundation for peace”and the strongest guarantee of our national security”for decades to come.(9) Similarly, President Clinton declared in his 1994 State of the Union Speech: Ultimately the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don’t attack each other.(10) And at the height of the crisis in Haiti in 1994, he supported military intervention on the grounds that: Democracies here are more likely to keep the peace.(11)

The idea of democratic peace is not new to American foreign policy. Woodrow Wilson made a similar argument as early as 1917: A steadfast concert of peace can never be maintained except by a partnership of democratic nations. No autocratic government could be trusted to keep faith w/in [a concert]. Only free peoples can hold their purpose and their honor steady to a common end and prefer to the interest of mankind to any narrow interest of their own.(12)

Two explanations

There are two key issues here. First, democratic peace does not mean that democratic states are peace-lovers, for democratic states do initiate war with authoritarian states. In addition, pacifist public opinion cannot explain democratic peace, for such a situation would lead to democratic states having peaceful relations with all states, whether democratic or not. Therefore any explanation for democratic peace must account for the absence of war between democratic states and the persistence of war between democratic and non-democratic states.

Second, correlation does not mean causation. Correlations establish empirical and observable regularities between two variables (democratic states and war), but do not explain the underlying mechanisms causing the observed empirical regularity. For example, there has been no war between states having McDonald’s restaurants. This perfect correlation, however, does not mean that McDonald’s restaurants lead to peace (the so-called McDonald’s peace theory). Clarifying underlying mechanisms prevents explanations based on spurious correlations.

Researchers offer two mechanisms to explain peace among democratic states: normative and institutional.

Normative: Normative democratic peace researchers assume that decision-makers use conflict resolution tools developed in domestic politics when dealing with external problems and expect other decision-makers to follow a similar strategy. As a result democratic leaders, when dealing with a democratic state, try (and expect other democratic leaders) to establish consensus through nonviolent means to solve external problems. While dealing with non-democratic leaders, however, democratic leaders tend to resort to violence easily because they expect authoritarian leaders will use violent means.(13)

For example, when dealing with Hitler or Stalin, democratic leaders inferred that they would use negotiations to gain time for military preparations, for these leaders did not come from a culture where problems were solved through negotiations. Thus, democratic leaders do not expect to reach a negotiated agreement with authoritarian leaders.

Institutional: Institutional democratic peace researchers argue that democratic institutions cause peace among democratic states. In democracies, the presence of checks and balances and high levels of public involvement in the political process constrain state leaders and prevent hasty decisions. These constraints also slow down the decision-making process. As a result, third parties have time to intervene among democratic states and help them solve their problems peacefully.

Democratic leaders do not fear a surprise attack when they have a problem with other democratic states, because they are aware that those states have democratic institutional mechanisms. Since there is little, if any, constraint in an authoritarian state, authoritarian rulers can make quick decisions. Therefore democratic rulers fear a surprise attack by an authoritarian ruler. Furthermore, since authoritarian rulers know that democratic leaders are constrained, they tend to push democratic leaders for more concessions. Such a tactic might escalate a crisis into a war.

Lastly, democratic rulers are elected and are cautious about using violence, for they can be punished by their constituencies. Authoritarian rulers do not have to worry about elections.(14) For example, Saddam can start a war quite easily because he needs no one’s approval and is not affected by the outcome. So far, Saddam has launched and lost two wars, both of which inflicted enormous misery on Iraqi people”and yet he remains in power. In democratic countries, however, people punish rulers who start wars without their approval by not re-electing them.

Problems

The democratic peace argument is not immune from problems.(15) First, there is no one definition of democracy, for researchers use different data sets with different codifications to measure levels of democracy. Various definitions (e.g., free elections, at least one peaceful transfer of power, universal suffrage, free press, free expression, and human rights) make it harder to test democratic peace argument. It also can cause one researcher to codify a given country as democratic while another will classify it as authoritarian.

Second, there is no consensus on how to define war. This is important, for even though democratic states did not openly fight each other, they did conduct covert operations against other democratic regimes and brought less-democratic regimes to power. For example, the US and Britain overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh government in Iran in 1953 and replaced him with the less-democratic Shah. Similarly, the CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected Allende government in Chile in 1973 and replace him with the authoritarian Pinochet.

Third, democracies have been quite rare in history. Therefore, chances for a war between them were low. The geographical distribution of democratic countries further weakens the importance of the democratic peace argument. For example what is chance of democratic New Zealand fighting democratic Spain?

Only after WWII did the number of democracies begin to increase. During this period, however, all democratic states were allies. Thus skeptics argue that security concerns rather than regime type explains democratic peace. Mearsheimer for example, argues that European democracies may experience another war after the end of the cold war.

