Time, Space and the Global Imaginary: Reflections on Elise Boulding’s Contribution to a Global Civic Culture and a Peaceful World.

Time, Space and the Global Imaginary: Reflections on Elise Boulding’s Contribution to a Global Civic Culture and a Peaceful World.

 Elise Boulding

Kevin P Clements.

(Not for quotation. This is the draft of a short piece  to go in a festchrift edition of  the National Conflict Management and Research  Journal. Russell Boulding, Elise’s son and  archivist  is pulling contributions from me, Mary Lee Morrison and Andrea Strimling Yodsampa. We only had 1,400 words to say what Elise meant to us and to focus on what we thought were some of her most notable achievements. This is my very rapid response. I’d be grateful for any reactions from    Elise’s  friends and others who know  her work as there is still time to revise and resubmit!). 

Time, Space and the Global Imaginary: Reflections on Elise Boulding’s Contribution to a Global Civic Culture and a Peaceful World.

Kevin P Clements.


Elise and I first met in the early 1980s. We were both sociologists, Quakers, peace researchers and pacifist activists. These commonalities, however, were not what brought us both together. We were united more by a shared concern to ensure that our religious and ethical beliefs, theory, research and practice were consonant and that our academic work had positive practical consequences and vice versa. Along with Marx we were united in a desire “not just to understand the world but to change it”!! I had always been impressed by Elise’s quiet desire to make sure that her work had a positive impact and when we met finally that impression was confirmed.


We developed a warm, positive and loving friendship for the next 28 years. We were bound by common academic concerns but, perhaps more importantly, by an easy rapport, a meeting of minds and spirit. An example of this was in her final years of life. I visited her after she had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. I had expected a truncated one sided conversation but she engaged me with some deep philosophical questions about  life and death. After exchanging normal pleasantries, for example, she asked me “ Do we leave life or does life leave us? !!” This is a question that goes to the heart of how we live in the face of death. She then followed that up by stating “ I used to be a doer like you now I just am. What is the point of just being?” She then smiled at a nurse going by and said “ I know I can bring joy and happiness to the people around me”. Even in adverse circumstances she managed to pose deep existential questions and look for meaningful action while grappling with the challenges of memory loss. I was fortunate enough to visit her a few days before she finally died in 2010 and, despite a prompting from Russell that I was sitting beside her holding her hand, I was astonished that she opened her eyes and said “Kevin, how kind of you to come”. She was a relationship builder to the very end.


As she did with many others, Elise encouraged me to assume leadership positions within the International Peace Research Association. So, I was variously Secretary General of the Asia Pacific Peace Research Association; a co-President of IPRA and then President of the IPRA Foundation when Elise felt she had to lay down that responsibility. Finally, I was Secretary General of IPRA from 2008-2010.

All of these positions gave me, as they had given her, connection to a vast global network of scholars, practitioners and change agents . All of us were and are united by a common concern to ensure that cultures and structures of violence are replaced by cultures and structures of peace . To this end we focused our attention on the diverse origins and sources of violence and how these might be replaced by processes and institutions that would guarantee stable peace, inclusion and social justice through time.

Elise and Kenneth Boulding were both committed “Futurologists” and “Systems theorists” (Boulding, 2001). This meant that they were always focused on the ways in which location in different cultural, geographical, social and linguistic spaces shaped and conditioned what was seen and understood. Time and space were, therefore, important dimensions in determining their thinking. Long before it was fashionable,they were concerned to anticipate future global challenges and think about how to respond to these at national, regional and global levels. They were both globalists, universalists and cosmopolitans trying to make sense of the particular in terms of general systems thinking.


But they were always thinking about temporality as well. Neither felt that we were doomed to keep repeating the negative behaviour of the past and both believed strongly in the power of education and imagination as critical drivers of progressive change. Kenneth was fond of saying that “Everything that is thinkable is possible”. Both he and Elise resisted being confined by the limits of their own minds and were always thinking of ways in which the future could  contribute to personal and systemic well being.


They also understood, however, the importance of paying attention to the past ( not just to learn from its mistakes) but to ensure that the wisdom of those who had devised practical solutions to past problems could be tapped and shared with those making decisions in the present. Once again, however, it was Elise rather than Kenneth who made the conceptual   leap enabling us to capture cross generational wisdom in the building of a peaceful future.


Her concept of a two hundred year present, for example, is was personally embodied, elegant and practical. (Boulding, 1988). In this concept she asks each one of us to place ourselves in time and to remember that there are people alive today who were born a hundred years ago. We have a responsibility to learn from them and to devise ways in which we can listen to and engage with them so that we might benefit from their wisdom and understand how they responded to problems, many of which continue to afflict us today. At the same time, however, she reminded us that there will be a baby born today who will live for another hundred years. The challenge, therefore, is how to ensure that we capture the wisdom from the past to enliven and inform   our present and then ensure that the decisions we make in this present enable the new born baby to realise its potential a 100 years from now.


Thinking in terms of a 200 year present is a way of creating a strong ethical and practical framework for decision making. It means, adhering to the moral principle of reversibility and never to do anything that cannot be reversed. We should not make any irreversible decisions   because we don’t know what the future will hold and its important to preserve adaptive resilient capacity. So we need to work, wherever possible to ensure that our decisions can be changed modified and adapted by future generations.


The 200 year present, therefore, is critical to ensuring sustainable development and an eco system that is able to nurture life. It is also a profound call to nonviolence because violent decisions are always irreversible and generate pain, brokenness, death and destruction.   They fail the ethical test of reversibility and prevent us from living in a 200 year present.


In addition to this lovely insight about time and place, Elise and Kenneth Boulding, both understood that there would be no movement from a violent and unjust status quo unless what was, could be replaced with a more positive vision of what might be. (Boulding & Boulding, 1995). Both understood the cognitive and emotional power of a compelling image of the future. Both wrote about the power of the image and how to be curious and inventive in the development of positive images.  It was Elise rather than Kenneth, however, who focused attention on ways in which individual and group imagination could be nurtured and liberated in order to shift possibility boundaries in progressive, radical and non-violent directions. (Boulding, 1995).


The futures imaging workshops that she developed with Warren Zeigler, for example, demonstrated  her desire to make sure that she not only understood the power of a future image in social change, but was able to link this insight to an experiential process within which individuals could learn how to imagine and realise their “imaginaries” in concrete terms. (Boulding, 2001). In these workshops the process that she described as “Futures Remembering”, was her effort to ensure that people gave specific shape and meaning to their images of a “world without weapons” while devising concrete plans for realising them through time. This attention to the future is a very important tool in any conflict transformer’s toolbox. If there is no willingness to imagine and vision a positive future, actors in conflict will always be caught in a paralysing past which will immobilise them politically in the present.


Elise wanted to understand space, time and imagination in order to build a Global Civic Culture   capable of generating a new and more peaceful world order. She wanted to challenged taken for granted patterns of power, authority and responsibility at national, regional and global levels. In her book , Building a Global Civic Culture, (Boulding, 1988), Elise focused on the diverse ways in which the world was becoming more globally interconnected and interdependent. She documented the ways in which civil society actors ( in national and International Civil Society Organisation (CSOs) these were her preferred terms for NGO and INGO) were expanding and becoming more critical to political decision making. She wanted to explore how these CSOs could make governments, regional organisations and multilateral institutions more accountable and ensure that they directed their attention to developing policies and programmes that served the common good and advanced the human interest rather than national and sectional interests. Elise was a strong supporter of the United Nations, all her life and her work on the Governing Board of UNESCO was catalytic in the development of her global consciousness and in the evolution of this book.


In all this work on developing a functional global system she promoted  integrative rather than dominatory power(power with others rather than power over others). She was not a naïve idealist and understood the importance of challenging taken for granted hierarchies and political arrangements where these were generating inequality, subjugation and violence.


She also wanted  a world where diversity was celebrated, where there was equality between men and women , adults and children. She wanted a world within which all 6.5 billion people on the planet would be able to have their needs for recognition, security and welfare met and where they could all realise their deepest human potential. She advanced all of these causes with integrity, passion, intellect and a deep commitment to the welfare of others. I miss her every day but her ideas sustain me and others as we grapple with the follies of the 21st century just as she grappled with the tragedies of the 20th.






Boulding, E. (1988). Building a global civic culture : education for an interdependent world. New York: Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Boulding, E. (1995). A journey into the future: Imagining a nonviolent world. 51.

Boulding, E. (2001). Designing Future Workshops as a Tool for Peacebuilding. Peacebuilding. A Field Guide. Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 373-375.

Boulding, E., & Boulding, K. E. (1995). The future : images and processes. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.




Posted in Building Peaceful Community, Conflict Transformation, Development and Peacebuilding, Feminist and Christian Objections to War, Futurology, Global Civic Culture, Humility of learning, Imagination, Love and Mutuality, Non violent responses to Violent Politics, Pacifism, Relationship Healing, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Politics of Compassion in a World of Ruthless Power

Kevin's Peace Musings

The Politics of Compassion in a World of Ruthless Power


Kevin Clements

March 14, 2016

Kevin Clements is the Foundation Chair of Peace and Conflict Studies and Director of the New Zealand National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (NCPACS) at the University of Otato, Dunedin, New Zealand, and Secretary General of the International Peace Research Association.

