peace, its indices and implications for swaraj

http://sch.sagepub.com/Social Change

http://sch.sagepub.com/content/40/4/439The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/004908571004000403

2010 40: 439Social ChangeShahnaaz Suffla, Mohamed Seedat and Abdulrazak Karriem

Peace, Its Indices and Implications for Swaraj

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Council for Social Development

can be found at:Social ChangeAdditional services and information for

http://sch.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://sch.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://sch.sagepub.com/content/40/4/439.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jan 26, 2011Version of Record >>

at UNIV OF THE WESTERN CAPE on February 21, 2013sch.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sch.sagepub.com/

http://sch.sagepub.com/content/40/4/439

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.csdindia.org

http://sch.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://sch.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://sch.sagepub.com/content/40/4/439.refs.html

http://sch.sagepub.com/content/40/4/439.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


Peace, Its Indices and Implications for Swaraj

Shahnaaz SufflaMRC-UNISA Safety and Peace Promotion Research [email protected]

Mohamed SeedatUNISA Institute for Social and Health Sciences and MRC-UNISA Safety and Peace Promotion Research [email protected]

Abdulrazak KarriemDepartment of City and Regional Planning, Cornell [email protected]

AbstractThe issue of peace and its drivers is central to erudition on Hind Swaraj and associated texts dealing with liberty, self-rule, world order and social integrity. In this article, we therefore aim to describe a specific articulation of peace, embedded in peace psychology and the global Peace Index (gPI), which was first initiated in 2007 and subsequently revised in 2008 and 2009. The gPI, which places countries according to their levels of peacefulness, offers insights into the determinants of peace. We explain the origins and scope of the gPI, examine how it expresses peace and assess its usefulness. We suggest specific modification to the three key measures used by the GPI to evaluate a country’s peacefulness. Focusing on South Africa, India, Brazil and the United States of America (USA), we recommend that indices of globalisation may be incorporated to enhance the currency of the index. Throughout the article we emphasise human security as a key element of peace.

KeywordsPeace, global Peace Index, human security, globalisation

Article

Social Change 40(4) 439–457 © CSD 2010

SAgE Publications Los Angeles, London,

New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC

DOI: 10.1177/004908571004000403http://socialchange.sagepub.com



Social Change, 40, 4 (2010): 439–457

440 Shahnaaz Suffla et al.

Contemporary and historical scholarship on Hind Swaraj, concerned with free-dom, independence, world order, social justice and identity, implies a call for a careful and nuanced focus on peace and its determinants. Following on this assumption, in this article we aim to present a particular conceptualisation of peace, as informed by the peace psychology literature and the global peace index (gpi), which was first launched in 2007 and revised in 2008 and 2009. The index, which ranks countries according to their degree of peacefulness, helps us under-stand the conditions and drivers of peace. We describe the origins, development and measures of the gpi, examine how it articulates peace and its determinants, and review its utility. We propose specific revisions to the three key measures employed by the gpi to assess a country’s peacefulness, namely, indicators of: ongoing domestic and international conflict; societal safety and security; and mil-itarisation. With particular reference to South Africa, india, Brazil and the United States of America (USA) we also explore how indices of globalisation may be incorporated to increase the currency of the index, and make suggestions for our conceptualisation of peace to include a consideration of human security as signifi-cantly influenced by global environmental changes and policy responses to such changes. We begin with a summary review of the concept of peace.

Peace

peace may be viewed as a process, outcome and state. At a process level we may engage in peacemaking exercises, including conflict resolution and mediation, shuttle diplomacy, negotiation and violence prevention interventions in order to create particular outcomes: cessation of violent hostilities, humanitarian relief for combatants and civilian populations and the restoration of communication for purposes of dialogue. Such outcomes are vital for the more long-term and pro-tracted process of peacebuilding. Hence, when successful, peacemaking can con-tribute to the development of conditions crucial for the essential mission of crafting a peaceful society in which the structural arrangements and cultural nar-ratives are directed at promoting human security and well-being, and reducing inequality and oppression (Suffla, 2004).

The process of peacebuilding may entail the promotion of the values of toler-ance, respect and unity, and the establishment of truth commissions or other simi-lar mechanisms as a vehicle for acknowledging human rights violations and redistributive justice measures like land distribution and empowerment of those marginalised from economic resources. it is argued that the political, economic and social strategies typically implemented to facilitate the transition from vio-lence to peace must necessarily include interventions to interrupt cycles of vio-lence and promote reconciliation (Wessells and Monteiro, 2001). in this regard, truth commissions, as in the case of South Africa, aim to create public awareness about the extent of state-sanctioned human rights violations, grant amnesty to perpetrators under specific conditions, restore the dignity of the victims and



Peace, Its Indices and Implications for Swaraj 441

Social Change, 40, 4 (2010): 439–457

promote a moral order within which all citizens can reconcile and exercise their citizenship in meaningful ways (Swartz, 2006). De-emphasising punitive and retributive justice, truth commissions seem to favour restitutive justice that may assume socio-economic forms. However, the South African Truth and Reconcili-ation Commission (TRC) has been criticised for failing citizens as far as restitu-tive justice is concerned (Swartz, 2006). peacebuilding measures are intended to reconcile victims and perpetrators, produce citizens who valourise dialogue and non-violent negotiations, tolerance and human dignity, and foster socio-economic justice. peacebuilding is concerned with disadvantage and structural obstacles embedded in the social, economic and political system of a society that are likely to perpetuate systemic exploitation, oppression, discrimination and inequity (Christie, Wagner and Winter, 2001; galtung, 1996). Although contemporary theory regards social justice to be a complex and difficult concept to measure, once understood contextually (Miller, 2001), social justice is about the satisfac-tion of basic human needs such as adequate housing and food, health care, educa-tion, employment and safety for all people (for example, Christie et al., 2001; galtung, 1996). For the purposes of this article, we accept that social justice may be assured through the equitable access to politico-economic resources needed to satisfy basic human needs (Christie et al., 2001).

