In late October, I published an interview with political scientist, Dr. Benjamin Peters, whose work focuses on peace (full bio at the end). Eight months later, the systematic destruction of our democracy continues unabated. In March, the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg reported that “Democracy in the USA is deteriorating at unprecedented speed.” So, we continue to need experts like Dr. Peters. He graciously agreed to collaborate once again.
AM: In the last interview, you gave us some ideas for personal peacemaking. (link here) Yet many of us are witnessing (either firsthand or by videos) violence, war, and absolute denial of due process rights by ICE agents. How do we remain peaceful in these scenarios?
BP: There are very good reasons – both moral and strategic – to choose peaceful, nonviolent approaches.
Many traditions valorize nonviolence as morally superior to violence. The Sanskrit term ahimsa means “without a desire to kill” (non-injury), and is a core ethical principle in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. Ahimsa was a guiding value for Gandhi who considered it the source of nonviolence’s power. As he put it, “Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.”
Gandhi had an influence on Martin Luther King, Jr. who confirmed the moral superiority and practical power of nonviolence. Like Gandhi, King believed that ends must be pre-existent in the means. In other words, you must practice the values you are trying to bring into the world. If your goal is a world free of violence, you must bring it into being through nonviolent means.
King’s idea of the Beloved Community provided a regulative norm or a moral guide for action that always centered the commitment to achieving justice nonviolently above the desire to exact revenge or to dehumanize the perpetrators of an evil system. He knew that meeting violence with violence would, at worst, cause an endless cycle of harmful retribution and, at best, prevent the conditions for reconciliation even if violence subsided.
As for the pure practicality of nonviolence, there are two things to consider. First, because the government maintains permanent, organized forces trained to use violence (i.e., the military, the police, ICE, etc.), a violent opposition is always at a disadvantage in terms of resources, training, and experience. Second, there’s compelling evidence that nonviolent opposition movements have been more successful than violent movements. Perhaps the best known statement of that argument is Erica Chenoweth’s TEDTalk on “The Success of Nonviolent Civil Resistance”.
To help us maintain a commitment to nonviolence, we can draw inspiration from the many examples of nonviolent movements that are achieving results right now. I recommend signing up for the newsletters of Waging Nonviolence and Nonviolence News. They report on successful nonviolent actions and often include resources and know-how that can be put into practice whatever your preferred form of organizing, protest, or civic action. Plus, it’s very encouraging to learn about people around the country and around the world who are making change happen every day.
AM: You’ve written extensively about Costa Rica, and my husband and I traveled there in February. It was an item on my bucket list, as I’m fascinated with the abolition of their military in 1948. I was deeply moved by the peaceful lifestyle. We left the resort to drive into the surrounding towns and speak to the locals. My husband is fluent in Spanish, and I can hold my own in easy dialogue. Everywhere we went, the people embraced their “pura vida” lifestyle. Yet, I can’t help worrying about them. While the U.S. is obligated to help in the event of an invasion (Rio Treaty of 1947), I’m not sure it would do so with this current administration. Your thoughts?
BP: Costa Rica is an exemplar of security through peacemaking, and the good news is that the bold and innovative approaches it has taken over the years now make an invasion extremely unlikely.
Twice after it abolished its army, exiles launched invasions (1948 and 1955) with the intent of overthrowing the government. Although Costa Rica invoked the Rio Treaty each time, the invasions were quickly put down by its civilian security force and without armed intervention by other countries. A key outcome was a treaty with Nicaragua, its neighbor to the north, pledging to prevent insurgents from operating in their territories or from crossing their shared border. No invasions have occurred since then.
It made two more breakthroughs in peacemaking in the 1980s. First, in order to avoid U.S. pressure to support its efforts to violently overthrow the Nicaraguan government, Costa Rica announced a policy of Perpetual Unarmed Neutrality in 1983. It then denied the U.S. Navy permission to operate within its territorial waters along its border with Nicaragua and shut down Contra rebel bases and U.S. covert operations in Costa Rican territory. These moves showed that even without an army, Costa Rica could defend its interests and protect its sovereignty.