I would like to explain why I’m focusing on the politics of compassion in 2016 even though it sounds somewhat oxymoronic at this particular juncture in history.     I am writing a book about the Politics of Compassion   because the world is far too small to accommodate the application of dominatory, hegemonic , authoritarian and bullying politics . This sort of adversarial zero sum politics is not solving the problems that the global order is currently confronting. John Burton, ( Burton, 1990) one of the founders of our field felt that one of…

View original post 9,461 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Politics of Compassion in a World of Ruthless Power

The Politics of Compassion in a World of Ruthless Power


Kevin Clements

March 14, 2016

Kevin Clements is the Foundation Chair of Peace and Conflict Studies and Director of the New Zealand National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (NCPACS) at the University of Otato, Dunedin, New Zealand, and Secretary General of the International Peace Research Association.


I would like to explain why I’m focusing on the politics of compassion in 2016 even though it sounds somewhat oxymoronic at this particular juncture in history.     I am writing a book about the Politics of Compassion   because the world is far too small to accommodate the application of dominatory, hegemonic , authoritarian and bullying politics . This sort of adversarial zero sum politics is not solving the problems that the global order is currently confronting. John Burton, ( Burton, 1990) one of the founders of our field felt that one of the promises of Conflict Transformation was to think about how to do politics differently. He thought that adversarial politics should and would eventually be replaced by a more collaborative problem solving politics . This normative desire to change the nature of politics needs to be given shape and focus if we are to   address a wide range of global challenges effectively. We are living in a dystopian present. George Orwell said in 1984,(Orwell, Pynchon, & Fromm, 2003) “Do you begin to see then, what kind of world we are creating ? It is a world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself.”

I think that Orwell’s fictional prophecy is coming to pass. We are living in a world of fear and treachery and torment, where politicians and political systems trample upon others, and we are living in a world that seems to be growing merciless as it refines itself even though there’s a lot of good evidence to suggest that many of the intractable conflicts of the world are beginning to diminish.

What makes modern politics challenging though is that  we are confronting a perfect storm of tectonic shifts within the global political, economic and social system.

In the first place there is climate change, which is already wreaking havoc in different parts of the world. I’m in the UK on sabbatical at the moment and there have been three, hundred-year floods in the last six years. In New Zealand, where I live normally, and in the southern part of the United States, there’s been more flooding and unusual weather events. The hottest February in history was recorded in 2016.The world as a whole in 2015 was 1.83 degrees warmer than average recordings in 2014. These are not north-south problems anymore, they are truly Global Problems impacting on all of us.

Second, in addition to climate change economic vulnerability remains a persistent problem. The global financial crisis of 2008 could easily repeat itself. The Bank of International Settlements in Basel has just gone to negative interest rates and people are saying, “Well, what does this mean if there’s another banking crisis? Will the Reserve Banks have the capacity to handle it?” The answer to that question is not at all clear. If there is another financial crisis, its highly probable that the the global financial system will not be able to bounce back as it did the last time.

Third , I think there are numerous examples of state dysfunction and pathology. This is not just a question of a democratic deficit, (i.e a situation of deficiency in relation to political accountabiliity and legitimacy.)   On the contrary there are some fundamental pathologies that challenge the whole democratic project. Coming from the UK or New Zealand to the United States, for example, its easy to see quite high levels of pathology. There’s no way to describe the current Presidential primary campaign in the US other than politically bizarre. I think it highlights something about people’s alienation from political systems and political processes. Political leaders in both the US and Europe at the moment are articulating fear, frustration, and high levels of anger, and aggression. These are playing themselves out in systems which probably going to prove inadequate to the task of controlling them. The result is the generation of high levels of political extremism in many of the world’s ostensibly stable democracies. . In Europe right now, for example, there are multiple right wing, reactionary, fascist parties in Germany, Poland, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Hungary The United Kingdom is not immune . UKIP is the British National Party rebranded and the Brexit movement for British withdrawal from Europe builds on xenophobic nationalism , prejudice and fear. These extremist groups are tugging political processes, in all the countries further and further to the right. The center is no longer able to hold moderate positions. On the contrary many centrist parties are demonstrating intolerant tendencies and worse beginning to challenge many of the taken for granted normative achievements of the 21st century The Civil Rights Movement, for example, achieved legal equality for blacks and whites in America, but it’s being challenged by states wishing to change electoral and gender equality laws in the South. The Convention Against Torture, which was a singular achievement of the 20t century, is also being observed in breach all over the world right now.

I’ve just coordinated a workshop in Japan on warrior and pacifist traditions in the Abrahamic religions and in Buddhism. When we were talking about Donald Trump saying that “waterboarding was for sissies”, one of my Jewish Colleagues at the meeting said without blinking an eyelid, “In Israel, we normally find that sleep deprivation gives us all the information we need before we use any other tool in our torture toolbox.” He didn’t even hesitate when saying this. Does this mean, that Israel, and America and many other democratic countries are willing to breach the convention they’ve signed to abolish torture? Where is it going to end?

Amnesty International has just announced that 2015 was one of the worst year’s for capital punishment . Even though most of this was accounted for by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan it sends an ominous signal to countries that have abolished this punishment as cruel, inhuman, ineffective and frequently unjust. Does this growth in numbers of state sponsored executions mean that pressure will build for capital punishment to be reasserted as an acceptable punishment for states that are already showing signs of moving in less democratic directions ?

Are we on the cusp of an era when all kinds of human rights laws and conventions will be undermined and subverted? My personal feeling is that we’re living in extremely dangerous times and unless we are very wary some of the normative achievements of the 20th century will be reversed in the 21st.

The challenges that are confronting the world are not old north-south problems; they are global problems, which impact on all of us. When I talk about the politics of compassion, I am talking about a politics which, hopefully, will begin to challenge all of us to think afresh about what we want our political systems to do for us.

In particular what do we want our politics to look like in an era of growing individual atomization and alienation in the west? While the internet has, in different ways, brought us all together in real time it might be making us more politically paralysed in particular places and contexts.

I’ve got six political pathologies that worry me and which I want to tag and then I’ll give you some of my more optimistic ideas about how we might address these   challenges.





The first pathology is the politics of domination. Twenty-first century politics in both democratic and non-democratic systems are becoming progressively more callous, dominatory and oriented towards the protection of power, privilege and sectional interest. Politics have always been like this but this process seems to have intensified since 2001. The attacks on the World Trade Centre in 2001 generated first an American and then a wider Western overreaction that has resulted in the evolution of national security states everywhere, by which I mean states that give inordinate amounts of power to their intelligence and surveillance apparatuses, police, and military. There’s been increasing political surveillance and political control at all levels. In the 1970s and 80s, I was Chairman of the Canterbury Council for Civil Liberties in Christchurch, New Zealand, and the Council decided to install some surveillance cameras on the four major avenues around Christchurch to monitor traffic flows. We were able to mobilize a whole campaign against the installation of those closed-circuit television cameras on the grounds that it was a major infringement of privacy, because people would know which car was passing at what time of the night, and that information could be used against us if we were engaged in nefarious activity. Nowadays, nobody cares—everybody wants a surveillance camera at the end of the street and everywhere they go, and these surveillance cameras are generating information which is available to the State for whatever purpose it seeks to use it for. Sometimes these purposes can be very helpful as when police and others use CTV images to track criminals through time and space. On other occasions, however, and in different places these can be used to track and assassinate political opponents. However, they are used, these cameras and the information that they are gathering is being used to generate ever tighter controls over individual citizens and non citizen alike.

The Russian poet Klebnakhov said, “What a great place is the police station. Its where I have my rendezvous with the State” .. I would want to amend this now and argue that “ What a great place is the Immigration and Custom’s departments, for this is where citizens and non citizens have their rendezvous with the State”. I can speak from some personal experience of this. I have been on sabbatical in the United Kingdom for the last 8 months. Even though I’m a British subject by lineage and lived in the UK for five years as such, this year I had to get an academic visa in order to stay in the UK for longer than 6 months. To get this I had to provide five years’ worth of bank account details and five years’ worth of passport details, showing every country I’ve visited outside of Britain in the last five years. I had to go to Auckland from Dunedin, New Zealand to get my biometric ( iris and fingerprint) data gathered .. Then all of this information was sent off to the United Kingdom’s new border control post, which is in Manila, in the Philippines. This processing organisation, processes every British visa for the whole of the Asia-Pacific region, from China through to Central Asia. It takes twelve weeks to get a British visa now. It used to take two days, and could be done quickly at a local British Embassy. The British Immigration Border is now offshore, remote and relatively inaccessible unless you arel iving in Manilla the Philippines.

As part of this same processs I had to activate a British bank account in New Zealand using my Nat West visa card. A week later, I got a note from the New Zealand Inland Revenue Department, saying, “It has been brought to our attention that you have used an overseas bank account to withdraw some New Zealand dollars which suggests to us that you’re in possession of multiple overseas bank accounts. In order to avoid a tax audit,” which is horrendous, “would you provide us with details of all of those bank accounts?” I was subsequently informed that all of the “Five Eyes” countries, (joined under the UKUSA Intelligence agreement) that is the United Kingdom, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are now sharing every single piece of banking information across all five countries. Now, when you add this intelligence to the cyber-intelligence which is being gathered based on every email or text message we send or receive, not to mention human intelligence (focusing on each one of us, wherever we happen to be), we are subject to multiple layers of state sponsored surveillance.