peacemaking and peacebuilding measures, which are considered to represent an interlocking system of peace (Christie et al., 2001), together create for a state of peace which is more that the absence of violent conflict. This conceptualisation stresses the idea that a new social order must address peace not only in terms of preventing or resolving conflict, but also in terms of pursuing social justice. in turn, this brings about the development and execution of a critical consciousness that chal-lenges the status quo by exposing dominant cultural discourses, honouring multiple voices through the co-construction of social change, advancing an activist agenda and promoting the sustainable satisfaction of basic human needs (Christie, 2001).

in many respects peace and the meaning of peace are cultural constructs. For instance, the gandhian philosophy of Satyagraha articulates a spiritualised con-ceptualisation of peace. Satyagraha, interpreted as a positive peacebuilding strat-egy, is aimed at the pursuit of welfare for all; truth and wisdom; self-discipline and civil disobedience directed at unjust laws and policies (Mayton, 2001). gandhi’s peacebuilding philosophy favours long-term change in attitudes and enduring social change. importantly, it is an attempt to capture and elevate the spiritual-cultural and subjective dimensions of peace. gandhi’s use of Satyagraha as an orientation and method to challenge an established political order was directed at reducing social injustices. Once we recognise that the attainment of peace, which contains multiple cultural meanings, is contingent on building egali-tarian political cultures, maximising inclusive forms of participation in public life, socio-economic justice, and valuing human diversity and citizens who cherish democratic ideals (Montiel and Wessells, 2001), then we are able to appreciate peace as a complex and nuanced state. The gpi, to which we now turn, represents an attempt to ‘capture’ the complexities of peace.



Social Change, 40, 4 (2010): 439–457


Global Peace Index

Background

The gpi, a pioneering milestone in the study of peace, is the first index to rank countries of the world by their peacefulness. it was formulated by Steve Killelea, an Australian expert in international marketing, business and product strategy, whose professional interests are driven by the need to effect change for as many people as possible, with special emphasis on the poorest people across the world. it is associated with the institute for Economics and peace in Australia, an inde-pendent not-for-profit research institute that aims at cultivating the inter-relation-ships between business, peace and economic development. Through its expansive reach across the globe, it endeavours to empower the private sector, academic community, civil society, international institutions and governments with infor-mation and tools that will allow them to employ peace to meet their intended objectives. The gpi is part of an initiative that seeks to impart a strategic approach to raising awareness of the importance of global peace to humanity’s survival. it has emerged from a collaborative enterprise that has assembled a range of groups and ideas, and is supported by a wide range of philanthropists, business people, politicians, religious leaders and intellectuals (Vision of Humanity, 2009).

Within the logic of the gpi, peace is considered to be an essential prerequisite for achieving the levels of cooperation, inclusiveness and social equity crucial for human development. The first gpi, launched in 2007, ranked 121 countries according to their relative states of peace. it was revised in 2008 and 2009 to include 140 and 144 countries respectively (Vision of Humanity, 2007, 2008, 2009). The index aims to move beyond elementary measures of war and conflict. As such, it aims to investigate systematically the dynamics and drivers of peace.

As we will demonstrate below, the gpi points to significant differences in the peacefulness of nations. Small and stable countries tend to obtain higher rankings, indicating a possible link between peacefulness and wealth of nations. Whereas peace internal to a country is correlated with a range of indicators, like income, schooling and degree of regional integration, no single factor seems to account for countries that enjoy high levels of peace with neighbours, regionally and globally.

Indicators

The gpi utilises twenty-three indicators, which include a focus on a nation’s level of military expenditure to its relations with neighbouring states and the level of respect for human rights. The twenty-four indicators, scaled from 1 to 5 and arranged around three key measures, namely: (a) ongoing domestic and interna-tional conflict; (b) societal safety and security and (c) militarization, makes peace contingent on very specific conditions. The first category of conditions, focused




Social Change, 40, 4 (2010): 439–457

primarily on the physical nature of conflicts, indicates that peace may be compro-mised by: the increasing frequency of external and internal conflicts; deaths aris-ing from external and internally organised conflicts; the level of internal organised conflict; and conflictual relations with neighbouring countries. The second cate-gory suggests that peace may be threatened by: increasing perceptions of crimi-nality in society; high numbers of displaced people as a percentage of the population; political instability; high level of disrespect for human rights; poten-tial for terrorist acts; high number of homicides per 100,000 people; high level of violent crime; likelihood of violent demonstrations; disproportionate number of jailed persons per 100,000 population; and disproportionate number of internal security officers and police per 100,000 people. The third category associates peace with the absence of a militarized culture. Militarisation is indicated by: military expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product (gDp); number of armed services personnel per 100,000 people; volume of transfers (imports) of major conventional weapons per 100,000 people; volume of transfers (imports and exports) of major conventional weapons per 100,000 people; funding for UN peacekeeping missions; aggregate number of heavy weapons per 100,000 people; ease of access to small arms and light weapons; and military capability and sophistication. The indicators have been chosen as being the best available data-sets indicative of peace or the absence thereof, and include both quantitative and qualitative scores (Vision of Humanity, 2007, 2008, 2009).

Drivers

importantly, the gpi provides data to enable enquiry into the relative significance of a range of potential determinants or ‘drivers’ that may influence the creation and fostering of peaceful societies. The gpi has been tested against several poten-tial determinants of peace, including levels of democracy and transparency, inter-national openness, demographics, education, culture and material well-being. perceptions of corruption, gender inequality, adult literacy rate, willingness to fight, hostility to foreigners, unemployment, life expectancy and infant mortality are some of the items used to concretise the information on drivers of peace (Vision of Humanity, 2007, 2008, 2009). Based on the research undertaken on the gpi against the selected set of drivers, peaceful societies are those characterised as countries with very low levels of internal conflict with efficient, accountable governments, strong economies, integrated populations and good relations within the international community (see Table 1). in 2009, research on this interface indicated tentative signs of a causal relationship between the state of peace and the strength of the economy (Vision of Humanity, 2009). it was found that with the global economy having been influenced by a recession, many of the gpi measures, such as likelihood of violent demonstration and political instability, declined accordingly. it is argued that this relationship is more apparent in the gpi measures of the more economically vulnerable countries, such as South Africa (Vision of Humanity, 2009).



