Peacebuilding, Peace Empowerment, and Peaceful Conflict Transformation

Peacebuilding, Peace Empowerment, and Peaceful Conflict Transformation:

Social, Political, and Economic Transformations in Romania and the Challenge Ahead

On March 1^st, 2001, the Peace Action, Training and Research Institute of Romania (PATRIR) was born. The first Peace Research Institute in Romania’s history, PATRIR is tasked with the challenge of addressing the social, economic, and political problems and difficulties facing the country, while working to organise, mobilise, and empower social actors at a variety of levels for the peaceful, constructive, and creative transformation of conflicts. As indicated by its name, the new Romanian peace institute has three core pillars for its activities: action, training, and research. A fourth pillar, dissemination, is also extremely important for reaching out to broad numbers of actors and individuals. The following article, written by Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen, Director of PATRIR, begins by outlining some of the core tools and understandings for working to address conflicts and promote peace, before exploring some of the major challenges and issues facing Romania.

Understanding Conflicts, Peace, and Violence:

Creating Building Blocks for the Road Ahead

Conflicts exist at all levels, within and between individuals, communities, countries and cultures. Conflicts are natural. They are experienced by people of every background, culture, class, nationality, age, and gender every single day. What is important, is not whether conflicts themselves are good or bad, but how we wish to deal with them.

War culture, and war provoking responses to conflicts focus upon conflict the destroyer. Conflicts are seen as a struggle between good versus evil, black and white, zero-sum, where the victory of one is based upon the defeat of the other, and one actor’s gain comes only at the expense of another actor’s loss. What peace researchers, peace workers, and others have worked over several decades to promote, is an alternative culture, and an alternative approach to dealing with conflicts–one based upon conflict the creator, recognising the positive, constructive, and creative opportunities available in any conflict situation.

The distinction can be likened to that between dukkha and sukha in Hindu religion. Dukkha is seen as suffering, destructive, negative, damaging, while sukha can be understood as ‘bliss’, perfect happiness, nirvana. A further illustration can be taken from the Chinese symbol for crisis, itself a combination of two other symbols: danger and opportunity. Crisis, or conflicts, can be understood as containing both possibilities: i) the deterioration of a situation or relationship to a negative, destructive dynamic bringing harm to one or all of the actors involved, and/or ii) an opportunity to reach towards a higher, more constructive, positive goal, working to transcend and overcome contradictions within a system, relationship, or culture.

Another assumption often made about conflict is that ‘conflict’ and ‘violence’ are one and the same. This stems from the belief that conflict and violence are indistinguishable, that violence is the only and best method of addressing conflicts, and that the only way to deal with confrontation or difference is to ‘win’, ‘destroy’, or to ‘beat’ ‘the other.’ The recognition that there are different ways of dealing with conflicts, and that violence is only one possible approach, one which is based upon a war culture and violence provoking response to difficult situations, is extremely important if we are to search and to find more creative, more constructive, and more viable approaches to dealing with conflict which seek to address and to transcend the underlying contradictions which are often at the root of conflicts between individuals, communities, countries, cultures, and within every single one of us.

A difficulty which results from automatically associating conflict with violence is that people may then assume that, if there are no direct or open acts of violence, there must not be any conflicts. This leads to journalists, politicians, ‘experts’ and others waiting until violence has already broken out before focussing on or trying to find a solution to a conflict. If a conflict has already reached the stage of violence, however, this is perhaps the clearest sign that it has been mismanaged, poorly addressed, or simply ignored until the situation has deteriorated to a destructive level.

Johan Galtung, creator of peace research as an academic discipline, Director of Transcend, a peace and development network for conflict transformation by peaceful means, and author of the United Nation’s historical first-ever manual on peaceful conflict transformation, has developed the ‘violence triangle’ pointing to the distinction between three separate types or forms of violence, all of which are closely inter-related.^[1]

The first of these, direct violence, refers to physical acts of violence such as a man beating his wife, children fighting at school, or soldiers going to war. One of the clearest and most obvious types of violence, beamed into our living rooms through the evening news and brought to us daily in many different forms, direct violence is itself only one possible form of violence. In one of its most extreme forms, war, direct violence has resulted in the deaths of 40 million people since 1990, nearly equal to the total number of those killed in the Second World War. If we were to add to this the number of people killed in the world in the last decade through direct intra-personal (suicide) and direct inter-personal (murder, infanticide) violence, the number would be at least two or three times as high. Direct violence also includes such categories as abuse, rape, battery.