This means that we are indeed living in a crazy, draconian world where States seem to mistrust citizens and non citizens alike and where nothing we do is secret or private anymore. In fact one of the marks of the politics of domination is a blurring of divisions between the private and public spheres. There is increasingly no private sphere that is beyond the reach of State control and interest. This is an awesome prospect, if you start thinking about what might happen if somebody like Donald Trump or even Ted Cruz becomes President of the United States and placed in charge of all surveillance technology and state intelligence material.

The reality is that there are few people and even fewer social movements resisting these multiple levels of surveillance and, by extension, heightened state control of citizens. The stock argument is that if you have nothing to hide then there is nothing to fear. That’s what liberals and the left assumed in Germany before Nazi oppression!! I want to argue , however, that all that is needed for dominatory and authoritarian politicians to take advantage   of     surveillance technology for their own purposes, is a lack of resistance and effective opposition to concentrated power and rule.

The current US primary campaign is a worrying example of this. While I hope that there will be checks and balances on the Trump and Cruz campaigns, both are examples of what I call the pathology of dominatory politics.

In Donald Trump, for example, you have a a potential president of the United States pointing his finger at absolutely everybody in a naming and blaming game, inciting violence and bombast while activating xenophobia , nationalism and a mish mash of contradictory social and economic policies. He is not driven by a “realistic” or even an “idealistic” change agenda . He is driven solely by narcissist self interest. He’s the archetypal dominator, and he makes no bones about it. I think that he’s an extraordinarily, frightening character. If you look at some of the recent discussions that have been occurring around authoritarian personality types, which are at the heart of the politics of domination, what is being discovered is that there are active and passive authoritarian personality types. Donald Trump is a good example of an active authoritarian— his success, rests on an activation of latent authoritarian tendencies. The silent majority for Trump are what social psychologists call latent authoritarians who respond to his dominatory personality because it resonates with their own desire for order and control. Trump activates this constituency with violent, blaming rhetoric,which generates the illusion of an authoritative response to physical ,psychological threats and social change. He prioritizes social order and hierarchy to bring a sense of control to a chaotic world. He does this by being critical of diversity and suggesting that outsiders, Moslems, Mexicans, and a wide range of “negative others” are upsetting an ordered past that never really existed. This is a variant of classic    authoritarianism as mapped out by Adorno and others. My PhD supervisor was Jim Robb, who wrote his PhD thesis in 1947 on working-class authoritarianism and Anti Semitism. (Robb) His research focused on Mosleyites and Blackshirts in East London but he described exactly the same phenomenon we’re seeing again in the United States. In this instance though, its Moslems not Jews that are being held responsible for all the insecurities, fears and anxieties that Americans currently feel.

The politics of domination are not confined to the United States. There is a strong desire across Western Europe and in other parts of the world for “authoritarian” dominatory leaders who can provide reassurance in the face of existential uncertainty. The Trump and Cruz campaigns, however, are essentially a replay of the authoritarian , dominatory and populist politics of the 1930s in 2016.



The second pathology is what I call the politics of inequality and greed. Not only are we beset by politicians and states that are intent on monopolizing and utilizing power for their own purposes, one of the central purposes of dominatory politics is to provide a rationale,   and legitimation for what I call the politics of inequality and greed. There is a passive and active acceptance, on the part of many political leaders of growing inequality and injustice at national, regional, and global levels. Many people continue to think that this is the divinely ordered state; that there are some people who are born to be on top and some people who are born to be on the bottom. This inequality is becoming entrenched and normalized as states and citizens follow neo-liberal growth models and pursue the politics of greed. That’s certainly what’s happening in this current U.S. election campaigns. Apart from Bernie Sanders and to a lesser extent Hilary Clinton,   most other candidates are pandering to the politics of greed. “We will make America great again, we will make it rich again, we will make your middle class robust again, we will ensure that your kids have the education that you were unable to have.”

Instead of focusing on sustainable consumption the politics of greed assumes that individuals and institutions can produce and consume without restraint. There is no sense of sustainable realism or any priority placed on social, community  or public goods. Politicians and government officials don’t often, or publicly emphasise notions of public service. On the contrary it is assumed that once elected, politicians can pursue sectional rather than public interests and present them as in the public good when they are manifestly not. Where the gaps are egregious, there are some signs of progressive resistance to injustice and inequality, but these have not, as yet, ( apart from the short lived “Occupy Movement” manifested themselves in mass political movements for equality, justice and social harmony. If you want to see a good film on the politics and economics of greed, see “The Big Short”. It’s a very good example of what drove the 2008 global financial crisis. Similarly, if you want to understand the politics of greed and pork barrel politics in the United States, look at the cost of the F53 Joint Strike Fighter. It has currently cost $1.3 trillion and is still not in service. , I think that US citizens and the rest of the world have a right to ask, what is the point of this plane? What will it add to the sum total of US or global security? There may be some strategic purpose to it but from the outside it looks as though the primary purpose of this project is to distribute “ pork “ across the polity. Even here, however, there is no equal distribution. Its distributed in very unequal ways in response to those who wield bureaucratic and political power in Congress.

The OXFAM report released just before the Davos World Economic Forum, this year, came up with a very interesting analysis of global wealth. It was called “Wealth: Having It All and Wanting More”. The report showed that the richest one percent of the world’s population have seen their share of global wealth increase from 44 percent in 2009 to 48 percent in 2014 . At this rate, it will be more than 50 percent in 2016. One percent of the world’s population controls 50 percent of the wealth. This makes pre-revolutionary France look like some sort of egalitarian utopia. Members of the global elite had an average wealth of $2.7 million per adult in 2014. In relation to the remaining 52 percent of global wealth, almost all of it (46 percent), is owned by the rest of the richest fifth of the world’s population. The other 80 percent of the world’s population share just 5.5 percent and had an average wealth of $3,851 per adult—that’s 1/700th of the average wealth of the one percent. These are scandalous and unsustainable statistics. We are living in a world where this kind of inequality and greed is getting worse. If you listen to your own primary election campaign, Bernie Sanders is the only one who is really articulating the necessity to challenge inequality in order to achieve a harmonious polity. You can’t have good politics in a world of such grave inequality.


The third pathology is what I call the politics of fear. Extremist political movements everywhere have become adept at generating widespread existential anxiety and fear with relatively small acts of political violence. The shooting of 230 people in Paris, for example, was an outrageous and completely unjustifiable event but , it’s was used to legitimate an extraordinary crackdown on Muslims in France , Belgium and in other parts of Europe. It is also being used to justify a rapid expansion of intelligence gathering and security services in France and other European countries. On the political front it adds fuel to rightwing xenophobic parties such as the National Front Party, and similar parties in Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Poland.

These violent actions in France have been used by government and political leaders of all persuasions to legitimate a dramatic centralization and consolidation of state power and security capacity. This capacity is far out of proportion to the scale of threat that Europe and the US face in response to international terrorism. In the Global Terrorism Index, for example, we counted 32,000 cases of terrorist violence last year. 95 percent of these occurred within five countries: India, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and Nigeria. Terrorist violence is not something that we in the West need to be afraid of, and yet it’s there to justify all of the security arrangements we put in place at airports and elsewhere, and it’s being used to justify the wall in Mexico and the wall against China and all the other walls that Donald Trump and his supporters would like to to develop. The politics of fear, have resulted in an erosion of democratic politics, a weakening of opposition parties, curtailment of civil and political liberties, constraints on media freedom and the development of national security agencies which concentrate a huge amount of power and secrecy in the hands of the executive.

In Japan, for example, Prime Minister Shinzō Abe is moving the whole of Japan in a very right-wing direction.  People who publicly challenge the Prime Minister of Japan are likely to be subject to strict surveillance and control. Japanese academics, for example, are much less free than they used to be and.if they are critical of government policies, the Government has sought to sanction them through their University administrations. These constraints flow from a wider political desire to control the content and delivery of the Japanese curriculum at primary, secondary and tertiary levels. This means that even though Japan and the ROK are both western style democracies they share some important authoritarian tendencies alongside China, and the DPRK.

In the UK right now, the “Prevent Program”, is aimed at countering extremism . What this means is that in every single class  at primary, secondary and tertiary levels teachers have to take a roll of all students attending class. This is aimed at ensuring that all enrolled foreign students are accounted for. These attendance records have to be reported to the Home Office at the end of every month. Even I fell under this surveillance regime.. The office manager of the department of politics at the University of Kent, for example, came and told me that she had to apply the “prevent” rule to me, as well, because professors were also subject to Home Office surveillance. She had to file a report that would persuade the Home Office that I had been doing what I had told them I was going to do in terms of my research; that I had not been absent from my job for longer than one week at a time (and I have been) and that as far as she knows I have not been engaging in any extremist incitement of any students on campus . She was also asked to comment on whether I was a good departmental citizen and colleague. What on earth is happening here? The British academy didn’t resist these demands and it is now subordinate to the Home Office demands that they do all these things for visitors, aliens, and the the “negative others” that are assumed to exist all around us.

These initiatives have resulted in an infantilization of citizens in a wide variety of   diverse polities. Instead of our politicians realizing that each individual citizen is sovereign in a democracy they assume, quite unjustifiably that they are the sovereign . The reality, however, is that active citizens are the capacitating and legitimating actors in democratic political processes. Far too often politicians pander to sovereign citizen needs during election campaigns and then forget their obligations and accountabilities on election. If the consumer is sovereign in the market then the individual elector, is sovereign in the polity. If politicians choose to play on the politics of fear ,infantilize and politically castrate us they neutralize our political efficacy and ultimately their legitimacy.