Social Change, 40, 4 (2010): 439–457


Table 1. Conditions that Eliminate the Causes of Violence and Build Peace

Structural Drivers of Peace Attitudinal Drivers of Peace

• Good relations with neighbouring • Respect for human rights states

• Low levels of corruption • Belief in free speech• Well-functioning government • Welcome high levels of cooperation both

within the nation and externally• High levels of per capita income • Feel that it is not necessary to believe in God

to be moral• High enrolment rate in primary • Less likely to believe that their society is

school superior• Low child mortality rates • Believe that they have control of their lives• Freedom of the press • Believe in the limited use of the military and

only when internationally sanctioned• High extent of regional integration • Friendliness or lack of hostility to foreigners

Source: Vision of Humanity (2009).

Comparing South Africa, India, Brazil and United States America1

The gpi placed South Africa 99 among 121 countries in 2007, 116 among 140 countries in 2008, and 123 among 144 countries in 2009 (see Table 2) (Vision of Humanity, 2007, 2008, 2009). Even though the expansion of gpi countries from 121 to 140 between 2007 to 2008 prohibits direct comparisons of rank, a ‘special’ 2008 comparative version of the gpi that focused only on the original countries showed South Africa’s ranking to have dropped by six places (-6). South Africa’s descending slide and ranking of 116 in 2008 located it closer to war-torn countries such as Ethiopia (121), Sri Lanka (125) and Colombia (130). Regionally, South Africa was ranked 18 among 30 African countries in 2008, setting it apart from peaceful countries like ghana (1) and it neighbours, Botswana (3), Mozambique (4) and Zambia (5). The latest index indicates that alongside Madagascar, Mex-ico, Latvia and Yemen, South Africa is one of the five countries which have

Table 2. GPI Rankings and Scores for South Africa, India, Brazil and USA

Global Peace Index 2009 2008 2007

Country Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score

South Africa 123 2.437 116 2.412 99 2.399

India 122 2.422 107 2.355 109 2.530

Brazil 85 2.022 90 2.168 83 2.173

USA 83 2.015 97 2.227 96 2.317

Source: Vision of Humanity (2007, 2008, 2009).




Social Change, 40, 4 (2010): 439–457

experienced the greatest deterioration in peacefulness. All the countries which have had the biggest falls in peacefulness are either marked by violent protests, political instability, threats of terrorist attacks, increased level of criminal vio-lence, currency crisis, or drug wars (Vision of Humanity, 2009).

Like South Africa, india’s ranking declined considerably between 2008 (107) and 2009 (122), with its 2009 score positioning it close to South Africa (Vision of Humanity, 2009). indicator information (see Table 3) suggests that ongoing internal conflicts and related security concerns, a weak human rights culture and a high level of militarisation have contributed to india’s low ranking. Within the Asia pacific region, india is currently ranked 20 among 25 countries, and is placed within the same score band as Sri Lanka (125), which has been steeped in civil conflict for a number of years, and Myanmar (126), which remains under military rule.

Unlike the African and Asia pacific regions, Latin America exhibits a wide vari-ation in country ranking, with Brazil located about midway in its 2009 regional ranking (12 among 23 countries) (Vision of Humanity, 2009). Brazil’s overall rank of 85 among 144 countries in 2009 demonstrates an improvement in the country’s level of peacefulness since 2008. However, its peace index scores since the launch of the gpi consistently reflect elevated levels of violent crime, including homicide, associated with ease of access to weapons. Abuses of human rights is another key factor in Brazil’s low scores on measures of societal safety and security, likely related to reports of police brutality, corruption, torture and summary executions by civil and military police and prison authorities, who are frequently accused of contribut-ing to violence and crime in areas considered to be focal points for extreme levels of armed violence, often related to drug trafficking (Amnesty international, 2008).

The USA, placed at 96, 97 and 83 in 2007, 2008 and 2009 respectively (Vision of Humanity, 2007, 2008, 2009), has also improved in its ranking. it is flanked by Ukraine (82) and Kazakhstan (84) in the 2009 rankings; however, unlike these two countries the USA is currently involved in violent international conflict, its so-called global war on terrorism. The USA’s current ranking, which indicates low scores on measures of ongoing domestic and international conflict, is there-fore surprising. The exception here is the score assigned to the number of esti-mated deaths resulting from organised external conflict, reflective of the recent military casualties suffered by the USA in war and deployments, such as those during the invasions of iraq and Afghanistan. A study by iraqi physicians and epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of public Health found that 655,000 more people (overwhelmingly civilian) have died than would have been the case if the invasion had not occurred (Brown, 2006). These figures must have increased substantially since the publication of the study in 2006. in Afghanistan, Human Rights Watch found that civilian deaths from US and NATO airstrikes tripled between 2006 and 2007; in the first seven months of 2008, at least 540 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict by both the US-led forces and the Taliban (Human Rights Watch, 2008).

