Security and terrorism : the implications of peace

Abstract

“God made human beings in the beginning, then left them to their own deliberations” (Ecclesiasticus 15:14). This is transposed in “free choice” or “free will” or what Aristotle considers “deliberate desire”. Thus, humans can freely choose what to do, and this reasoning power can compel and entertain various thoughts and perspectives, including choosing peace over terrorism or choosing terrorism to entertain a peace perspective, as well as being passive to what is happening around them. Galtung (1969) presented a discussion on the use of the term ‘peace’ and argues that peace cannot be understood simply as the absence of war but must be conceptualised in relation to different forms of violence. Galtung (1969) distinguishes between personal (direct) violence and structural (indirect) violence, and accordingly defines negative and positive peace. Negative peace incorporates the absence of direct, personal violence (e.g., killing, assault, warfare), while positive peace entails the absence of structural violence, which is equated with social justice, meaning an egalitarian distribution of resources and power. Very much like the two sides of a coin, while the negative peace reflects the suppression of overt violence, positive peace entails actively addressing inequalities and systemic injustices that create conditions for violence. Thus, according to Galtung (1969) peace research cannot be limited to studying the cessation of war but must also include the study of social systems, justice, and development. Reducing personal violence while ignoring structural violence can legitimise “law and order” societies that suppress dissent without addressing underlying injustices. Conversely, prioritising structural change while neglecting the dangers of personal violence can lead to revolutionary violence, including terrorism, reproducing new forms of repression. True peace requires engagement with both dimensions simultaneously.