The fourth pathology is what I call the politics of war. All of these earlier pathologies lead to a reliance on police, military and security forces which predispose political leaders to think in terms of coercive rather than preventive diplomacy and the application of power when persuasion would be more effective. . As state systems have become more centralized, paranoid, and unable to control events at all levels of political action there is a willingness to utilize coercive, military and security responses to complex economic and political problems before exhausting negotiated solutions.

Listen to Donald Trump. “America will be great again” , “the military will be great again”, “the vets will get their rights” and we will do whatever is needed to knock any challenger to the United States out of the political equation. Being a classic example of an authoritarian political leader with dominatory, bullying tendencies   Donald Trump sees most problems in zero sum/winners and losers terms. This is very blunt politics in the 21st century. Can you imagine Donald Trump’s hand on the nuclear trigger? Would he nuke North Korea if that country didn’t comply with his unilateral demands? Who would or could restrain him? From the outside he seems like a man without nuance, subtlety or appreciation of more positive strategies that may have a better chance of changing/modifying the behaviour of others.

Trump’s bellicosity and that of others who share his orientation to national and global politics has resulted in a growth in   military and security budgets in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe. It has also resulted in the securitization of aid and development, closer levels of political surveillance and control, and a willingness to apply military solutions before exhausting all nonviolent options. That politics of,violence and war is closely linked with the next pathology, which is the politics of intervention.


The fifth pathology is the politics of intervention. If the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer and all your problems look like nails, then you’re going to want to intervene in other peoples and other countries’ political affairs. That’s exactly what the West has been doing over the past 20 years. When British, French, German, Hungarian, and Polish politicians say, in relation to the current refugee crisis “Why is the world knocking on our doorstep right now?” they have to turn that question back on themselves. The answer to their question lies in answers to why the west has engaged in the politics of armed intervention..”Why did we intervene in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria?” Not to mention all the other military interventions in Africa, the Gulf and Central Asia in the past fifteen years. The consequences of those have been apocalyptic. They have resulted in the willful destruction of critical infrastructure and many direct and indirect casualties and deaths from war. They have also resulted in an extraordinary subversion of functioning state, economic, social and cultural institutions. Saddam Hussein, for example, was an odious and ruthless dictator but he did run a government that worked, within which women had equality and where Sunni and Shia lived in an uneasy co-existence . Not only that, there was a relatively equal distribution of goods across the Iraqi state. This flawed but functional system was completely sabotaged, undermined, by the US-led invasion. What was the stated and actual purpose of that absolutely foolhardy, decision to invade and what have been the outcomes? As a result of that decision, millions of people are now unable to satisfy their basic human needs for security, welfare, and inclusion. A fragile equilibrium has now been replaced by high levels of violence and profound social economic and political dislocation .

The result of this original intervention is that the total numbers of internally and externally displaced peoples have reached globally record proportions. It also created ripe conditions for the Syrian war, the major result of which is that three hundred thousand men, women, and children have been killed over the last six years. Thousands have been imprisoned and tortured under the Assad regime. The and internal repression and war have generated 4.7 million refugees and 6.6 million internally displaced persons. 1.35 million Syrians are now direct recipients of humanitarian aid and would die without it. That’s the consequence of intervention, of supporting opposition movements militarily.

The same story is repeated in Iraq. Violence against Iraqi civilians is “staggering,” said the United Nations in January 2016, with some 19,000 killed and 3.2 million displaced over the last 13 months—this is after the war has ended. The number of forcibly displaced persons in the world last year stood at 59.5 million people. Ten years ago it was about 25 million. Twenty years ago, it stood at 14 million and that was considered catastrophic.

When we ask who’s responsible? And when Donald Trump points his finger at others he doesn’t realize that he is pointing three fingers back at himself and the West. Those of us who live in the West, especially those of us who have joined these military follies in coalitions of the willing, are responsible for the chaos that has been generated and for the millions of civilian casualties of these interventions. Because the coalition of the willing is responsible its up to us to clean up the mess both in terms of humanitarian assistance and by enabling   indigenous actors throughout the Middle East to resolve their own problems. Listening to US Presidential candidates talking about the Middle East I hear projection, displacement and blame. It is assumed that these problems are of Middle Eastern origin or a consequence of political extremism, or al-Qaeda, or “ the so-called ISIS”. These are not the problem: they are the consequences of a disastrous politics of intervention.



The sixth pathology is the pathology of deficient leadership. There are very few political leaders in the 21st century who are driven by a clear sense of moral value. When people are driven by a clear sense of moral value, guess what happens. They win support. Bernie Sanders is probably your best conviction politician. He’s unswerving in his commitment to equality, unswerving in his commitment to changing the banking system, and unswerving in his commitment to ensuring a public health system and free tertiary education. In the United Kingdom, Jeremy Corbyn is unswerving in his commitment to unilateral nuclear disarmament, unswerving in making sure the Labour Party becomes the party of labor. Conviction politicians are coming back into their own again because many electors don’t want focus group driven political candidates or parties, they want to know something about the character and moral compass of each person.

Most of those who espouse a neo-liberal economic and political agenda are caught in a technocratic model where, it is assumed, that politics can be eliminated in favor of technocratic solutions to complex political and social problems. Those who control the technocrats claim   to know more than the rest of us which results in a politics of exclusion. This generates a lot of the political alienation which is manifesting itself on both sides of the Atlantic. Most political leaders don’t see their role as servant leaders. They ought to be our servant leaders. Citizens don’t elect politicians to dominate us; we elect them to serve us. It’s about time we started reconstituting this notion of what public service and democratic politics is all about. Because responsible, accountable and inclusive leadership is at a premium most politicians are incapable of capturing the positive visions and imaginations of their electors because they have no positive visions and imaginations of their own.

When I saw all of the Republican candidates discussing what they would do if elected President I realized that most of their policies were negative: get rid of Obamacare, get rid of the IRS, get rid of big government, make sure no Democrat gets appointed to the Supreme Court, make the military even more powerful even though the military of the United States accounts for 47 percent of the world’s military expenditure (nine times more than the next ten largest military spenders altogether). What do they mean when they say that the US has to develop a bigger military? The United States is the most bloated and expensive military in the entire world.

There are many technocratic leaders (who think that politics is simply a matter of gathering evidence and applying smart solutions to complex problems, and populists who pursue and gain power by pandering to individual fear, greed and anxiety (think Trump), but there are few leaders with moral and political courage, capable of catalyzing, capturing and promoting progressive personal and social imaginaries that will address and solve the problems of the 21st century.

In Britain, Nick Hardwick, ex-Inspector of Prisons, said “There are two major failings with policy makers: lack of imagination and failure of empathy.” In relation to prisons and prison reform he said, “Too many policy makers do not ask themselves, ‘How would I react if I were in that situation, and why are people in prison in the first place?'” How many of our politicians are saying, “What would I do if I were in their shoes, and why are these people experiencing public problems or troubles, and what can I do to help them resolve their problems?” Instead they are more likely to say “What can I do to make sure that my agenda prevails over everybody else’s agenda in a winner-takes-all contest”? This is why I think we need to be thinking much more actively about a different kind of politics.

Frank Furedi in his book, The Politics of Fear (Furedi, 2005) says, “Right—Left divisions no longer seem capable of providing individuals or groups with a strong and coherent sense of identity or direction. The Right have forgotten the past that they wish to preserve and the Left have forgotten the future that they wish to create. This means that we are caught in a paralysing present.” It is into this context that modern political leaders impose their own notions of how to be presently political or politically present. These impositions have unfortunately mainly focused on ways of preserving the status quo and have emptied politics of much of its passion or meaning. What do we need to do about it?


This is the optimistic part of my talk. The question is how do we move from dominatory to collaborative power? That’s the challenge. If we are to generate a genuine paradigm shift from a political paradigm based on power over to one based on power with or, in Kenneth Boulding’s terms, from coercive to integrative power,(Boulding, 1994) then it is critical that we have a value and normative system capable of sustaining an egalitarian, relatively non-coercive, non-dominatory social system and a politics to go with it. The interesting thing is that it exists already, but it has been systematically isolated and marginalized from the realm of the political. I started off as a sociologist and a political scientist, so I am coming back to my sociology. The reality is that when you take all the static out of the current electoral process and set political institutions on one side the social system persists . Why does the social system exist? It exists and persists through time because good people such as yourselves know how to organize themselves in the company of others. Societies exist even when  state systems collapse . If you look most post-conflict environments, for example, not only women but women and men keep the system going, they keep social relationships alive and the individuals within them.

What I want to argue is that we need to get back to the golden rule of doing unto others what you would have them do to you.This is the norm that holds most communities and societies together and it provides the sociological basis for continuity through time. Without it political systems would have to depend almost completely on force and coercion. The whole point of good politics in Western democracies is to make sure that the iron fist (which lies at the heart of the Western Weberian state ) is covered in a velvet glove. That velvet glove is welfarism- education, health, transport, communication, it’s all of the things that enable us to live relatively spontaneous lives in society and in community.

When you hear politicians saying, “The welfare state is for losers” or the “Welfare state is socialism”, challenge the question. The reality is that without state sponsored health, welfare, education, roads, infrastructure etc   there would be no effective or legitimate government.   It is these things that generate the support of working people and   those who are old and retired or young and vulnerable. All of these groups  need support—who’s going to give it to them? The market won’t give it to them because it’s cruel and callous, and if kinship groups can’t give it to them then the state has to give it to them. I’m arguing for a politics which really is aimed at supporting and bringing back the social , i.e the conditions within which interpersonal relationships and communities can grow and flourish.