The USA has long been considered by some as a warrior nation. According to Velvel (2004 in Uhler, 2008), since World War ii, the USA has fought the Korean



Tab

le 3

. In

dica

tor

Info

rmat

ion

for

Sout

h A

fric

a, In

dia,

Braz

il an

d U

SA, 2

009

So

uth

Afr

ica

Indi

a Br

azil

USA

In

dica

tor

Info

rmat

ion

Scor

e

Scor

e Sc

ore

Scor

e

(1 =

mos

t pe

acef

ul)

(1 =

mos

t pe

acef

ul)

(1 =

mos

t pe

acef

ul)

(1 =

mos

t pe

acef

ul)

Mea

sure

s of

Ong

oing

Dom

esti

c an

d In

tern

atio

nal C

onfli

ct

Num

ber

of e

xter

nal a

nd in

tern

al c

onfli

cts

f oug

ht: 2

002–

07

1.5

5 1

1.5

Estim

ated

num

ber

of d

eath

s fr

om o

rgan

ised

con

flict

(ex

tern

al)

1 1

1 3

Num

ber

of d

eath

s fr

om o

rgan

ised

con

flict

(in

tern

al)

1 3

1 1

Leve

l of o

rgan

ised

con

flict

(in

tern

al)

4 3

1 1

Rel

atio

ns w

ith n

eigh

bour

ing

coun

trie

s 2

3 1

2

Mea

sure

s of

Soc

ieta

l Saf

ety

and

Sec

urit

y

Perc

eptio

ns o

f cri

min

ality

in s

ocie

ty

4 3

3 2

Num

ber

of d

ispl

aced

peo

ple

as a

per

cent

age

of t

he p

opul

atio

n 1

1 1

1

Polit

ical

inst

abili

ty

2 1.

75

1.25

1.

25

Res

pect

f or

hum

an r

ight

s 3.

5 4

4 3

P ote

ntia

l for

ter

rori

st a

cts

1 4

1 3

Num

ber

of h

omic

ides

per

100

,000

peo

ple

5 2

5 2

Leve

l of v

iole

nt c

rim

e 5

3 4

2

Like

lihoo

d of

vio

lent

dem

onst

ratio

ns

3 3

3 2

Num

ber

of ja

iled

popu

latio

n pe

r 10

0,00

0 pe

ople

2.

5 1

2 5



Num

ber

of in

tern

al s

ecur

ity o

ffice

rs a

nd p

olic

e 2

1 3

2 pe

r 10

0,00

0 pe

ople

Mea

sure

s of

Mili

tari

sati

on

Mili

tary

exp

endi

ture

as

a pe

rcen

tage

of G

DP

1 1.

5 1

2

Num

ber

of a

rmed

ser

vice

s pe

rson

nel p

er 1

00,0

00 p

eopl

e 1

1 1

1

Volu

me

of t

rans

fers

of m

ajor

con

vent

iona

l wea

pons

as

supp

lier

1 1

1 2.

5 (e

xpor

ts)

per

100,

000

peop

le

Volu

me

of t

rans

fers

of m

ajor

con

vent

iona

l wea

pons

, as

reci

pien

t 1

1 1

1 (im

port

s) p

er 1

00,0

00 p

eopl

e

Fund

ing

for

UN

pea

ceke

epin

g m

issi

ons

1 1

1 1

(per

cent

age

of a

sses

sed

cont

ribu

tion)

Agg

rega

te n

umbe

r of

hea

vy w

eapo

ns p

er 1

00,0

00 p

eopl

e 1

1 1

1

Ease

of a

cces

s to

wea

pons

of m

inor

des

truc

tion

4 4

4 3

Mili

tary

cap

abili

ty/s

ophi

stic

atio

n 4

4 3

5

Sou

rce:

Vis

ion

of H

uman

ity (

2009

).



Social Change, 40, 4 (2010): 439–457


war, the Vietnam war, secret wars in Laos and Cambodia, the first and second gulf wars, the Afghanistan war; has invaded or bombed, among other countries, panama, grenada, Cuba, Haiti, Somalia, Sudan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia and Libya; and has declared a worldwide ‘war on terrorists’. Accordingly, the coun-try’s high score on military capability and sophistication highlights its consi- derable capacity in terms of number of military personnel, defense budget, and volume of advanced and powerful military equipment. The USA’s improved ranking is therefore questionable in view of its sustained military offensives in iraq, Afghanistan and pakistan, as well as its record of human rights violations, evidenced in reports of police brutality and ill-treatment in prisons and jails, such as guantanamo Bay detention camp, and immigration detention facilities (Amnesty international, 2009).

Critical Observations

The foregoing review reveals that the gpi contributes substantially to our under-standing of factors, structures and institutions that help build and sustain peace and peaceful societies. A few of the key factors are levels of democracy, transpar-ency, education and material well-being. A comparison across the four countries, namely, South Africa, india, Brazil and the USA, suggests that the mission of building peace is dependent on non-violent means to resolve conflict and dis-putes, the pursuit of socially just outcomes, as well as the creation of mechanisms through which society may pursue the key principles of equity, access, participa-tion and rights (for example, Christie et al., 2001).

When we, for instance, consider South Africa’s and india’s ranking within gpi parameters that make a link between peacefulness and wealth, we observe that both are at a policy cross-roads as they attempt to insert themselves into a glo-balised and liberalised economic order in the context of growing national social disparities, violent conflicts and militarisation. As such, the gpi seems to ignore the influence of globalisation on the social determinants or drivers of peace. As a set of processes, economic globalisation weaves complex global, inter-regional and transitional networks that either includes or excludes nation-states, communi-ties, social groups and individuals differentially and unequally. Those on the periphery of ‘advanced services, producer centers, markets in the global network’ are rendered ‘irrelevant or even dysfunctional’ (Castells, in Labonte and Schrecker, 2007: 8). The most vulnerable sections of society are thereby excluded from social justice and participatory democracy measures that encourage and drive peace. globalisation comes to influence the social determinants of peace through a pathway of seven interacting clusters that are identified as impacting on the social determinants of health as well as peace.