The second corner of the violence triangle, structural violence, can often be far more difficult to recognise and understand. This is the violence built into the very social, political, and economic systems which govern societies, states, and the world. It is the different allocation of goods, resources, opportunities, between different groups, classes, genders, nationalities, etc., because of the structure governing their relationship. It is the difference between the possible/optimum, and what is. It’s relationship to direct violence is similar to that of the bottom nine tenths of an iceberg, hidden from view, while only the tip of the iceberg juts out above the waterline. Examples of structural violence are apartheid, patriarchy, slavery, colonialism, imperialism, the former state authoritarian regimes of Eastern Europe, and today’s global imperialism/capitalism. In terms of lives lost, misery, and human suffering, structural violence is by far the most devastating and destructive of the two forms of violence explored so far. The approximately 30 million people killed each year from hunger, six times the total number of Jews killed in the holocaust, is only one of several extreme expressions of structural violence. The US$1 trillion spent each year on the production of armaments and weapons (the equivalent of US$2 million per minute), instead of on schools, health, social infrastructure, and development, is itself the result of a structure of violence (and clear political decisions by cabinets and governments) which favours the production of instruments of death over investment in the creation or improvement of life.^[2]

The third form (or htmlect) of violence is cultural violence. On one level, this can be taken to be those htmlects of a culture which legitimise or make violence seem an acceptable means of responding to conflict. The idea that violence is ‘normal’, ‘ok’ or even ‘macho’ are all expressions of cultural violence. The degree to which violence has begun to pervade almost every htmlect of our cultures–particularly music, television, and a great deal of popular literature–is an expression and a form of cultural violence (and not simply a reflection of ‘what is’ as is often put forth).

On a deeper level, however, the concept of cultural violence is important in understanding how a community or individual views themselves in relation to themselves, to ‘others’, to their community, and the world, and how this may affect our responses to conflict. Whether or not a nation or group believes itself to be ‘chosen’ (by God, History, Race, Nation, Civilisation, Gender, or the Market), superior to ‘the other’, viewing the world as black vs. white, a struggle of good against evil, zero sum, with only one possible outcome, win/lose, will affect whether it chooses to respond violently or constructively when faced with conflict. ‘Dehumanisation’ of the other, making them seem somehow ‘less,’ ‘unworthy’, and ascribing to them entirely negative, self-serving, or even ‘evil’ motives are also components of cultural violence. Racism, xenophobia, and the cultures of imperialism, patriarchy, and neo-liberalism are all expressions of this (though often also the result of insecurities and fears on the parts of those who promote them). The Dichotomy-Manicheism-Chosenness formula expresses this well. A further indicator can be found in a community or nation’s ‘collective memory’, focussing upon shared myths, together with moments of trauma or glory which are celebrated in its history.

No culture is entirely black or white, entirely violent or peaceful. Just as there are elements of cultures of violence within almost every culture in the world, so are there elements of peace culture. Rather than black/white, the Chinese symbol of yin and yang is more appropriate for this conception of the relationship between cultures of peace and cultures of violence. When applied to religion, this can help us in recognising that the differences between the hard (a wrathful, revengeful, God the destroyer, together with judgement, excommunication, and wars against infidels and heretics) and soft (the meek shall inherit the earth, turn the other cheek, kingdom of heaven on earth and within every single one of us, do unto others as you would have done unto yourself, he/she who walks with peace, walk with him/her) htmlects within a religion are often greater than the differences between different religions (or even cultures).

As a side-note, the distinction between ideology and cosmology is important. Ideology can be understood as those systems of thought and frameworks of understanding consciously constructed and adhered to in order to formulate our understanding(s) and interpretation(s) of the world (or our community or Self), how it is, and how it should be. Cosmology, however, exists on a deeper level. Again, the idea of the nine-tenths of the iceberg beneath the surface, hidden from sight, is an appropriate metaphor.

Cosmology is akin to our ‘collective subconscious’, to borrow from Freud and extrapolate from the individual to the community. Cosmologies, also known as deep cultures, are made up of those ‘assumptions’ and unquestioned beliefs passed on to or inherited by people as members of a community. They are our underlying values which provide the soil from which our ‘conscious’ values are developed/expressed. Some of the examples provided above when exploring cultural violence can be taken as clear expressions of assumptions which often fall under the category of a people’s or community’s cosmology. Making these assumptions clear, and understanding how they affect and influence our actions and decisions, is an important step in working to promote peaceful and constructive approaches to the transformation of conflicts.

These three categories, direct, structural, and cultural, can also be useful when thinking about peace, helping us to identify: i) direct acts in support of peace and conflict transformation such as dialogue, active non-violence and non-violent struggle, and the refusal to surrender to or to allow injustices, oppression, and violence/cruelty to take place, ii) structures which provide for the needs of all members of a community, providing opportunities for individuals and groups to develop to their full potential, not exploiting, oppressing, or denying rights to any one or group of individuals, and iii) cultures of peace which promote peace as a value, which respect and celebrate differences and which protect/promote the political, civil, social, economic, and cultural rights of all individuals, communities, and groups, and which are inclusive (by choice and dialogue rather than by force), rather than exclusive in vision. These are only some examples. Dialogue and further reflection can provide many more.

Another important tool for understanding conflicts, also pioneered by Johan Galtung, is the conflict triangle. This time, the three points of the triangle are A (attitudes), B(behaviour), and C (contradiction).^[3]

Attitudes refer to how parties to a conflict feel and think, how they perceive ‘the other’–with respect and love or contempt and hatred–, their own goals, and the conflict itself. Behaviour refers to how parties to the conflict act in the conflict–seeking common interests and constructive, creative action or seeking to inflict loss and pain on ‘the other’. Contradiction refers to the actual issue(s), and what the conflict is about. Perceptions of the contradiction or issues at the root of the conflict often differ between parties to the conflict. More often than not, they are almost entirely obscured and hidden, as parties and actors–including the media–on all sides prefer to focus upon attitudes and behaviour, either their own (usually portrayed in a positive light) or ‘the other’s’ (usually portrayed in a negative light).