To bring back the social, I went back to 1960 (I know some of you think that this sounds like the Middle Ages) and re read Gouldners’ “norm of reciprocity”. (Gouldner, 1960). All communities rest on the reciprocity norm, and only a few members are exempt from it. The norm regulates the exchanges of goods and services between people in ongoing group or individual relationships. It dictates that people should help those who have helped them and not injure those who have helped them, and that legitimate penalties may be imposed on those who fail to reciprocate. It is the golden rule: we help our friends, and our friends help us. We make commitments to each other, and when we betray our friends’ trust there are social, political, and legal sanctions. Reciprocity calls for positive reactions to favorable treatment and for negative reactions to unfavorable treatment. The things exchanged may be heteromorphic; that is, the goods or services may be concretely different but equal in value, as perceived as such by the exchange partners. Or the things may be homomorphic; that is, the goods or services may be roughly equivalent or identical. It doesn’t matter, as long as the exchanges take place. What I want to argue is that we need to reaffirm the social to challenge the political.

For us to become capacitated, sovereign, individual, political actors, we need to build on our strengths. Our strengths lie in the way in which we are connected and related to community ,sociality and sociation. The reciprocity norm is critical to social and political functioning and social and political stability through time. It’s much more important than “imposed” political order: it’s the glue that governs the millions of social exchanges that take place every day, most of which have nothing to do with the realm of politics. The norm of reciprocity generates altruism among kin and nonkin groups. That’s what’s missing in dominatory politics. There’s no altruism in it. There’s no empathetic concern.

In particular there’s no willingness to acknowledge that the political system exists to support the poorest so that all might have a reasonable chance of survival through time. A politics of compassion that stands in juxtaposition to dominatory zero sum politics  limits selfishness and creates the sociological and social psychological basis for integration and harmony.


If we don’t begin to create the conditions within which politicians and political leaders work to encourage communitarian and socially driven policies the world will indeed become more merciless as it perfects itself. The politics of compassion, in the first instance, a politics that places the welfare of the community first and the state second. It is the opposite of dominatory, pathological, fear driven, xenophobic politics based on a monopoly of force and coercion. If we depend on that for our order, we’ve already lost the plot. The difficult answer to this question is that the politics of compassion is a new political paradigm for an interdependent world. The reality is that there is no way in which you can build a wall against anything in the twenty-first century. The whole notion of a wall is just stupid in an age of electronic communications.

The politics of compassion, therefore, focuses on an assertion of the dominance of social criteria in political decision making. When making political decisions , therefore, politicians have to ask themselves “To what extent is this decision going to serve the community? To what extent is it going to capacitate the elector? To what extent is it going to generate richer and deeper levels of relationship and empathetic consciousness? These are questions which most politicians don’t bother to ask because they are so wedded to stimulating the conditions for economic growth and development and to ensuring that the interests of the state are accorded a primacy over the interests of the community. If you did ask these questions of them, I think a lot of current economic, political, social and foreign policies would seem to be very self-serving and/ or institutionally or bureaucratically driven.

The politics of compassion, on the other hand is aimed at solving problems non-violently, collaboratively, empathetically, and altruistically. This means that we have to begin thinking about a collaborative problem solving orientation to the problems that confront us. I think that problem-oriented learning, problem-oriented politics and a problem-oriented approach to grappling the big issues that are confronting the world is really critical. To begin with such an orientation has to be inclusive rather than exclusive, egalitarian rather than hierarchical, and it rests on sociation instead of domination. As Lenin said, “What’s to be done, and where to begin?”

We’ve got to pay much more attention to analyzing and negating dominatory politics and the politics of fear everywhere. In the first place this means encouraging a politics of resistance to taken for granted   everyday politics because these are producing quite dysfunctional political pathologies for a very complex world. It means acknowledging the ways in which the personal, interpersonal, social and political combine to generate functioning and vibrant community or not.

The politics of resistance and the a more socially driven compassionate politics will force us to analyse the diverse ways in which personal relationships between men and women, between diverse cultures and people are generating hierachical dominatory politics or something much more emancipatory . Wherever we see domination occurring, we’ve got to challenge and expose it, and in that process we will discover a politics that flows out of the grassroots, from the bottom up, as we start transforming relationships in a much more egalitarian and equal direction.

It sounds a little oxymoronic or paradoxical, but the development of a politics of compassion means we’ve got to develop some positive anti-politics based on sociation processes and a radical critique of divisions between the private and public spheres.

The reality is that the personal was very political for us in the 1960s, and it’s got to become political again. We have to begin thinking about the ways in which what we do at interpersonal levels, in our group activities, and in our organizations, is serving others and creating spaces for individual and collective flourishing and the development of narratives that don’t ignore but rather celebrate difference. We’ve got to delegitimize negative pathological politics.

Looking at the United States, right now, how might Americans stop all of the negative forces that have been unleashed in this campaign? Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, for example, have got away with transgressive politics that in other times would have been totally unacceptable. It’s going to take generations to bring mainstream politics back to some degree of civility. It’s really astonishing, coming into this political environment from outside and realizing how relatively uncivil it is. It’s not good politics. It’s brutal, violent, extremist, xenophobic, misogynist, sexist, racist, politics, and people ought to be calling it like that. In other parts of the world people can’t understand how Trump managed to get this far in the primary cycle. In the process of getting this far, I think he’s really damaged the social fabric and created an environment in which minorities and “aliens” and foreigners don’t have a place. He’s creating a world which is bitter and embittered. He needs to be resisted and rejected by tolerant and inclusive Americans.

Another part of the politics of compassion is placing equality at the heart of our analyses and prescriptions. This means a radical critique of the ways in which our own governmental and nongovernmental processes produce and reproduce patterns of hierarchy, power and privilege. I’m becoming more and more convinced, the older I get, that these patterns of power and privilege quietly assert themselves because we’re not conscious of them. We need to become really conscious of the ways in which we ourselves are benefitting from these hierarchies, and we have to work out ways in which we can subvert and challenge them while creating relationships that are equal, accountable and responsible, and where the norm of reciprocity can really take hold.

In this , its imperative that we give priority to the weakest and poorest: welfare, education and health have to be at the heart of responsible state activity. These policy areas shouldn’t be challenged as though they are somehow or other an aberration. Getting these policies right is at the heart of what it means to be a good state. I am the chair of the Advisory Board of the Global Peace Index, and every year we come up with a list of the top twenty most peaceful nations in the world. All of them have high taxation regimes, all of them are strong welfare states, and all of them have a commitment to the well being of their individual citizens. It’s no surprise that Iceland, Denmark, Austria, Portugal and New Zealand are listed among the top 5 most peaceful states in the world. They are the most peaceful because they understand the centrality of equality and inclusion. They are being challenged by the neoliberal model to become more unequal and there are many malign neo-fascist, rightist groups that are emerging to problematize the welfare contract in many of these welfare states. But their legitimacy and success ,however,   emerges from placing a priority on serving and listening to their citizens and satisfying their basic needs. As Gandhi said, if you’re wondering about whether your life has been worthwhile, at the end of each day, “Rrecall the faces of the poorest, the weakest, and the most vulnerable, and ask whether what you’ve done has helped that person over the course of the day.” It’s a very useful little injunction for trying to figure out if what you’re doing is going to have any social or political impact.

Then we need to identify and reinforce individuals and groups who sustain the social fabric in the face of economic and political subversion. Who are the connectors in the United States? Who is trying to challenge divisive politics and the politics of fear? Who’s working at building up community and solidarity, and who is making sure that relationships are robust and resilient? These are the people who need reinforcement and support. They’re the ones that should be being nominated and appearing in primary elections.. They’re the ones that need to be put on political party tickets.

To move from dominatory politics to compassionate politics, we need deep contextual analysis in order to identify individuals ,groups and organisations capable of knitting communities together instead of dividing and separating them. To do positive contextual analysis, we must go with “the grain of locality”. Far too much of our analysis and prescription remains “global,” abstracted, and detached. How can anybody in this current electoral campaign , for example, say anything coherent about America? America consists of 250 million different individuals, multiple different groups, and multiple interests. In order to understand America, we need to do justice to that plurality, and the cosmopolitanism, and diversity that makes you who you are. When your political leaders talk about America what are they referring to? The America of Donald Trump? The America of Bernie Sanders? Or the America of somebody in the ghetto, or the America of somebody sitting in the streets? Which America are we talking about? Tp advance a politics of compassion means being nuanced about what America and which Americans you are talking about and then what sort of a social system will enable plural America to live in harmony with each other. This is your challenge.

To move towards a politics of compassion we need also to have a theory of power. This means figuring out who is subjugated, who unites, who divides, who supports the status quo, who’s challenging, who’s analyzing, who’s being analyzed? Where do you/we stand and sit? This is crucial. Where you stand and sit determines what you see, the narratives you employ, and the kind of politics you’re going to engage in. How do we mobilize across intersectional lines and build empathetic spaces between and across boundaries of difference? This is a new kind of politics. What does it mean for white Americans to sit down with African-Americans and say, “We screwed up in the twentieth century, let’s not screw up in the twenty-first century, let’s figure out a new way in which we can live together”? And the same thing with the Native Americans: how do you sit down with them and say, “There’s a history of exploitation, colonialism, oppression, and marginalization, and subjugation here; how do we make amends in the twenty-first century”? This is the politics of compassion.