The seven clusters are: trade liberalisation; the global reorganisation of pro-duction and labour markets; economic restructuring by way of marketisation; financial liberalisation; the restructuring of urban settings by global markets;




Social Change, 40, 4 (2010): 439–457

marketisation of health systems; and marketisation of natural and environmental resources (Ballard, Habib, Valodia and Zuern, 2005; Labonte and Schrecker, 2007; Stiglitz, 2003). When the social determinants of health and peace that cover all of the conditions under which people live and work, such as their early child-hood environment, social support systems and systems of access to food, trans-port, health and work, are negatively impacted on as a result of engagement with globalisation, then there are significant consequences for health and safety, includ-ing compromises in countries’ peace status (Labonte and Schrecker, 2007). Thus, economic globalisation that champions the profit logic of market-driven econo-mies, de-emphasises the role of the state in development and the distribution of resources, upholds privatisation as panacea for sluggish growth and encourages downsizing the public sector in the name of fiscal discipline, has produced condi-tions for the rapid global integration of certain countries and groups within coun-tries and simultaneously heightened the marginalisation of other countries. Within countries, globalisation’s negative influences produce greater social and eco-nomic inequalities between groups, thereby provoking an increased sense of rela-tive deprivation and competition for limited resources (Labonte and Schrecker, 2007; Stiglitz, 2003), and so create a structural context for violence.

in South Africa for instance, public protests against inadequate service deliv-ery have assumed violent dimensions since 2006. A recent qualitative analysis has indicated an escalation in deaths and injuries related to protests arising from com-munity demands for social services, poverty alleviation, employment creation and adequate housing (Seedat, Suffla and Lau, 2009). in some centres of the country the protests are directed against the heavy handed and illegal actions of municipal and provincial governments that are intent on clearing ‘slums’ or informal settle-ments before the 2010 World Cup.2 in this regard, the ‘testing’ of the Slum Clear-ance Bill in the province of Kwa-Zulu Natal serves as a precursor for the development of national policy on clearing slums (gibson, 2008: 10). The vio-lence, as a threat to peace, occurs in the context of increasing social-economic disparities, growing public militarised discourse and insufficient internalisation of constitutional principles and ideals of ubuntu3 that stress impartial and public-centred leadership, equity and democracy. The increasing public violence sug-gests that social justice needs remain unfulfilled for many of South Africa’s vulnerable and poor.

Likewise, in india the deployment of soldiers, paramilitary forces and police personnel in various parts of the country, like Orissa, Kashmir, Jharkhand, Maharashtra Lalgarh and Chhattisgarh, is indicative of a militarised response to unresolved social conflicts. in the last 4 years, india’s Maoist rebel insurgency has resulted in the deaths of over 900 security forces, a startling figure when com-pared to the 1100 US security forces killed in Afghanistan. These figures do not take into account innocent civilians caught in the crossfire between the guerillas and government forces. in order to combat the growing counter-insurgency, the indian government is planning to deploy 70,000 paramilitary personnel to pursue the Maoist guerillas (Yardley, 2009). According to Vishwa Ranjan, chief of the



Social Change, 40, 4 (2010): 439–457


state police in Chhattisgarh, civilian casualties are inevitable as the security forces adopt a no zero casualty approach in the offensive against the guerillas (see Yard-ley, 2009). The Maoists claim to represent the dispossessed sectors of indian soci-ety, especially indigenous tribal groups, who suffer from high rates of poverty, illiteracy and infant mortality.

in the context of globalised and liberalised markets many parts of both central and eastern india are regarded as unexploited mineral rich regions. Tribal people who live in those regions and resist the privatisation and commercialisation of their traditional lands and forests are under threat by multi-national interests that are buttressed by the indian government’s economic policies that in the name of economic development restrict the poor’s access to basic everyday living and property resources. in recent years, india has emerged as a major economic power, with exports of manufactured goods, commodities and services fuelling high rates of economic growth. While economic globalisation has transformed india into an economic powerhouse, it has also deepened inequalities. Approximately 40 per cent of Mumbai’s population lives in slums and a further 5–10 per cent are pave-ment dwellers, all with inadequate access to basic services such as potable water, sanitation and sewage collection (Appadurai, 2001; de Sherbinin, Schiller and pulsipher, 2007). Many of Mumbai’s slums are being demolished to build luxury apartments to house the rich, the main beneficiaries of economic globalisation. Mumbai’s slums and luxury apartments are divided by what Anand giridharadas aptly describes as the ‘Dickensian disparities of the new india’ (giridharadas, 2006). Trade liberalisation and other international Monetary Fund and World Bank structural adjustment policies, among the key drivers of rapid rural to urban migration in countries like india, exacerbate the inability of cities such as Mumbai to provide work, housing and basic services, generating what Mike Davis refers to as a ‘planet of slums’ (Davis, 2006).

Brazil, like india, is one of the most unequal countries in the world in terms of land and income distribution. For example, 1 per cent of landowners own 45 per cent of all agricultural land farmland, much of it unproductive land held for specu-lation (petras and Veltmeyer, 2003). Almost 50 per cent of Brazil’s poor reside in rural areas and the incidence of poverty among the rural population is more than double that of urban areas (World Bank, 1999). Oppressive rural social relations still prevalent in parts of Brazil are marked by the persistence of slavery. Accord-ing to the international Labour Organization, between 1995 and 2005 almost 18,000 workers were freed by government agencies from work conditions that were analogous to slavery (Rede Social de Justica, 2006; Sakamoto, 2005). Most cases of slave labour occur in export-oriented soy and sugar cane plantations.

Within these conditions landless workers, mobilised by groups such as Brazil’s Landless Movement (MST), have utilised a clause in the Brazilian con-stitution to pressurise the government to expropriate land which does not serve a social function. Since the government has not proactively expropriated unuti-lised land, MST-led land occupations have compelled the government to redis-tribute over 7 million acres of farmland to its members (Karriem, 2009). MST




Social Change, 40, 4 (2010): 439–457

mobilisations have enabled rural citizens, who have long been politically mar-ginalised by coercive politics of rural elites, to exercise their rights (Carter, 2005; Carvalho, 2001). The struggle by landless families for land to produce liveli-hoods has, however, evoked violent opposition from landowners and the police. As a consequence, almost 1600 rural workers have been killed in land conflicts since the mid-1980s (Cadji, 2000; CpT, 2004). in Brazil violence, as a manifes-tation of social inequalities and unequal power relations, continues to threaten the achievement of peace.