From democratic peace to perpetual peace

Overwhelming evidence indicates that democracies are better in terms of providing internal peace for their citizens and can serve as the building blocks of a global and perpetual peace. Democratic norms and institutions provide a strong basis for peace among democratic countries. At the turn of the twentieth century, there was only a handful of democratic states; there were 22 by 1950. By 2000, according to Freedom House criteria, 85 counties had governments that came to power through free elections and respect basic human rights and the rule of law. As the number of democracies increases, the zone of peace will expand.

The end of the cold war provided the opportunity to design a new world order. After more than a decade, it seems we can claim that the US foreign policy establishment believes in the democratic peace argument and actively supports democratization throughout the world. Time will show the success of these efforts. 

Footnotes

1. The author can be reached at.
2. Charles Kagley and Eugene Wittkopf, World Politics: Trend and Transformation, 7th ed. (St. Martin’s Press: 1998), 347.
3. Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, (1975). Online at: http://home.freeuk.com/ethos/kantperpe.htm.
4. Michael Doyle, Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs, Philosophy & Public Affairs 12 (Summer 1983): 205-35
5. Dean V. Babst and William Eckhardt, How Peaceful Are Democracies Compared with Other Countries? Peace Research (1992).
6. Robert Kaplan, The Coming Anarchy (Vintage Books: 2000).
7. Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996).
8. John Mearsheimer, Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War, International Security 15, no. 1 (1990): 5-56.
9. Entire speech online at: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/ b920615.htm.
10. Entire speech online at: http://www.crisny.org/government/us/ us.sotu94.html.
11. The Economist (1 Apr. 1995).
12. Entire speech online at: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1917/ wilswarm.html.
13. Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993).
14. Ibid.
15. For critiques of the democratic peace argument, see David Spiro, The Insignificance of the Democratic Peace, International Security 19 (Fall 1994): 50-86; Joanna Gowa, Democratic States and International Disputes, International Organization 49 (Summer 1995): 511-22; and Mearsheimer, Back to the Future.

Why and how civilizations rise and fall is a hard question to answer. To do so, one must understand the civilization and the time in which it began to rise. Jason Goodwin, an English journalist, uses memoirs of European visitors and standard histories to explore the 600-year existence of the Ottoman Empire. He writes: This is a book about a people who do not exist. The word ˜Ottoman does not describe a place. Nobody nowadays speaks their language.

The Ottoman Empire, at one time, stretched from the border of Iran to the gates of Vienna and included hundreds of ethnic groups and three dozen nations. United under a tolerant form of Islam, the Ottoman Turks forged a culture that was such a prodigy of pep, such a miracle of human ingenuity, that contemporaries felt it was helped into being by powers not quite human”diabolical or divine, depending on their point of view.

The Ottomans were the first state to maintain a standing army in Europe since Roman days. Chalcocondyle, a Byzantine chronicler, wrote:

I think there is no prince who has his armies and camps in better order, both in abundance of victuals and in beautiful order they use in encamping without any confusion or embarrassment.

Goodwin argues that the key to Ottoman success, besides an obvious skill at war, was cultural and institutional open-mindedness: The Ottoman umbrella made room for Spanish Jews, Orthodox Greeks, Venetian merchants, Albanian tribesmen, Arab bedouins, and others. The Ottomans did not demand religious or linguistic uniformity. Unlike later imperialists, they never asked themselves why others were not like them. Muslims followed Islamic law, and Christians and Jews were expected to have their own laws. Community leaders were allowed to run the community’s affairs as long as they did not come into direct conflict with Islamic organization.

An Ottoman was not born, but made, passing through imperial schools, following the requisite course of studies says Goodwin. There was no inherited nobility, as in other contemporary European empires, for people rose on merit. Cities prospered by agriculture and trade. Social welfare projects were maintained by tax-exempt charitable foundations holding almost one-third of the land and great wealth. These foundations built bridges and mosques, took care of the sick and the poor, and lodged travelers for free.

With the coming of the Industrial Revolution, however, the Ottomans lost their military, economic, and social superiority. Decreased military power resulted in land losses and reduced tax revenues, and self-indulgent leaders could not adapt the intricate socio-economic structure to changing conditions. Although palace intrigue, factional rivalry, military disloyalty, and nationalist rebellions in Greece and Egypt combined to sap its strength, it survived into the twentieth century.

Goodwin narrates this fascinating story in an elegantly written, thoroughly entertaining work of popular history. As he quotes from Andrija Kacic-Mosic: These songs will not be for everyones taste May those who find them pleasing sing them; may those who do not, go off to sleep.