We then have to focus on inclusive and participatory processes that really do justice to the concrete experiences of those who are victims of domination, violence, marginalization, and humiliation.. I don’t think we can do this without transforming ourselves in less domineering, nonviolent, inclusive ways. This is really challenging if you’re a white, middle-class, professional male earning 27 percent more than a white, middle-class, professional woman. How do we do all of this while dependent on governments perpetuating negative politics (the politics of power, greed, and domination)? We’ve got to acknowledge the need to do this at multiple levels, both the micro and the macro. We’ve got to widen the focus from “formal politics” to public and private politics. We’ve got to rediscover the values of empathetic, altruistic, collaborative processes in a world seemingly dedicated to their opposite, and focus on inclusive, elicitive, iterative, cumulative dynamics that build peace one step at a time.

This sounds easy, it trips off the tongue, but these are challenging. How do we do this? How do we develop an inclusive politics? How do you elicit from everybody what their needs and interests are? How do you create political programs which are iterative, which can be reviewed and challenged and changed? How do you embrace change instead of fearing it? How do you create positive, virtuous circles instead of negative, vicious ones? Donald Trump is going around, getting thousands of people coming to Trump meetings, not to hear his politics but to see what blood ends up on the floor.. We’ve got to get out of that negative cycle to promote something more positive. John Paul Lederach, the author of The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace,(Lederach, 2005) has a mantra which I want to finish with.

He says we’ve got to reach out to those we fear. This is really crucial. We’ve got to start seeing ourselves in this interdependent planet as completely linked to each other. If we fear others we still have to acknowledge that they too are part of the wider web of humanity, and we can’t cut ourselves off from them. We can’t build walls against the rest of humanity. If you are afraid of others, the best way to deal with that fear is to figure out ways to attach and connect yourself to those you fear, to open up dialogues and difficult conversations with them so that you might be able to say, “Let’s figure out if we have a future together.” I know that’s very challenging when you’re confronted by groups like ISIS or Daesh, but somebody’s got to do it, somebody’s got to open up a conversation with them to acknowledge the differences, build on the commonalities and discern whether there is anything that might help them transform their own behavior.

The second thing Lederach talks about is overcoming simplistic dualisms. We’ve got to move beyond simplistic, dualistic reasoning, and seeing the world in black and white. On the contrary we have to figure out how we can touch and embrace the heart of complexity. As academics and individual human beings, how do we appreciate and celebrate complexity? The reality is that each one of us human beings is a complete, complex set of functioning organs and we survive through time with high levels of extraordinary personal complexity. When you’re combining 250 million people, not to mention the other 6.75 billion human beings on the planet just think of the complexity of that. How do we embrace all of that in ways that will enable us to really celebrate diversity?

The third dimension of all of this is our vision for the future, imagining beyond what is seen. If it’s thinkable, it’s doable. Why don’t we think imaginatively, then, even in a utopian fashion , about a different kind of politics, a different place from here? Seamus Heaney, the Irish poet believed it possible there may be a place on the “far side of revenge.”

Finally, how do we risk vulnerability one step at a time? I’m not suggesting with any of this that we should be naive about our politics. Compassionate politics is going to require as much sophistication and organization as the politics of domination, and if we’re going to resist the national security state and all its surveillance mechanisms, we need to figure out ways of doing that. But then we also have to be willing to be courageous, and to risk vulnerability one step at a time.

When my father was about to die, he collapsed one day while my daughter was holding his hand and she thought it was the right time to ask him the secret to a good life He woke up and said he couldn’t possibly die while holding the hand of such a beautiful young woman. Then he said, “All you need is love, courage, and hope.” That’s exactly right, it seems to me. The heart of all of this is that when people die, at the end of their lives, they don’t normally say in their obituaries, “Well, Joe or Josephine published 15 books and 575 journal articles and taught 750 different classes simultaneously.” They say, “He /she was a good father, and a good mother, and a good family person.” They talk about the person’s character, and that character rests on whether or not we have a capacity for love and whether or not we have a capacity to make ourselves vulnerable, one step at a time. That requires hopefulness, it requires imagination, and it requires considerable courage.



Boulding, K. E. (1994). Peace, Justice and the Faces of Power. In P. Wehr, G. Burgess, & H. Burgess (Eds.), Justice Without Violence. Boulder & London: Lynne Rienner Publisher.

Burton, J. W. (1990). Conflict: resolution and provention (Vol. 1.). Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Furedi, F. (2005). The politics of fear. London: Continuum.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement”. American Sociological Review, 25((2)), 161–178. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2092623.

Lederach, J. P. (2005). The moral imagination the art and soul of building peace. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.

Orwell, G., Pynchon, T., & Fromm, E. (2003). Nineteen eighty-four : a novel (Centennial ed.). New York: Plume.

Robb, J. H. Working-Class Anti-Semite. A psychological study in a London borough: London : Tavistock Publications, 1954 [1955].

Posted in #Global Terrorism Index, Abe, Capital Punishment, Cosmopolitanism, democratic deficit, Dirty Politics, Dominatory Politics, Emancipatory Politics, political economy of compassion, Politics, The Politics of Compassion, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Misplaced Values:Bowie, Bishops and Starvation in Madaya

Misplaced Values:Bowie, Bishops and Starvation in Madura

Kevin P Clements

David Bowie’s death is much more gripping to global media than the deaths that have occurred in Madaya over the past 24 hours or the deaths that have occurred in other parts of Syria, Iraq, and Yemen over the same period of time or indeed the deaths that are quietly mounting in Burundi. Bowie is a global celebrity who wrote some great songs, tested different sexual identities and was undoubtedly an enormously talented man…. but who knows what human artistic, musical and other potential has been lost in the Middle East and in the Great Lakes of Africa  in recent times?

Why do we allow the media to determine who we should grieve for and why we should grieve for one person over another? Species solidarity requires that we treat the deaths of anyone, anywhere, as occasions for some mourning, some recollection, some acknowledgement. It would be too burdensome for all of us to be mourning every human death all of the time but these unmarked deaths need to be marked, noted and mourned. Behind each one is an individual and familial tragedy.

I hate the Facebook question Whats on your mind?…but since the prompt came up I have been pondering inequality in life and death.Why do we value and mourn celebrity when everyone is making some contribution somewhere to life, survival, art, creativity, love and grappling with what it means to be human?

Anyway, maybe I’m feeling a bit more mortal cos I have just had an anti pneumonia injection .I got it as I was beginning to get a sore throat and cold.Both together have meant that I have been feeling pale, wan and suffering from a dry cough for 2 days now….Not that I am about to shuffle off this mortal coil.

I’ve also been trying to make sense of the mini Lambeth meeting of 34 Anglican Archbishops from all over the world. This is taking place here in Canterbury in the ancient crypt of the Cathedral which I am looking out on from our flat. The Bishops are supposed to be focusing on a range of human problems and dilemmas but the one that will be most acrimonious and most divisive has to do with the relationship between the C of E and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered churchmen and women. African and conservative Archbishops are prepared to walk out of the meeting if they  are unable to impose their medieval views on cultures and peoples who have now acknowledged  the equality of homosexual and heterosexual  partnerships.  Why are these Bishops prepared to place unity and community in jeopardy? This too is one of those unfathomable issues. Why is it that some people are willing to divide, oppose, challenge and withdraw from groups, organisations and movements when they cannot get their way? In relation to the meeting that is  taking place  500 metres from  where I live , we need to ask why Bishops are prepared to polarise and divide over issues of sexuality when they should be united in their work for the abolition of poverty, peace, human rights for all and the encouragement of mercy, forgiveness, reconciliation.?

Its a funny old world I’m hoping that the Bishops might take off their robes, mitres, park their croziers and fancy shoes and realise that each one of them is driven by the same chemicals, hormones, and bodily needs and desires as the rest of us?  I am also hoping that those who are shocked by Bowie’s death will find it within them to be shocked by the deaths of all those who are nameless and voiceless and marginal all around the world . They deserve our sympathy as much as David and his fans. I hope, also, that those of us who are suffering minor colds might remember that our ailments are nought when compared to all those suffering and dying from malaria, malnutrition, and millions of other preventable diseases.

Well this is what I am thinking at the moment. But I have been thinking these things for a very long time can’t understand why no one seems to be listening!


Posted in Anglican Church, Selective Mourning | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Drift Right Continues: Electoral Results for 2015 and their implications for progressive politics in 2016 and beyond.

The Drift Right Continues: Electoral Results for 2015 and their implications for progressive politics in 2016 and beyond.

Kevin P Clements.


There were 16 national elections over the course of 2015. Ten of these resulted in centre right, right wing or ultra right wing political parties gaining power. Only six resulted in centre left or left wing political parties achieving power. This means that 63% of all national elections in 2015 resulted in the election of governments generally committed to austerity neo-liberal growth models, authoritarian rule and an enhanced role for national security, police and military institutions. This does not bode well for reducing poverty and inequality; radical action on climate change or nonviolent responses to political threat. It many cases it also represents a triumph of the politics of  fear and xenophobia  over the politics of inclusion and tolerance.