Despite its high income status the USA, following its imperial designs and ambitions of empire, maintains a domestic system of social inequalities and mili-tarised foreign policy that is legitimated by the manufacture of a global security threat. The militarised foreign policy is driven by the need to acquire maximum global resources primarily for its elite classes (for example, Meernik, 2004). The under-classes of American society continue to be denied access to safety resources even under conditions of disaster. For example, when Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans in 2005, it was poor African Americans and the elderly who bore the brunt of deaths, loss of homes and livelihoods. Unlike richer residents of New Orleans who had the resources to move to safety, poor communities lacked the capabilities (for example, financial and private transport) to quickly move to safe ground (Cutter et al., 2006). While the poor in low- and middle-income countries are adversely impacted by climate-related disasters, poor communities in high-income countries like the USA are also vulnerable. Among the major drivers of global environmental change is the high use of natural resources to feed the con-sumption patterns of the richest 20 per cent of the world’s population largely based in the global north. However, the impact is global in that ‘western values and consumer lifestyles’ have been adopted by elites in low- and middle-income countries that have copied an economic model that is based on promoting con-sumption (Rees and Westra, 2003: 101).

Thus, we suggest that the influences of climatic changes, globalisation and restrictive and exclusionary economic systems on peace are insufficiently consid-ered within the gpi. With respect to the former, in recent years there has been growing acceptance that human activities—especially increased fossil fuel use, land use change and growing exploitation of natural resources—are contributing to changes in our atmosphere and climate. Consequently, there has been more frequent and severe climate-related heat waves, flooding and droughts that adversely impact poor communities across the world (Adams, 2008; Leichenko and O’Brien, 2008; Sanchez-Rodriguez, 2008). Moreover, entrenched gender inequity is a key contributor to vulnerability in disaster situations, with studies showing that women and children are fourteen times more likely to die than men in natural disasters (Demetriades and Esplen, 2008). Similarly, an increased rate of deforestation in Sri Lanka has meant that the time spent by women and girls collecting fuel wood has increased from 0.9 to 4.7 hours per week (Awumbila and Momsen, 1995). Vulnerability is also context specific: women in rural india may face different sets of problems compared to women in urban india.



Social Change, 40, 4 (2010): 439–457


Environmentalists argue that if carbon emissions are not reduced and climate change mitigation and adaptation measures are not instituted, melting ice caps could lead to sea-level rise which could inundate small islands and flood heavily populated low-lying coastal cities. Frequent floods and droughts could negatively impact the world’s food and water supply, potentially leading to violent conflicts over access to these resources. The potential for resource-related conflicts cannot be underestimated. Conflicts have occurred over land in Zimbabwe, diamonds in Liberia, natural gas between Russia and the Ukraine, and water in the Middle East.

Hence, the call is to engage in sustained efforts to include marginalised social groups as active participants in climate change negotiations and policies (Agye-man, Bullard and Evans, 2003). Such public policies, be they at local, national and global levels, need to adopt context-specific programmes to overcome the vulner-abilities of specific marginalised groups. Despite such calls, the two principal treaties dealing with global efforts to fight climate change—the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto proto-col—do not mention ‘women’ or ‘gender’, nor do they refer to ‘poverty’ or ‘dep-rivation’ (Skutch, 2002).

Conclusions

The preceding review of the gpi and critical observations reveal that peace is a dynamic state supported by particular drivers and yet vulnerable to the vagaries of state policies, global developments and cyclical changes in political administra-tions’ priorities and ideologies. The project of independence and human develop-ment, as articulated in Hind Swaraj, would therefore need to remain ever vigilant to the threats to peace and sensitive to the conditions supportive of peace. peace under the rubric of environmental security foregrounds the notion that climate and natural resource issues are critical to achieving political and economic stability, the conditions upon which peace is contingent (for example, Raleigh and Urdal, 2007). Such an understanding of the drivers of peace requires a shift from narrow state-centric notions of national security to the idea of human security, which stresses human well-being (Matthew, Barnett, McDonald and O’Brien, 2009). Once we view global environmental change from the perspective of human security we are able to see the interconnectedness of green house gas (gHg) emissions and melt-ing polar ice caps and poverty, vulnerability, social equity and conflict.

Whereas a focus on climatic changes implies a shift in our understandings of the drivers of peace, a consideration of the impact of globalisation on the social determinants of peace calls for a revision and possible expansion of the indicators utilised by the gpi to assess country-level peacefulness. Accordingly, as per Table 4 in the following, we propose that the indicators be expanded to include a fourth indicator that reflects the influence of globalisation. We also propose revisions within each group of measures for purposes of conceptual coherence. Measures of globalisation may be social inequality, as indicated by the giNi coefficient, levels



Tab

le 4

. (C

ontin

ued)

Tab

le 4

. Pr

opos

ed R

evis

ions

and

Add

ition

s to

GPI

Indi

cato

rs (

as h

ighl

ight

ed)

Indi

cato

rs

1.

Mea

sure

s of

Ong

oing

D

omes

tic a

nd

Inte

rnat

iona

l Con

flict

2.

Mea

sure

s of

Soc

ieta

l Sa

fety

and

Sec

urity

3.

Mea

sure

s of

M

ilita

riza

tion

4.

Mea

sure

s of

Im

pact

of

Glo

baliz

atio

n

Num

ber

of e

xter

nal a

nd

inte

rnal

con

flict

s fo

ught

: 20

02–0

7

Perc

eptio

ns o

f cri

min

ality

in

soc

iety

Mili

tary

exp

endi

ture

as

a pe

rcen

tage

of

GD

PEc

onom

ic G

row

th

Estim

ated

num

ber

of d

eath

s fr

om o

rgan

ised

con

flict

(e

xter

nal)

Num

ber

of d

ispl

aced

peo

ple

as a

per

cent

age

of t

he p

opu-

latio

n

Pol

ice

serv

ices

exp

endi

ture

as

a pe

r-ce

ntag

e of

GD

PPo

vert

y Le

vels

Num

ber

of d

eath

s fr

om

orga

nise

d co

nflic

t (in

tern

al)

Polit

ical

inst

abili

tyN

umbe

r of

inte

rnal

sta

te s

ecur

ity

offic

ers

and

polic

e pe

r 10

0,00

0 pe

ople

Soci

o-ec

onom

ic d

ispa

ritie

s (a

s pe

r G

INI c

oeffi

cien

t)

Leve

l of o

rgan

ised

con

flict

(in

tern

al)

Leve

l of d

isre

spec

t fo

r hu

man

ri

ghts

Num

ber

of a

rmed

ser

vice

s pe

rson

nel p

er

100,

000

peop

leN

atio

nal d

ebt

Rel

atio

ns w

ith n

eigh

bour

ing

coun

trie

sPo

tent

ial f

or t

erro

rist

act

sE

stim

ated

num

ber

of a

rmed

ser

vice

s pe

rson

nel p

er 1

00,0

00 p

eopl

e en

gage

d in

act

ive

war

s

Une

mpl

oym

ent

rate

Num

ber

of h

omic

ides

per

10

0,00

0 pe

ople

Num

ber

of p

riva

tise

d po

lice

offic

ers

per

100,

000

popu

lati

onN

umbe

r of

sta

te e

nter

pris

es

priv

atiz

ed

Rat

e of

vio

lent

cri

me

Volu

me

of t

rans

fers

(im

port

s) o

f maj

or c

on-

vent

iona

l wea

pons

per

100

,000

peo

ple



Tab

le 4

. (C

ontin

ued)

Indi

cato

rs

1.

Mea

sure

s of

Ong

oing

D

omes

tic a

nd

Inte

rnat

iona

l Con

flict

2.

Mea

sure

s of

Soc

ieta

l Sa

fety

and

Sec

urity

3.

Mea

sure

s of

M

ilita

riza

tion

4.

Mea

sure

s of

Im

pact

of

Glo

baliz

atio

n

Like

lihoo

d of

vio

lent

dem

on-

stra

tions

Volu

me

of t

rans

fers

(ex

port

s) o

f maj

or

conv

entio

nal w

eapo

ns p

er 1

00,0

00 p

eopl

e

Num

ber

of ja

iled

popu

latio

n pe

r 10

0,00

0 pe

ople

Fund

ing

for

UN

pea

ceke

epin

g m

issi

ons

(p

erce

ntag

e of

ass

esse

d co

ntri

butio

n)

Num

ber

of d

eten

tion

s w

itho

ut t

rial

per

100

,000

po

pula

tion

Agg

rega

te n

umbe

r of

hea

vy w

eapo

ns p

er

100,

000

peop

le

Num

ber

of e

xtra

-jud

icia

l ki

lling

sEa

se o

f acc

ess

to w

eapo

ns o

f min

or

dest

ruct

ion

Num

ber

of d

eath

s in

de

tent

ion

per

100,

000

popu

lati

on

Mili

tary

cap

abili

ty/s

ophi

stic

atio

n (i

nclu

ding

nu

clea

r po

tent

ial)




Social Change, 40, 4 (2010): 439–457

of poverty against percentage of economic growth, unemployment and national debts. Additional proposed measures of societal safety and security are number of detentions without trial per 100,000 population, number of extra-judicial killings and number of deaths in detention. Other possible measures of militarisation are estimated number of armed services personnel (per 100,000) deployed for active wars, police services expenditure as a percentage of gDp and estimated number of privatised security officers.

Notwithstanding the limitations, in closing we reiterate that the gpi contains many utilitarian functions in that it may serve as an early warning system enabling peace activists to detect rapid changes in the multiple drivers of peace, and moni-tor and influence policies, including those dealing with poverty reduction, social development and environment and climatic change.

Notes

1. The international seminar, at which a version of this article was presented, was co-hosted by institutions residing in these countries, hence the focus on these countries.

2. For example, Abahlali baseMjondolo or the Shack Dwellers Movement secured a court order from the Western Cape High Court preventing the Cape Town City Municipality from demolishing their shacks. However, the municipality ignored the interdict and destroyed their shacks and confiscated building materials (Dugard and Tissington, 2009).

3. African concept which means that a person is only a person through his/her relationship to others.

ReferencesAdams, W.M. (2008). Green development: Environment and sustainability in a developing

world (3rd edn). London: Routledge.Agyeman, J., Bullard, R. and Evans, B. (eds). (2003). Just sustainabilities: Development in

an unequal world. Cambridge, MA: MiT press.Amnesty international. (2008). 2008 annual report for Brazil. Retrieved from http://there-

port.amnesty.org/en/regions/americas/brazil———. (2009). Amnesty international report 2009: USA. Retrieved from http://thereport.

amnesty.org/en/regions/americas/usaAppadurai, A. (2001). Deep democracy: Urban governmentality and the horizon of poli-

tics. Environment & Urbanization, 13(2): 23–43.Awumbila, M. and Momsen, J. (1995). gender and the environment: Women’s time use

as a measure of environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 5(4): 337–46.Ballard, R., Habib, A., Valodia, i. and Zuern, E. (2005). globalization, marginalization,

and contemporary social movements in South Africa. African Affairs, 104(417): 615–34.

Brown, D. (2006, October 11). Study claims iraq’s excess’ death toll has reached 655,000. Washington Post.

Cadji, A. (2000). Brazil’s landless find their voice. Nacla, 28(5): 30–35.Carter, M. (2005). The landless rural workers’ movement (MST) and democracy in

Brazil. Working paper Number CBS-60-05, Centre for Brazilian Studies, University of Oxford.



Social Change, 40, 4 (2010): 439–457


Carvalho, J.M. (2001). Cidadania no Brasil: o longo caminho. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira.

Christie, D.J. (2001). peacebuilding: Approaches to social justice. in D.J. Christie, R.V. Wagner and D.D. Winter (eds), Peace, conflict and violence: Peace psychology for the 21st century (pp. 277–81). New Jersey: prentice Hall.