Second, the declaration of neutrality established a moral high ground that prepared Costa Rica for a role as a trusted and neutral broker for peace in the region. President Óscar Arias used this status coupled with active diplomacy to get the leaders of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua to end their conflicts and civil wars. The outcome was the Esquipulas Peace Agreement, an unprecedented peace treaty achieved by the countries themselves without outside mediation and despite U.S. interference in the process.
For these efforts, Óscar Arias won the Nobel Peace Prize, and the Esquipulas treaty, which is still in effect, continues to make the possibility of an invasion highly unlikely. To top it all off, Óscar Arias convinced Panama, Costa Rica’s neighbor to the south, to abolish its army in 1990, further shoring up Costa Rica’s security. Talk about waging peace!
But let me get back to your question, which was also about the U.S. Unfortunately, the U.S. has done more than any other country to destabilize the region around Costa Rica. It has launched strikes against civilian vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific, invaded Venezuela to kidnap its president, threatened to reclaim the Panama Canal, threatened to invade Cuba, and threatened to launch strikes inside Mexican territory.
Although there is no sign that the U.S. poses a direct threat to Costa Rica, there’s an argument to be made that its belligerent actions are the biggest threat to peace and international law in the region.
AM: It seems there are signs that more people, here in the States (Trump’s approval polls and No Kings rallies) and worldwide (the Orban upset), are becoming disillusioned with authoritarianism. Do you agree? Can you see a shift happening? (please oh please, say yes)
BP: Well, I hope you’re right! What I can say is that we seem to be at a moment in history that only comes along every so many generations, and that is a moment when things can actually change in significant ways for better or for worse. It’s a time when people of good will working and organizing together can – and must – affect the outcome.
Gramsci called this kind of moment an interregnum, the term for the inbetween time when one era is coming to an end and there’s uncertainty about what will replace it. As he put it, “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.” I think we see the old order under assault and morbid symptoms all around us, but it’s important to remember that the inbetween time is an opening for new possibilities, a chance to change things for the better in significant ways.
We can probably trace the full-blown onset of the interregnum to the 2008 Great Recession. Since then, we’ve seen movement after movement demand change. Here in the U.S. that has included Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, the Women’s March, #MeToo, Fridays for Future, the Sunrise Movement, March for our Lives, No Kings, and many others. Of course, something similar has been happening around the world from the Arab Spring through recent “GenZ protests” in countries including Bangladesh, Nepal, Chile, Madagascar, Bulgaria, Morocco, Peru, and others. These movements are demanding solutions to the problems the old order created but that it cannot, or will not, solve.
Here in the U.S., the starkest contrast in the search for new political solutions is between Trump and his dwindling MAGA base on the right and politicians like Sanders, AOC, and Mamdani on the left. The interregnum opened up the “political opportunity structure” that brought both of these political expressions to the national stage in a way that wouldn’t have been possible before 2008.
AM: Considering online and IRL cruelty on one hand and existential threats to peace – including from our own government, like the president’s threat of genocide against Iran – on the other, how can we keep fear in check and continue the work of peacemaking and social change?
BP: Well, we must accept that risks come with being public about what we believe and putting those beliefs into action. At the same time, we must remember that many others share those beliefs and are also willing to work together for change. There really is strength in numbers! There’s also strength in a common vision for change and a shared commitment to doing what each of us can to make change happen.
We have an opportunity to ground a vision for change in the shared values of a government that really represents the people rather than special interests. For example, many Americans support policies like single payer healthcare, national paid family leave, and free higher education. Right now, the political system has too many “veto points” where a small, powerful minority can block what the majority wants, and too many entrenched interests that financially back that minority.
This is a “system failure”, and the consequences are not abstract. People feel them every day in their own lives and in their communities. Many people have a sense that the system is rigged, that it is built to protect the profits and priorities of a few at the expense of the rest of us. This is especially acute with the financial strain people are under. It’s this sense of frustration coupled with vulnerability that is fertile ground for authoritarianism.
The good news is that because the system was built by real people, it can be changed for the better by real people, and people of good will organizing for change tips the balance toward renewed faith in democracy. This requires, for example, working to get big money out of politics, supporting candidates who will give us real choices and force a genuine debate about our national priorities, and pushing for more accountable, more representative government in general. The more we can organize for changes like these, the sooner we bring the interregnum to an end on our terms and reclaim the democratic promise of America.
AM: Many of my friends, family, and acquaintances have expressed real concerns about their physical safety regarding speaking up, protesting, and defending democracy. Thankfully, we’re not in a civil war in this country. Yet, we learn about more human rights abuses every day. Hundreds of people are participating in hunger strikes to protest inhumane conditions, for example, Delaney Hall in NJ comes to mind. (another reason to call our senators and representatives). Asylum seekers are being deported to dangerous countries. American citizens are attacked by ICE. It doesn’t take a deep thinker to imagine things getting much worse, particularly with the massive funding for ICE. Your specific goals: “working to get big money out of politics” and “pushing for more accountable representative government” and the others listed above are so important. Thankfully, there are good candidates running in the midterms.
So, one last question…During this 250th anniversary of our democracy, how do we encourage more people, specifically those who have remained on the sidelines, to vote, help others vote, and get involved in whatever way they can when conditions are legitimately overwhelming and so often scary?
BP: It’s a good question. The history of the past 250 years is the story of struggle after struggle to expand democracy. Given the very real forces working to undermine what’s been won, it can feel a bit overwhelming to see any chance of change. When a majority of people feel like the system is rigged and that it’s risky to take public action in defense of democracy, it’s no wonder so many people stay on the sidelines.
But here’s one thing that can help get folks back in the game: stop telling them to defend a status quo that isn’t working for them. Instead, we need to emphasize that taking action, including voting, is the essence of self-government – the simple, radical idea that we, the people, should actually be the ones in charge.
The reason things feel so overwhelming isn’t because we’re apathetic, polarized, or even scared, it’s because characteristics of our political system that were designed to limit democracy are being exploited to block the changes most of us want. When your rent spikes or you’re rationing prescriptions or you’re living paycheck to paycheck even though you have a middle-class job, that’s not a mystery – that’s a system built over time to benefit the powerful few while ignoring most people’s daily struggles.
To move past the fear, we must remember that democracy isn’t what we have; it’s what we’re fighting for. We aren’t just “voting”; we’re reclaiming our right to have a say in the decisions that affect our communities and our everyday lives. We encourage people by offering solutions at the scale of our problems, like getting big money out of politics, fighting for health care and education as fundamental rights, and shifting spending from militarism to rebuilding public infrastructure and bolstering programs of social uplift.
It’s easy to identify “bad leaders”, but we must start seeing the system as a set of institutions and policies that we can update and use to solve public problems. When we do that, that’s when the overwhelm turns into a plan. Let’s use this anniversary to demand changes to politics so that our elected officials actually answer to us and work on our behalf. Our strength lies in the power of numbers, so getting as many people out to vote and involved in campaigns for change is key.
AM: Many thanks for this! You’ve given us a solid rationale and a strong motivation to talk to as many friends, family, and neighbors as possible to encourage and help them vote with the intent to better our everyday lives.
Benjamin A. Peters, PhD, is the Director of the Global Scholars Program and a faculty member at the University of Michigan. Prior to that, he worked in Japan for fourteen years, where he was a Professor of Political Science, Dean of the School of International Liberal Arts, and Vice President of Miyazaki International University. His teaching and research are in the areas of the human right to peace and cultures of peace, Japanese and Costa Rican politics, and constitutional antimilitarism.
This piece first appeared on Ann’s Substack.
.jpg)