The year began with the election of a new President in Sri Lanka. The Singhalese nationalist and authoritarian leader, Mahinda Rajapaksa’s nine years in power ended in January, when he was beaten by his one-time ally Maithripala Sirisena. Despite the fact that Sirisena is committed to democratic governance in Sri Lanka the United National Front for Good Governance (UNFGG) coalition can be classified as a Centre Right administration . Sirisena continues to direct a heavy military presence in the North of Sri Lanka and has been continuing   some of the arbitrary detention and torture of his predecessor.

In Zambia, which is beset by a dramatic drop in the international price of copper, drought and energy shortages, Edgar Lungu of the Patriotic Front was elected to power. This party is now the major governing party in the country and is a consultative member of the Socialist International. But it is paralysed by a stalled economy and growing political disquiet. Instead of coming up with positive solutions to the declining currency the President ordered national days of prayer!!

In Israel Benjamin Netanyahu was re-elected Prime Minister, despite the fact that four different (mostly) Arab parties ran together as the “Joint List”, and became the third-largest party in the Knesset.   As in the UK this election result was a big surprise with the polls predicting a draw with Labour. Netanyahu played on the politics of fear , however, and as election day drew near he delivered a warning that “the Arabs are coming to the polling stations in droves”. This false and racist statement stimulated voters to vote in favour of Likud and its right wing allies with the result that this is now the most reactionary, racist and right wing government that Israel has ever elected.

Muhammadu Buhari was elected President of Nigeria in March. He is a military man and   ruled Nigeria from 1983-1985 in one of its many 20th century military regimes.During this first term in office he systematically repressed freedom of expression, and imprisoned journalists, intellectuals and student protesters. He claims to be a democrat in 2015 but was elected largely because the country wanted another “strong man” at the helm to tackle Nigeria’s multiple problems. He has started tackling corruption and is stepping up military activity against Boko Haram. But his instincts are essentially authoritarian and militarily inclined.

Here in the United Kingdom, The Conservative Party beat pundit’s predictions and managed to win the elections with a small majority of 16. In the process it wiped out the Lib Democrats, trounced Labour in Scotland and helped catalyse the emergence of the Scottish Nationalist Party .  After the elections, Labour elected Jeremy Corbyn to replace Ed Milliband as leader which has precipitated bitter infighting between the left and Blairite wings of the party. UKIP failed to transfer votes into seats.

The result is that the UK is currently lead by an establishment cabinet of old Etonians and Oxbridge graduates. They are committed to the politics of austerity, expanding defence and security spending, cutting welfare, gerrymandering electorates, emasculating  the House of Lords, removing financial support to opposition parties  and paring back as much as they can on welfare and education. They rule with a sense of inherited entitlement and will do so as long as the left remains divided and unfocused.

There was a very dramatic swing right in Poland this year. The Civic Platform Party was replaced by the opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party. The PiS is deeply socially and politically conservative and managed to win in almost every part of Poland and across different demographic groups. Key government positions have gone to controversial candidates some of whom, (eg Antoni Macierewicz),  have been and are explicitly racist and anti semitic. The party is moving to  controls the Polish Constitutional Court which means that Poland will continue to move in a  reactionary , nationalistic and euro-sceptic position . It is also promoting a very socially conservative Catholicism. Poland , for examplejoined other East European countries in resisting  EU requests to provide safe haven to Syrian refugees. .

Denmark, also moved right this year with the Liberal-Conservative bloc beating the Social Democratic party of Helle Thorning-Schmidt. The Liberal leader Lars Lokke Rasmussen was only able to form a government by joining forces with the right-wing Danish People’s Party. They are pulling Rasmussen in a reactionary direction and represent a growing, fearful right wing constituency emerging across Europe.

The Guatemalan election yielded another surprise rtesult with Manuel Baldizon of the Renewed Democratic Freedom (Libre) party losing to a populist comedian by the name of Jimmy Morales. Morales is a political outsider who  has tapped into a global  skepticism about politics and politicians.  He represented the yearnings of  Guatemalan electors  for an end to corrupt politics which benefit   elites at the expense of the masses.  In doing so he reflects the  skeptical political mood of many electorates  around the world. It remains to be seen which political direction will be adopted by these populists. They have to satisfy  needs for political transformation while delivering economic and social conditions that benefit the people. Whether they are given a chance to do this by the people or by the security establishments of their countries remains to be seen. The Guatemalan election   represents a populist rejection of business as usual but conservative forces are ready to fill any political vacuum that might emerge.

Greece had two elections in 2015. The first resulting in a rejection of austerity measures by Alexis Tsirpas leading a radical left party. The second , under great pressure from Europe resulted in the re-election of Tsirpas to power but with a party committed to reimposing austerity in return for an economic bailout from the rest of Europe!!  The Greek elections raise some important questions about the utility of left/right political distinctions in the face of powerful economic dynamics . This election confirmed the relative dependence of most politics on national, regional and global economic realities.

The Singaporean people once again re-elected the People’s Action Party (PAP) to power . Singapore remains a conservative centre right, one party state. The people voted for economic stability, growth and wellbeing and believed that the PAP was the best party to deliver all these things. There are social and political movements that continue to agitate for freedom of the press and a looser political system. But as with many of the other elections of 2016 the drivers that mattered were economic, bread and butter issues rather than debates about different political and social values.

There was political change in Canada. Three-term prime minister Stephen Harper, mounted an election campaign that was driven by the politics of fear and xenophobia. While Harper managed to hold on to his conservative base he was not able to prevail against Justin Trudeau who campaigned with more optimistic politics and more progressive social and economic policies ( e.g legalisation of marijuana). Trudeau  demonstrated a different kind of politics to those which seem to be gripping Europe at the moment. He managed to tap into and mobilise young, diverse , cosmopolitan constituencies   towards left of Centre politics while older, white working and middle class constituencies voted for Harper.   The Canadian election, therefore,is an important learning for political parties in the West seeking to shape a new political narrative for the 21st century. Instead of being wary of tolerant , inclusive, empathetic and compassionate politics, the political parties that embrace them ( if Canada is anything to go by) will do well. They will provide the next generation of 18-25 year olds with values to embrace and fight for and replace the politics of fear and pessimism with politics of optimism and compassion. Trudeau is a worthy successor to his father Pierre who captured the same enthusiasm.

This same optimism did not apply in Turkey. The June election   resulted in a Pro Kurdish leftist party, the HDP passing the 10% threshold to  enter parliament  and prevent Erdogan from passing Constitutonal changes that would entrench him in power. But the HDP was unable to forge a viable coalition against the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and a snap second election was called for November. In the interim, Erdogan not only played the fear card , he created the conditions under which many Turks felt uneasy and afraid. Erdogan used the Turkish army and police to crack down on Kurdish majority areas, causing numerous civilian casualties in the process. He got embroiled in the Middle East conflict on the side of any group that had an anti-Kurdish policy. There are rumours that he might even have initiated the   bombing of demonstrators in Ankara.   All of this meant that the AKP and Erdogan won an absolute majority in the November elections. The result of this is that Erdogan is now moving Turkey in a more militaristic, draconian and authoritarian direction. Turkish politics –particularly opposition to Kurdish independence- will continue to cast a malign shadow over the Syrian and Iraq conflicts.

There was a rejection of military rule in Myanmar this November. Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) won a landslide victory. Its not at all clear how this will work out in terms of political rule since Aung San Suu Kyi is prevented from holding   Presidential Office. But she has said she will “play a role above the president” so the situation remains fraught. In the context of  Burmese politics, however, this was undoubtedly a progressive election and a rejection of military rule. The challenge facing the party, however, is how to tread the tightrope between the scylla of keeping the army happy and the charybdis of governing for the country as a whole including all of Burma’s many minority groups. Aung San Suu Kyi has not been noticeably progressive in relation to treatment of the persecuted Rohingya . So it remains to be seen whether the NLD victory will generate a politics of inclusion, tolerance and unity for the whole country and   support for critical social, economic and political transformation in the face of   intensive and pervasive military surveillance and oversight.

In Latin America, Argentina , has moved in a right wing direction with the election of Mauricio Macri as President. His coalition called Let’s Change, ran on a platform which challenged movements for equality, justice and human rights and focused on mobility, achievement and a neo liberal growth model. It represents a shift right in the politics of Argentina but it also captures a more conservative mood afflicting parties and peoples across the whole of   Latin America . He will not be able to dismantle the welfarism of the Peronists without a struggle but will quietly move Argentina in a more reactionary direction.

As in Argentina, the electorate in Venezuala put an end to the 16 year reign of the late Hugo Chavez’ socialist party.The opposition right wing party under the leadership of Henrique Capriles won 2/3rds of the vote. Here again, in the face of desperate food and basic goods shortages the people turned to right wing parties to restore law, order, put an end to corruption and generate non-partisan court systems. If there is any serious effort to unravel the welfare system that  Chavez put in place  it  is likely that there will be a back lash from the “Chavista’s” . This may mean more reliance on police and security forces to impose order over the next 5 years and could also result in the re-emergence of military rule if  political systems are  unable to ensure the realisation of  individual citizens goals and objectives.


The final election for 2015 was in Spain. The political system had been under some stress as the country reeled from the economic shocks of  the 2008/09 global financial crisis. The election of December 15, however, failed to deliver a clear majority and the two main political parties, the ruling People’s Party and the Socialists were both badly shaken by the populist leftist party Podemos. The upshot of the election is that there is no obvious parliamentary majority; nationalist independence movements are on the resurgent and no clarity about how to deliver economic and social stability over the next 4 years. If this results in high levels of economic, and social instabillity, its possible that Spaniards might   turn to more   reactionary parties and a strengthened military to impose order and promote growth.