Christie, D. J., Wagner, R.V. and Winter, D.D. (eds). (2001). Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology for the 21st century. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: prentice-Hall.

CpT. (2004). Conflitos no campo. Comissao pastoral da Terra: goiania.Cutter, S.L., Emrich, C.T., Mitchell, J.T. Boruff, B.J., gall, M., Schmitlein, M.C., Burton,

C.g. and Melton, g. (2006). The long road home: Race, class and recovery from Hur-ricane Katrina. Environment, 48(2): 8–20.

Davis, M. (2006). Planet of slums. New York: Verso.Demetriades, J. and Esplen, E. (2008). The gender dimensions of poverty and climate

change adaptation. IDS Bulletin, 39(4): 24–31.de Sherbinin, A., Schiller, A. and pulsipher, A. (2007). The vulnerability of global cities to

climate hazards. Environment and Urbanization, 19(1): 39–64.Dugard, J. and Tissington, T. (2009, July 2). Why Cape legal twist looks like a demolition

of justice for poor. Business Day.galtung, J. (1996). Peace by peaceful means: Peace and conflict, development and civili-

zation. London: SAgE publications.gibson, N. (2008). introduction: A new politics of the poor emerges from South Africa’s

shantytowns. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 43(1): 5–17.giridharadas, A. (2006, December 12). Free apartments in Mumbai, but not everyone is

happy. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/busi-ness/worldbusiness/12iht-slums.3876713.html

Human Rights Watch. (2008). ‘Troops in contact’: Airstrikes and civilian deaths in Afghan-istan. Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/09/08/troops-contact-0

Karriem, A. (2009).The Brazilian landless movement: Mobilization for transformative pol-itics. in Yildiz Atasoy (ed.), Hegemonic transitions: The state and crisis in neoliberal capitalism (pp. 262–80). London and New York: Routledge.

Labonte, R. and Schrecker, T. (2007). globalization and social determinants of health: The role of the global marketplace (part 2 of 3). Globalization and Health, 3(6): 1–17.

Leichenko, R. and O’Brien, K. (2008). Environmental change and globalization: Double exposures. Oxford: Oxford University press.

Matthew, R., Barnett, J., McDonald, B. and O’Brien, K. (eds). (2009). Global environmen-tal change and human security. Cambridge, MA: MiT press.

Mayton, D.M. (2001). The social psychology of Satyagraha. in D.J. Christie, R.V. Wagner and D.D. Winter (eds), Peace, conflict and violence: Peace psychology for the 21st century (pp. 307–13). New Jersey: prentice Hall.

Meernik, J.D. (2004). The political use of military force in US foreign policy. Hants, England: Ashgate publishing Limited.

Miller, D. (2001). Principles of social justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University press.

Montiel, C.J. and Wessells, M. (2001). Democratisation, psychology, and the construc-tion of the cultures of peace. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 7(2): 119–29.

petras, J. and Veltmeyer, H. (2003). Cardoso’s Brazil: A land for sale. Lanham, MD: Row-man & Littlefield.




Social Change, 40, 4 (2010): 439–457

Raleigh, C. and Urdal, H. (2007). Climate change, environmental degradation and armed conflict. Political Geography, 26(6): 674–94.

Rede Social de Justica. (2006). Direitos Humanos no Brasil 2006. Sao paulo: Rede Social de Justica.

Rees, W.E. and Westra, L. (2003). When consumption does violence: Can there be sus-tainability and environmental justice in a resource-limited world? in J. Agyeman, R. Bullard and B. Evans (eds), Just sustainabilities: Development in an unequal world (pp. 99–124). Cambridge, MA: MiT press.

Sakamoto, L. (2005). Trabalho Escravo no Brasil do Século XXI. Brasilia: international Labour Organization.

Sanchez-Rodriguez, R. (2008). Urban sustainability and global environmental change: Reflections for an urban agenda. in g. Martine, g. Mcgranahan, M. Montgomery and R. Fernández-Castilla (eds), The new global frontier: Urbanization, poverty and envi-ronment in the 21st century (pp. 149–63). Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

Seedat, M., Suffla, S. & Lau, U (2009). South Africa: An ongoing agenda for social justice and peacebuilding. Unpublished manuscript. institute for Social & Health Sciences, University of South Africa, Johannesburg.

Skutch, M. (2002). protocols, treaties, and action: ‘The climate change process’ viewed through gender spectacles. Gender and Development, 10(2): 30–39.

Stiglitz, J. (2003). Globalization and its discontents. New York: Norton.Suffla, S. (2004). peacemaking and peacebuilding. in L. Swartz, C. de la Rey and N. Dun-

can (eds), Psychology: An introduction (pp. 313–23). Cape Town: Oxford University press.

Swartz, S. (2006). A long walk to citizenship: Morality, justice and faith in the aftermath of apartheid, Journal of Moral Education, 35(4): 551–70.

Uhler, W.C. (2008, September 5). is the United States of America addicted to war? phila-delphia independent Media Centre. Retrieved from http://www.phillyimc.org/en/node/67277

Vision of Humanity. (2007). global peace index rankings. Retrieved from http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings.php

———. (2008). global peace index rankings. Retrieved from http://www.visionofhumanity. org/gpi/results/rankings.php

———. (2009). global peace index rankings. Retrieved from http://www.visionofhumanity. org/gpi/results/rankings.php

Wessells, M. and Monteiro, C. (2001). psychosocial intervention and post-war reconstruc-tion in Angola: interweaving western and traditional approaches. in D.J. Christie, R.V. Wagner and D.D. Winter (eds), Peace, conflict and violence: Peace psychology for the 21st century (pp. 262–75). New Jersey: prentice Hall.

World Bank. (1999). Brazil: Land reform and poverty alleviation. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Yardley, J. (2009, October 31). Rebels widen deadly reach across india. New York Times.



peace, its indices and implications for swaraj

Documents