When discussing with participants and parties to conflicts in dialogues and training programmes around the world, some of the attitudes which people often describe themselves as having when in a conflict are ‘fear’, ‘hatred’, ‘insecurity.’ Behaviour in conflicts, particularly where structural and cultural violence are rife, is often violent, seeking to reach a desired goal or goals through force, or to enforce/impose one’s views upon another. This is further promoted through most mainstream or ‘realist’ interpretations of the concept of power, ie. the ability to force another to act in a certain way. Power with or power for are completely ignored/excluded, as a war culture focus upon power over (and with it, the concepts of domination, control, rule by force and ‘might is right’) is accepted as normal. The contradictions underlying conflicts, and what the conflicts are actually about, are (or at least can be) numerous, with any one conflict often involving several contradictions or issues, and with several conflicts often overlapping and intertwining within any one space or time. What is important, indeed what is crucial if any approach to peacebuilding and constructive conflict transformation is to be successful, is that the issues and contradictions be identified and addressed in a way which leaves all parties feeling included in the solution, and which doesn’t deny, ignore, or reject the basic needs of any involved.

Ideologies and philosophies have developed which address each of these different ‘points’ of the conflict triangle. In a simplified form:

The Liberal Focus – on attitudes/belief systems. The answer to conflicts lies in getting people to love each other, making parties/actors more civilised, enlightened, reasonable.

The Conservative Focus – on behaviour/action, seeking to suppress action seen as negative, threatening to the system, through law, imprisonment, by putting more police on the streets, and more ‘criminals’ into jail.

The Marxist Focus – on structures, seeing the solution to conflicts in transforming structures of violence, injustice and exploitation.

The problem which may arise: exclusivity, focussing upon any one of the corners to the exclusion of the others. One possible solution/approach: both/and rather than either/or, a good approach for conflicts and peace in general. This is done by organisations such as Transcend, the ICL/Praxis for Peace, the Transnational Foundation for Future and Peace Research, and the Peace, Action Training and Research Institute of Romania, amongst others, which recognise that conflicts can (and do) arise at any of the three points, and can be reinforced, escalated, and also transformed and diminished, at any of the three points. Constructive and lasting transformations of a conflict must address all three corners of the triangle, attitudes, behaviour, and contradiction, if they are to have any chance of success. A basic formula for peace by peaceful means:

- for attitude(s): empathy

- for behaviour(s): non-violence / peace struggle

- for contradiction(s): creativity

A problem with this: our educations and up-bringing often do not equip us for the task. History classes in schools focus upon wars, violence, and the history of elites (Emperors, Kings, Queens, Generals, Presidents) and treaties (often to end wars started by Emperors, Kings, Queens, Generals, and Presidents); the media focusses upon violence, and decisions taken by elites, and often those supporting war or labelled as ‘extremists’, denying focus to alternative visions, options, choices, proposals to transform the conflict(s) peacefully and those working for peace rather than violence, and; structures and cultures which (re-)enforce hierarchy, the power of elites (generally middle-aged men), exploitation, inequality, militarism, and violence.

The challenges are certainly there, and may often be daunting/overwhelming (leading to apathy, pessimism, disempowerment, and the belief that ‘I/we can’t do anything about it). The history of wars in the last years, decades, centuries provides ample evidence of what is done when these contributors to violence are left unaddressed, unchallenged. What is necessary, therefore, is to address them, to transcend violence-provoking and violence-enhancing approaches to conflict/life, and to equip ourselves, to empower people (‘I/we can!’) with the tools, skills, and knowledge, not to mention structures (or lack of them) and cultures to promote peace. Conflict the creator over conflict the destroyer.

An important tool for this: Diagnosis-Prognosis-Therapy. Borrowed from health/medicine, emphasising the relationship between health–the desired goal–and peace, with disease–that which is to be avoided, prevented, transcended–with violence. Diagnosis involves analysis and mapping of the situation/conflict. Who are the actors_ What are their goals/needs/interests_ This should be done for all the actors/parties, not excluding anyone. This also involves analysis using the A-B-C triangle–attitude, behaviour, contradiction–for all the actors involved in the conflict, and the D-S-C triangle–direct, structural and cultural violence–for the conflict itself. What is important_: That the mapping of the conflict be as thorough and complete as possible. Complexity rather than simplification is preferred, with the more actors and interests involved the greater the opportunity to come up with a creative approach to transforming the conflict. Go beyond the simplistic, war-culture/text-book explanation of conflicts which tend to:

1. reduce the number of actors to two: A and B

2. reduce explanatory factors to 1: the ‘bad’ side’s evilness or strategy

3. reduce attitudes to ‘white’/‘black’, ‘good’/‘evil’

4. present a Manicheistic vision of the struggle: between Good vs. Evil

5. reduce the “other”: dehumanisation, demonisation

6. personify the conflict: Iraqi conflict to Saddam Hussein

Somalia to Mohamed Farah Aideed

Yugoslavia to Slobodan Milosevic

Romania’s problems to Ceausescu

Terrorism to Osama Bin Laden

7. reduce methods of struggle/dealing with conflict: to violence (D,S,C)

8. reduce possible outcomes: win/lose; either/or

A good diagnosis should contain as complete a mapping as possible of i) the conflict formation, and ii) the conflict history, or the life of the conflict. The first, the conflict formation, should include all actors and parties to the conflict, not just those within a country/conflict zone. An analysis of the wars in Bosnia which focusses only upon the Serbs, Muslims, and Croats, without addressing the involvement of outside powers (the US, EU, Russia, Iran, etc.), is simplistic and cannot lead to a proper understanding and analysis of the conflict or what pushed it in the particular directions (ie. violence) that it took. Analysis of the conflict formation, therefore, should include all parties and actors involved in the conflict. This also means, peace actors, and those affected by the conflict, not simply those fighting or using violence to pursue their goals. Peace Actors should be identified, as well as Violence Actors, with groups/individuals in one category often in the other as well–with those using violence potential actors for peace, and those working for peace potentially party to violence. Conflict history involves the entire history or life of the conflict, not simply beginning and ending with the beginning and ending of violence. What are the roots of the conflict_, what is it’s history_, how did it reach the stage it is at now_ It is important that how parties to the conflict view the conflict history be respected and understood, though it should not lock or prevent the peaceworker from different interpretations/analysis. What matters, is that the parties/actors to the conflict do not feel that their perspectives/opinions have been dismissed, something all too common in most conventional approaches to ‘peace’ making.

Prognosis–Where is the conflict going_ What might happen_ Given our diagnosis of what the situation is, what are possible futures, outcomes. This can be important for recognising both the potential damage/devastation which can be caused by not addressing a conflict constructively, as well as the possible visions, ideas and possibilities for conflict outcomes.

Therapy is, in many ways, the most important and the greatest challenge. For a particular therapy or therapies to the conflict to be successful, they must be based upon good diagnosis and prognosis. Just as in health, good therapy, what should be done to return or to go towards health/peace, must be based upon good diagnosis of what is the disease/cause of violence, or what is preventing, standing in the way, of health. Therapy are the proposals, ideas, suggestions for how to transform the conflict creatively, nonviolently, and constructively, to secure the needs of all actors/parties to the conflict. They are the strategy/vision or road-map, of how to get from here (violence, conflict, non-peace), to our desired goal, peace. Therapies, however, cannot just be imposed upon a conflict from above (leaders, elites, politicians, generals), or the outside (outside leaders, elites, politicians, generals). They must be based upon developing real and concrete proposals that will be meaningful to those involved in the conflict and those living in communities affected by conflict. Part of successful therapies must be to make peace practical, ie. to develop strategies/actions to transform the conflict which will be meaningful for people in their every day lives, which will be based upon participation, mobilisation, and empowerment for peace, rather than simply serving to re-enforce structures of domination and control by elites. Therapy, therefore, must be creative, and appropriate to the conflict. One of the best ways to arrive at this is through dialogue, or rather, not just one dialogue, but thousands, at every level of society, repeated over and over again, coming up with as many ideas, and actions, for peace as possible.

This is the challenge for peaceworkers, students, journalists, politicians, mothers, fathers, soldiers, indeed, every one of us. It is the challenge which the Peace Action, Training and Research Institute of Romania was created to address.

From Theory to Practice:

Addressing Conflicts in Romania, and building the force and challenge for Peace

Dialogues with students, professors, villagers, politicians, priests, bankers, NGO (Non-Governmental Organisations) workers, and foreign diplomats to Romania since 1997 have highlighted several of the core conflicts/challenges/difficulties facing the country and the individuals and communities who live in Romania.

In a recent training programme on “Peacebuilding and Conflict Transformation” held on March 24^th in Tirgoviste and organised in cooperation between PATRIR and the Social Work Faculty of the University of Tirgoviste, 24 participants (18 students, 2 professors, 2 doctors, and 2 NGO workers) were divided into 4 groups and given 1 hour to discuss the following three sets of questions:

1) What are the conflicts/challenges/difficulties facing Romania and within Romania_ What conflicts exist_ What are the problems that you think are wrong with what is now happening_

2) How would you like Romania to be_ What are your ideas of a ‘healthy’ community_ What type of community and opportunities would you like_

3) What can, and what needs to be done to get from here to there_ What can I/we do_

Answers to the first question in particular were similar to the views expressed by many individuals throughout Romania. Following is a summary of some of the perspectives and points offered by participants in the course, and some of the core issues they identified:

- A weak and/or worsening economy. People don’t feel that they have the opportunity to carry out work that is meaningful to them, or to be able to provide for themselves and their families on the salaries now available. The economic situation in the country, for large portions of the population, continues to deteriorate. In 1998, Romania’s gross domestic product (GDP) was 76% of what it had been in 1989. Large numbers of Romanians, particularly younger Romanians, believe that the only way for them to ‘get ahead’ or to improve their quality of life is to go abroad, ie. to seek work in Western Europe, North America, or elsewhere. A foreign diplomat has recently commented that, if given the chance today, 68% of Romanians would leave immediately.

- A corrupt or inefficient government. Regardless of the political party in power, large numbers of Romanians feel that those in government/parliament do not really represent them, or are not effectively addressing the major challenges and problems facing the country. Added to this, is the fact that a number of those in positions of political power in Romania today are the same individuals who earlier held positions of political power in the previous authoritarian regime. The average citizen has difficulty seeing how she/he can influence decisions taken by those at the top echelons of power, or to make those in government/parliament responsible and answerable to those who have elected them. Politicians, rightly or wrongly, are often viewed as seeking their own personal benefit and are sometimes seen as self-serving, corrupt, and/or inefficient.

- An oppressive, corrupt and incompetent bureaucracy and civil service. While many working in the Romanian civil service and the bureaucratic structures of government are honest, hard-working, and committed individuals, a feeling often experienced by many Romanians who come into contact with the bureaucracy of the country is that it is ‘overwhelming’, ‘oppressive’, and a barrier to any major changes or positive developments. From acquiring basic documents such as passports and identification papers, to registering private companies or NGOs, those working in the civil service or bureaucracy often expect to receive bribes or ‘gifts’ to carry out the basic functions which they have been hired to do. A very frequent experience, shared by many, is that of receiving several different replies to the same question depending on the individual in the local administration asked, or even the mood of the local official in responding to the question. Decisions taken by the authorities are often arbitrary, and contradictory, making it difficult for people to understand what can or should be done.

- Poor Quality of Teaching and Education. A complaint often heard, particularly from students at the university level, regardless of faculty or discipline, is the lack of seriousness, competence and/or commitment often shown by many of their professors. Whether in their failure to even show up for classes, their habit of reading their lectures directly from pre-prepared or plagiarised materials, their inability to answer questions or make allowance for different perspectives, or their failure to respect or pay attention to the needs and interests of students, many professors give their students a feeling of disempowerment, and of gaining little or nothing in the years they have spent on their education. One student from what is regarded as one of Romania’s leading faculties of economics suggests that at least 95% of his fellow students are unhappy with the education and teaching they receive. The one-dimensional approach taken to many topics, and an overly narrow and purely theoretical content, with little or no allowance for what happens in reality, or for providing students with skills and tools necessary to work in the field, is a common short-coming. Identification of these problems should not be limited to the university/tertiary level, however, as they are frequently experienced in elementary and secondary schools as well. Students also bear a degree of responsibility, as large numbers show little or no willingness to seriously apply themselves to their studies, often falling into many of the same traps as their professors, plagiarising or regurgitating the work of others and reproducing without independent thought, reflection or analysis the materials and instructions they are provided with.

- Overall Lack of Competence/General Inefficiency. People feel an overall lack of competence and efficiency in the way many things are run, and in the qualifications of people carrying out different jobs and tasks. This is broader than just the focus on government and public administration/civil service, and extends to almost all sectors of the economy. Often because of lack of training, shoddy workmanship, poor quality, and negligence/ineptitude, services and goods are provided in a sub-standard way.

- Brain Drain. Referred to in the comments on the economy and both a product of and contributing factor to almost all the other issues discussed here, is the fact that many of Romania’s most capable, educated, and driven individuals are leaving the country to search for opportunities elsewhere (in North America, the EU, Australia, etc.). While this provides a very significant boost to the economies of these other countries in terms of human capital and resources, it is a drain upon and major barrier for Romania. Though understandable in personal terms for those seeking a ‘better life’, it is a significant cost for Romanian society as a whole.

- Corruption. A problem at many levels of society, from government and politics to economics, education, the medical system, the police, etc. Whether the case of demanding/expecting gifts for ‘services rendered’, refusing to carry out a job without a direct bribe (‘spaga’), nepotism, avoidance of taxes, or political acts in support of large donors, corruption, in one form or another, is endemic at many levels in Romanian society. Though not as severe or extreme as in many countries, it is still a barrier to the efficient, transparent, and honest functioning of the country/community.

- Mentality/Little or Weak Solidarity within the Community. One of the most important challenges/barriers pointed to by students and others throughout Romania is what is referred to as the ‘mentality’ of people, and the lack of solidarity between individuals, groups, and communities within the country. ‘Mentality’ is itself a very vague term, and in part refers to other related concepts addressed above and below, such as corruption and failure to assume responsibility. ‘Mentality’, however, is not something pre-determined or innate, but the result of the difficult situation in which people are living, a situation in which many see little prospects for improvements and changes for the better. Lack of solidarity addresses the absence of unity, cooperation, fellowship, and support for and between different groups. A result of being fractured, fragmented, and separated, with little or no knowledge and information about what is happening to different groups or in different parts of the country, and a product of increasing individualism and ‘individualised misery.’ This is also reflected in a lack of solidarity with those suffering and experiencing hardships both within the community and internationally, again in part a product of lack of meaningful information, relationships and contact with what is happening in other parts of the world (understood here as including more countries, cultures and people than just those of the EU and US). A recent exception or challenge to this could be seen in the unprecedented generosity and solidarity shown by many in response to the floods which devastated parts of the country in April 2000.

- Failure to Assume Responsibility. For one’s own actions, problems in society, and what needs to be done to make things better, constantly shifting or placing the blame upon someone else. Also amongst politicians, businesses, and intellectuals who fail their responsibilities in those capacities.

- Lack of Professionalism in the Media. Little serious reporting and analysis of events. Media in Romania today is often simply a copy of media in various countries of Europe and North America. As such, it also suffers from many of their shortcomings, ie. an inability to look at what is behind a story, or what causes certain events, a focus on sensationalism, scandal, and stories about elites, as well as ‘personal stories’ focussing upon personal tragedy or success, but not exploring the context and the reasons why or ways to improve the situation. Overall, a media which promotes passivity, and surrender to what is, without helping to understand why it is, how it came to be, and what can be done. We would never tolerate a medical profession that limited itself to describing how people are sick and die, without seeking to understand the causes and offering therapies. We must expect the same from responsible journalists.

- Pessimism/Resignation/Indifference. Resulting from all of the above. The feeling that I/we can’t do anything, that things will continue to get worse, that the only way a person will be able to find a better situation is by leaving, or that no matter what one does it won’t have any effect. The other, even worse htmlects of this, are acceptance of what one knows or believes to be wrong/unjust, and indifference to the suffering and problems in society. All three of these can be found, to a greater or lesser extent, at almost every level of society in Romania today, and are particularly worrying amongst many young people and students.

To these problems/conflicts others must be added, including abuse and violence against women and children, discrimination between communities (Romanian-Romani, Romanian-Hungarian, Hungarian-Romani, both real and promoted by right wing/nationalist parties on all sides), high degrees of pollution and environmental destruction, and a lack of transparency. To all of these there are exceptions, and the important qualifying note: there are many excellent, creative, and hard-working people in the country who are working to address these challenges and make them better/transcend them. Romania has many highly intelligent, well-educated, and capable people, for all the short-comings that may sometimes be experienced with regards to the educational system. What is worrying and identified by many: that the trend seems to be moving away from what is positive and has the potential for improvement in society (at least for large portions of the population), and more and more towards what is negative, further fractioning and weakening society.

Changes for the better and for the worse can both be identified. The picture is neither completely black nor completely white. What is obvious is that there are many very substantial conflicts/problems which at least some or many Romanians feel are standing in the way of the country’s human and social development. What is also clear, even from the most cursory glance at Romanian life and society, is that the potential and resources, human and otherwise, within the country are great. What is necessary, therefore, is to seek to address these challenges, and to find creative, constructive, and viable approaches to organising, mobilising, and empowering the people and communities in Romania to transform the obstacles, barriers and conflicts which confront them and to work towards a desired state of ‘health’–a society in which all individuals and groups have the opportunity to meet their human and social needs.

Suggestions, proposals, and ideas for what can and needs to be done are extremely important and definitely necessary. Dialogues at every level, involving representatives from every background and part of a community, should be organised in villages, towns and cities across Romania, allowing people to discuss and work together to find solutions to the problems outlined above, and to identify other problems and other solutions. Let one thousand or one hundred thousand dialogues or ‘citizen’s forums’ flourish. What should not happen, is for the problems and solutions confronting the community to be appropriated or dominated by any one group, whether ‘experts’, ‘politicians’, ‘foreign advisors’, or ‘NGOs’. The problems and challenges facing the people of Romania are the responsibility of all people living in Romania. When discussing this in the group, one participant from the Tirgoviste programme exclaimed “what can we do_ We don’t have the power. Only those in government can address these problems.” A response to this would be that those in government are there for one of two reasons: i) because you/we have put them there, or ii) because you/we have failed to remove them. Citizens, individuals, within any community, always have the capacity to act, and to work, promote, build, create, and transform. The remainder of this paper therefore seeks to address some proposals and concrete ideas for what can be done, as well as a number of challenges which should be recognised, and approaches that may prove helpful.

NGOs and Civil Society– Building Communities of Action/Communities of Empowerment

The ‘formal’ NGO (Non-Governmental Organisation) sector in Romania has developed dramatically since the overthrow of the Ceausescu regime in 1989. While there are currently more than 27,000 registered NGOs, only about 2000 of these are really active on one level or another. A problem with the NGO sector as it has developed in Romania and many of the countries of South and Eastern Europe in the past ten years, however, is that is has been based almost entirely upon models and approaches imposed or imported from the outside (almost entirely the US and EU countries). While this has resulted in the growth of one particular type of social organisation, often making very important contributions to their communities, it has ignored almost entirely indigenous models and methods of social organisation which may be found in Romania’s background and traditions as well as alternative approaches and methods which might bring about more democratic, authentic, and meaningful participation by larger numbers and sectors in the community.

Indeed, one of the greatest weaknesses and challenges facing many NGOs in Romania today is that the people they are supposed to be ‘helping’, the people of their communities, are often not aware that the NGO (or NGOs in general) even exists. In addition to this, NGOs are often viewed with doubt and suspicion, and are frequently under- or little-appreciated. This is not to question the good intent and great amounts of hard work, dedication, personal sacrifices, and commitment by many NGOs and those working with them, but to recognise a basic reality and ‘stigma’ that NGOs themselves must seek to understand and work to overcome.

Part of this will have to do with how NGOs identify their constituencies: whether these are considered to be the foundations, donor agencies and foreign embassies which often provide them with a majority of their funding (a necessity–often–if the work is to be carried out), or the people of their communities. Too often, NGO programmes are written for them by outside ‘experts’ and the guidelines and objectives of donor strategies decided in Washington, Brussels, London, Berlin, and elsewhere, and not in consultation with, or, even better, dialogue with the people of their city/town/village.

Another major question is with regard to how NGOs see themselves: are they ‘experts’ trying to solve the problems of the community_ Are they above and separate from the community or are they themselves ‘part’ of it_ Do they understand themselves and their goals_ And, very importantly, do they work with communities/others as colleagues, partners, and collaborators, or simply as ‘target groups’–those who are to be ‘acted upon’ but not to act themselves.

NGOs must seek to reach out to broader sectors of Romanian society, to build bridges and alliances with groups, organisations, and individuals at every level, to strengthen solidarity not simply as a goal, but as a practice, through coalitions, dialogue, and joint-action. At the same time, other forms of organizing and social mobilisation must be strengthened and built up at every level. The ‘NGO Forums’ which have developed in Romania in the last years are excellent. ‘Citizens’ Forums’ as well would be even better. It is not necessary for someone to be part of an organisation to be able to do something to help to improve their community. People must begin to feel that they themselves, as well as together with others, are able to have a positive and constructive impact upon their community and the issues facing them in their lives. Democracy, real, meaningful, participatory, and active, and not simply that imposed by Brussels, Washington, and academics sitting in their offices or lecturing as self-appointed gods from the holy pulpits of their university positions, must be built up by the practice, and praxis of people themselves. From NGOs outside of, estranged from, or ‘above’ communities, to communities of action and communities of empowerment, with every single individual, alone and in alliances and solidarity together, forces for change and improvements. Concrete actions by NGOs and civil society actors in this direction would include: increased cooperation between organisations (including coalitions and alliance building–cooperation rather than competition–between organisations, and with and between other actors in the community, such as media, businesses, local administration, students, etc.), increased involvement and participation by members of the community in forming the goals and agenda of NGOs, greater transparency in the work organisations are doing, and strengthening of autonomous actors and community networks.

Students in Romania also have an important part to play. Unfortunately, they are often under pressures from many sides, from a lack of resources, materials, and information, to low standards of living, and, all too often, professors who take little or no interest in their development. A further serious crisis facing students and the education system as a whole today is the extent to which ‘teaching’ has become, in several fields, an extreme form of indoctrination, not seeking to make students more aware and to empower them to think critically and creatively themselves, but simply to ‘store’ and to memorise whatever information is ‘put into them,’ often from an extremely ideological, simplistic, and narrow point of view. In many cases, students themselves have internalised this, seeking to ‘get by’ or ‘survive’ their studies, or becoming devoted followers of one perspective or ideology, without real reflection, understanding, or learning.

The similarities between ‘teaching’ today and ‘teaching’ in many ‘Eastern bloc’ countries twenty or thirty years ago are in many cases powerful and should be recognised, understood, and critiqued. The major differences can be seen in the ‘refinement’ and ‘evolution’ of methods and forms of indoctrination (though there are also examples of creative and hard-working teachers/professors trying to bring the best to their students). Whereas previous generations’ ideology was often enforced as a form of service to the state, today’s (so-called) ‘intellectuals’ and academics–and, in many cases, students as well–can all too often be found prostituting themselves as the priestly class of ‘neo-liberalism’ and the ideologies and indoctrination of Western style ‘democracy.’ With little or no thought or reflection upon what is actually happening in the world, ignoring entirely any discourses or ‘realities’ which conflict with their own interpretations, all too many faculties (whether economic, political, social, or philosophical) prepare students to have little or no understanding of what is happening, and leave them with few or none of the necessary tools to think for themselves or do what they feel is important to work to challenge the many very real and extreme forms of injustice and inequalities that may be found today, whether in their communities or globally.

Students, therefore, must learn to begin to rely upon themselves, to rely upon each other, to search for good professors and find them and learn together from them wherever possible, to speak with and learn from people in their communities, and to try always to be radical (according to the etymology of the word, ie. to go to the roots), to be critical (also of themselves, their own actions, and ideas), and to be creative. This last is extremely important, for it is not enough to be able to describe or critique what is happening, one must also be able to come up with alternatives, proposals, and suggestions for what they think should be done, and, most importantly, to act upon them.

Stefan Cibian, a student at the Political Science Faculty of “Babes-Bolyai” University, has proposed and is working for the creation of ‘Students’ Parliaments’ to create a forum for discussion and action by students and to enable/empower students to address their grievances and work for what they feel is important, both with regards to changes or improvements in the education they receive, and also for addressing other issues and problems in the communities. Recent workshops and training programmes organised in Cluj by the Peace Action, Training and Research Institute of Romania have allowed students and teachers to come together and discuss openly what they think the problems and challenges are with regards to their education, and what they themselves can do in a constructive and creative way, together with their professors and others, to improve the quality of their education. ‘Student Forums’ might be organised, formally or informally, at schools, high-schools, and universities across the country, allowing students the opportunity to discuss together and put forward their views. Memoranda, communiques, or simple proposals could be drawn up stating what they feel/think about the education they are receiving and where/how they would like to see improvements, to be followed by dialogues with professors, administration, and community. The idea of creating a National Commission to investigate the quality of the system of education in the country, and to develop strategies and ideas for its improvement, coupled with and open to dialogue forums and participation by students, professors, local authorities, NGOs and other members of the community, may also be relevant. Above and beyond all this, building a feeling of responsibility and companionship amongst students and with their community is extremely important. Links with students internationally can also help, learning about what is being done, and what struggles are fought and victories won by students in other parts of the world, but this should not come or be done instead of ties, dialogue, attachment and solidarity with the local community. The answer, perhaps, as with many things, may lie more in both/and rather than either/or.

A great deal of the media and journalism in Romania today has deteriorated to a tragic, if not farcical extent. Whether based upon Italian talk-shows, Spanish and American soap-operas, or US/UK tabloid news, sensationalist, vacuous, and ‘mystifying’ reporting is often found in place of honest, meaningful, constructive, and empowering journalism. Newspapers, Radio Channels, and Television news all bear a responsibility. While positive news, and examples of honest journalists and news organisations fulfilling their responsibilities to the community can be found, a survey of large numbers of Romanians would most likely indicate the view that this is a minority/exception.

A possible response: that journalism and reporting is a business, or even that journalists are ‘objective’, ‘neutral’, simply presenting ‘what is’ or ‘showing people what they want to see’. The problem with this is that most media reporting rarely shows ‘what is’, preferring instead particular perspectives and analysis and ignoring/marginalising others. More work needs to be done to move towards a journalism and media of empowerment and responsible/honest reporting, going to the roots, presenting different perspectives, looking at therapy and solutions rather than simply diagnosis and problems (though these should not be ignored) and ending an overwhelming reliance upon ‘fluff’ or ‘sensationalist’ stories and talking down to people as if they were children. What can be seen as a positive factor: that there are many excellent and committed young journalists and students of journalism ready to take up this challenge. This must be strengthened and carried further.

Throughout, the importance of solidarity, cooperation, and working and learning together, feeling that we are a part of our communities, and that we have the power, opportunity, and also responsibility to act when we see or feel things that are wrong, has been emphasised. Community action, whether to address problems of environmental destruction and pollution, violence against women, children, and/or any other groups, or conflicts at whatever level, is an important and necessary part of community empowerment. This can include dialogue sessions, non-violent action, demonstrations, protests, celebrations, awareness raising events, teach-ins, community volunteer work, and much, much more. Working to find ways–concrete ideas and strategies for what can be done–both to address specific problems and more general challenges, is extremely important. Celebration, of diversity (and, hopefully, unity in diversity), the many cultures, traditions, histories, peoples, ideas, dreams, and visions which make up Romania today, as well as nature and the environment, can also go a long way to empowering and enabling people. Looking at what people feel to be ‘good’, ‘right’, ‘beautiful’ is often just as important–and very necessary as a source of inspiration and hope–as understanding and analysing what is wrong and why. Dialogue, between and within individuals, families, communities, and every possible type of ‘group’, both in word and in action, is necessary to build a community, country, and world which is not based upon seeking to impose/enforce any one model/view, but to learn from, respect, celebrate, and appreciate what can be contributed from different perspectives, listening to and understanding why people feel/think the way they do, and trying to find solutions/alternatives to problems and conflicts which meet the needs of all the parties involved. The ideas and proposals put forward here are only a few. Many more are needed.

Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Therapy, with action, dialogue, and creativity some of the most important tools. This article has been one attempt to outline some of the difficulties and challenges which Romania, and, in many ways, the world, is facing, and to put forward some ideas and proposals of what can be done. Other interpretations and analysis are necessary, as are other proposals, suggestions, and ideas. This article, therefore, is an invitation–to students, farmers, workers, journalists, environmentalists, human rights workers, gays, lesbians, politicians, business people, authors, poets, musicians, professors, mothers, fathers, children, brothers and sisters alike–to dialogue, and a celebration and call to action. The challenges are there. The question is whether we are up to them.

^[1]^. Johan Galtung, Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means: Participants’, Manual, Trainers’ Manual, UNDP, United Nations Disaster Management Training Programme, pp. 110-119; see also Johan Galtung, Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization, London, Thousand Oaks, & New Delhi: Sage, 1996, and; Johan Galtung and Carl Jacobsen,, et al., Searching for Peace: The Road to TRANSCEND, London and Sterling: Pluto Press, 2000.

^[2]^. See the chapter on “Structural Violence” in Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen “The Struggle Continues: Peace Praxis”, forthcoming.

^[3]^. Johan Galtung, Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means: Participants’, Manual, Trainers’ Manual, UNDP, United Nations Disaster Management Training Programme, p. 14