Progressive left forces everywhere, must, therefore pay attention to the rightward political drift in many Northern as well as Southern democracies. The right wing parties and leaders that have come to power in 2015 will continue to promote a politics of fear; will continue to rely heavily on national security systems to maintain and consolidate their power; they will utilise negative wedge politics and ideological spin to give a positive flow to failed policies and they will adopt callous policies in relation to the big global needs of 2016-refugees, displaced persons, global climate change and armed conflict. This is the time to start learning from the few places where left of Centre parties came to power in 2015 in order to devise a progressive,popular movement for new politics and new political systems for the 21st century.

If we don’t do this we will be condemned to growing democratic deficits and worse find ourselves confronting regimes that are far too reliant on national security systems for their maintenance in power.



Posted in 2015 Election results, Politics, The Politics of Fear, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Mountains , Rivers, Trees and Blossoms for a New Year-Mary Oliver and Me

Mountains , Rivers, Trees and Blossoms for a New Year-Mary Oliver and Me


On the eve of a New Year and in the face of all the turmoil and strife we are   encountering its important to keep our bearings; understand what is authentic and what will sustain us as we try and make sense of the infinite complexity of the world.

Its vital that we dream positive dreams; reach out to those we fear , engage visible holiness, attend to the trees, the mountains and the rivers so that they can weave their magic on us and the next generation.

To transform the world we need to understand our own life, love, truth and uniqueness..

No one captures these things better than American poet Mary Oliver. So I am sharing two Oliver poems with you in the hope that they will energise, console and strengthen you   as they did me so that we can all work together to be the people we are meant to be in 2016 and beyond.





Leaves and Blossoms along the Way: A Poem

Mary Oliver 2015


If you’re John Muir you want trees

to live among.

If you’re Emily, a garden

will do.

Try to find the right place for yourself.

If you can’t find it, at least dream of it.



When one is alone and lonely, the body

gladly lingers in the wind or the rain,

or splashes into the cold river,

or pushes through the ice-crusted snow.

Anything that touches.



God, or the gods,

are invisible, quite

understandable. But holiness is visible,




Some words will never leave God’s mouth,

no matter how hard you listen.


In all the works of Beethoven,

you will not find a single lie.


All important ideas must include the trees,

the mountains, and the rivers.



To understand many things you must reach out

of your own condition.



For how many years did I wander slowly

through the forest. What wonder

and glory I would have missed had I ever been

in a hurry!


Beauty can both shout and whisper,

and still it explains nothing.


The point is, you’re you, and that’s for keeps.




The Journey

by Mary Oliver

One day you finally knew
what you had to do, and began,
though the voices around you
kept shouting
their bad advice–
though the whole house
began to tremble
and you felt the old tug
at your ankles.
“Mend my life!”
each voice cried.
But you didn’t stop.
You knew what you had to do,
though the wind pried
with its stiff fingers
at the very foundations,
though their melancholy
was terrible.
It was already late
enough, and a wild night,
and the road full of fallen
branches and stones.
But little by little,
as you left their voices behind,
the stars began to burn
through the sheets of clouds,
and there was a new voice
which you slowly
recognized as your own,
that kept you company
as you strode deeper and deeper
into the world,
determined to do
the only thing you could do–
determined to save
the only life you could save.


Posted in Mary Oliver, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Something to Live and Love for in 2016

Something to Live and Love for in 2016

Kevin P Clements.


The period from Christmas to New Year is a strange, liminal time. It is an arbitrary transition from one year to the next. Here in Canterbury Kent and in London many public and private institutions have closed down for the year . So for some this moment represents an opportunity for pause and reflection before we hurtle into 2016.


Despite the pre Christmas consumption frenzy, however, many people keep shopping and the cash registers keep ringing and the global economy keeps spluttering along. This is the time of the year when divorce rates spike , domestic violence spikes , and suicide rates spike as work pressures are lifted and people confront their existential loneliness and aloneness .


The deeper messages of Christmas always seem to get lost in the ephemeral seductive lure of the market . Far too many people persist in believing that a meaningful life can be generated alone rather than in relationships and that consumption will generate happiness.. Mobile phones, I Pads and computers continue to generate both real and illusory relationships but I’ve noticed from restaurants and other meeting places that direct conversations are far too often replaced with remote messaging even by people sitting at the same table.


We are bombarded with random messages, facts and statistics many of which continue to challenge any idea of our common humanity.


United States police , for example, killed 1,103 American citizens last year ( mostly Black) . This is nine times more people than were killed in acts of terror in Europe, North America or Australasia.

The great majority (78%) of the 32,685 killed in acts of political violence this year were from just five countries, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Syria. This violence mirrors the violence that the West initiated in the Middle East and Central Asia in response to the Al Qaeda attacks on the US. So over the past 14 years the world has been locked in self defeating vicious cycles of revenge and violence.


Violence and poverty have displaced   59.5 million people by the end of 2014. That number has increased in 2015 but we do not have good data on this yet . An estimated 13.9 million people were newly displaced by conflict in 2014, including 2.9 million new refugees. Syria is the worlds top source country for refugees, overtaking Afghanistan which had held that title for 3 years. There are 38.2 million people who are internally displaced by war including 7.6 million in Syria alone . 32.3 million of these IDPs are under the protection of UNHCR. Many of these IDPs and refugees have been   knocking on Europe’s door for the last two years. Angela Merkel was the most compassionate political leader but even she has come under enormous domestic pressure to pull up the German drawbridge and not provide safe haven to those knocking.


New Zealand, the UK and most other Commonwealth countries ( apart from Canada) have been pathetic in response to the global refugee crisis and equally pathetic in devising creative non violent solutions to violence. We opposed the expansion of UK bombing to Syria but John Key, Malcolm Turnbull and others gave their enthusiastic support to a policy which does not assist any political settlement and which complicates the delivery of humanitarian assistance.


On climate change, the world’s nations finally agreed to work towards a 1.5-2.0 % cap on global carbon emissions at the COP conference in Paris. But here again the New Zealand Prime Minister said it was “Business as usual” which was not what the Prime Ministers of Tuvalu, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands wanted to hear. If there are any slimate change skeptics out there they might want to notice the extreme temperatures and flooding that has occurred in England this winter or in Missouri in the US or in Brazil and Australia. Oince again this is a challenge that we cannot deal with alone . We have to do this in solidarity with like minded everywhere to hold our leaders to the agreement that they signed in Paris.


On Human Rights and the Death Penalty. The world has been moving in a positive direction with 140 countries now having abolished state executions. The Asia Pacific region, however, and the Middle East have an appalling record. China leads the countries on the execution stakes but countries like Iran, Pakistan, Thailand, Japan, Indonesia continue to execute indiviiduals rather than seeking ways in which they might be rehabilitated.


Finally, as we ponder the state of the world , its important to remind ourselves of the huge and growing gap between the rich and poor everywhwre in the world. This year the UN replaced the Millenium Development Goals with the Social Development Goals. These are a set of seventeen goals comprising 169 targets and indicators for reducing poverty and improving environmental sustainability.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says the SDGs, which would replace the MDGs in January 2016, are based on six essential elements: “dignity, people, prosperity, our planet, justice, and partnership.” Many development experts have noted the ambitious sweep of the goals, which include:

  • Ending poverty in all its forms everywhere;
  • Ending hunger;
  • Achieving gender equality;
  • Ensuring healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages; and
  • Ensuring access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all.

The SDG’s are intended to be different from the MDG’s which were focused on transfers from the relatively affluent North to the South . These goals are based on a recognition that every country in the world has to end poverty, hunger , advance gender and class equality, build sustainable and resilient development strategies, tackle climate change and generate peaceable societies.

I am somewhat crittical of the SDG’s for adding peace on as a final goal rather than a central goal /consequence of all the others but they represent the best chance we have for thinking about tackling equality, promoting social and economic justice for all and building a sustainable and peaceful world. But once again the achievement of these goals will require political will and resources which most coutnries pursuing the economics of austerity will feel reluctant to provide. The UN Conference on Trade and Development says the SDGs face an annual funding gap of about $2.5 trillion (PDF). It is this gap that we will need to bridge   both publicly and privately if there is to be any chance of removing the root causes of violence.

So at this liminal moment , as we pause to reflect on what a mess we made of 2015 and what we might do better for 2016, lets focus our attention on the development of a world where poverty, inequality, and the unsustainable consumption of the world are addressed positively , creatively and non-violently. Lets also build relationships of love, empathy, altruism, compassion and tolerance so that we might begin breaking the appalling cycles of violence that have afflicted far too many people over the past few years.

The good news is that if we can transform ourselves personally, mobilise political will around these more positive ends, forge relationships of love ,solidarity and active resistance to those who would like to isolate us, we  will have a chance  to ensure   that the 21st century will become a century of maturity rather than one of fear and barbarism.     Such a vision should  end any residual existential angst we might have and give us something to live and love for in 2016.

Posted in 21st century development policy, Aid and development, Building Peaceful Community, Capital Punishment, Conflict Transformation, Development and Peacebuilding, global economic challenge, Non violent responses to Violent Politics, Pacific, political economy of compassion, The Politics of Fear | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment