homepage / contents / part 1 / part 2 / back / next

By Kumar Rupesinghe*

Learning to live together, to coexist, to learn to accept difference, and make the world safe for difference will be one of the great challenges for the 21 Century. Coexistence is a term that has been used synonymously in several contexts and used as a key phrase in the emergence of a number of great social and political movements. The key characteristic in the definition of the word coexistence is its relation with its ‘others’ and the acknowledgement that an ‘others’ exists.

Coexistence means learning to live together, to accept diversity and implies a positive relationship to the other. Our identities are defined in relation to the other. When relationships are affirmative and equal it enhances dignity and freedom and independence. When relations are negative and destructive this undermines human dignity and our own self worth. This applies to personal, group and interstate relationships. After experiencing two world wars and countless wars of destruction and genocide the promotion of coexistence at all levels remains an imperative for the 21st Century.

One of the basic conceptions in the history of Western culture in general, and of modern philosophy in particular is that the actual validity of a certain entity with its specific qualities exists only when it is recognised by another subjectivity. According to Hegel, the essence of his conceptualisation of the term is that ‘existence’ is already, fundamentally ‘coexistence’. This is true for individuals, groups and classes. Mutual recognition is required as a necessary condition (even as a constitutive one) for freedom and independence. There are many excellent examples of the struggle for recognition, and the assertion of independence in the history of social movements. A significant example is the struggle for coexistence between men and women from Patriarchy to the struggle for the emancipation of women and gender equality. The struggles against slavery, and against feudal bondage are well known. Today the struggle for coexistence continues with the transformation of the former Soviet Union, the peaceful revolution in Eastern Europe.

In the modern political vocabulary the term ‘peaceful coexistence’ has been conceptualised as a strategy of survival and existence between war in the literal sense and peace in the ideal sense. Peaceful coexistence in this sense means the peaceful relationship between states. With the development and the centralisation of the state, coexistence between states and the non-interference in the internal affairs of other states has been a central tenet of state diplomacy. It was Lenin who first articulated peaceful coexistence as a state policy of the revolution. During the early phase of the Russian revolution he used it to describe periods in which Soviet policy would abandon the all- out attack on every front against the non-communist world and replace it by the more subtle tactics of concluding agreements with some governments in some areas, while keeping up intense pressure elsewhere. The purpose of coexistence, according to Lenin, was purely tactical and the phase strictly temporary. By changing the nature of the attack and relaxing the pressure, divisions in capitalist states, which were always inherent, would be allowed to develop and thus weaken the enemies of communism.¹

However in the Cold War context ‘peaceful coexistence’ enunciated by Khrushchev made a strategic shift in focus where it was explicitly recognised that the continued conflict between the two systems would lead to the mutual destruction of the entire system. coexistence according to Krushechev meant continuation of the struggle between the social systems -but by peaceful means, without war, without interference by one state in the internal affairs of another. It will be a competition of the two systems in a peaceful field.²

Another shift in meaning came with the Bandung Conference where the concept of ‘coexistence’ was used with the aim of creating a more peaceful international environment. Nehru outlined his conception of peaceful coexistence between the two superpowers in terms of the Five Principles, or the Pancha Shila: mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, non-aggression, non-interference in one another’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit.³ Nehru was convinced that India might contribute to bringing about reconciliation between the United States and the Soviet Union through this ‘bridge-policy’ which was rooted in the Gandhian strategy of satyagrahya, or non-violence. Although these principles may now be regarded as aspirations of the newly emergent independent nations of a number of Asian and African states, the fact remains that they brought to the forefront the acknowledgement of this concept in international policy making.

Coexistence as a paradigm should not only relate to inter-state relations but intra-state relations as well. Coexistence between different peoples, races, religious groups, clans, tribes within a spectrum of identities is the great challenge for the 21st century. Coexistence between peoples has become an imperative in the next phase of evolution of civilisation. On the one hand the struggle for self-determination of peoples, a major factor in nationalist wars of the 20th century culminated in the completion of the decolonisation process. Currently the civil wars and ethnic identity conflicts are challenges to the existing state system.

There is a continuum of struggles for recognition of new identities and, of contestation and challenges to the unitary state. In some cases such contestation and war has led to the separation of states. Recent examples abound, such as the separation of Pakistan from the Indian polity, the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan and the recent breakdown of Yugoslavia. On the other hand there has also been the expansion of larger entities, where the expansion of the European Union is only one classic example. The formation of the European Union is a good example of the decision to suspend warfare, between the Great Powers. The work of Jean Monnet and others in crafting a normative framework, to develop peaceful coexistence between France and Germany, through economic co-operation and then to extend the concept to Europe as a whole provides an excellent example of recognising diversity and maintaining coexistence.

Identity, ethnicity and coexistence

When closely examined, the overwhelming majority of the nation states in our global community reveals significant internal cleavages based upon ethnicity, race and religion. The significance of these differences in the social and political process varies widely, as does the degree of saliency, intensity and politization of communal segments both within and between states. The most fundamental proposition after the proliferation of ethnic and identity conflicts, particularly after the cold war is the realisation that cultural pluralism is an enduring attribute of contemporary political life. There is no longer any justification for clinging to the belief that the array of processes commonly known as ‘modernisation’ would automatically lead to a notion of a single nation, or lead to the erosion of cultural solidarity, ethnicity or religion. Rather the reverse may happen. Social change tends to produce stronger communal identities. Studies, which focus on the individual as the primary unit in the analysis of conflict, point to the need for identity as fundamental to the survival and well being of the individual and the society in which that individual exists. Burton for example points to such complex and protracted conflicts as the Arab-Palestinian conflict, the Cyprus conflict and the Northern-Ireland conflict as being based on the need for identity which humans will seek to satisfy irrespective of contextual circumstances or degrees of coercion.⁴ The ‘basic human needs approach’ therefore sees the recognition of identity both as a universal need and as an essential requirement for individual development.⁵

There are of course detractors who are sceptical about the value and operational viability of using the concept of coexistence. One school of thought would argue that relations between contending groups couldn’t be changed, that they are primordial and not transformative. Others would argue that coexistence means accepting the status quo. A more powerful variant of this argument is that coexistence is a term used by majorities to assert dominance over the minorities. They would argue that hegemonic majorities would wish to retain their dominance by proposing forms of coexistence, which do not undermine their dominance. I would argue however, that coexistence between communities and groups is fundamentally a transformative relationship, which is dynamic and positive. The term implies that identity is a fundamental driving force in human development and that coexistence evolves from a minimum condition of recognising difference and accepting diversity and the mutual recognition of the other to a transformative relationship where communities over time may find appropriate mechanisms and institutions to coalesce and a higher level of meaning.

Approaches to promoting coexistence

There are a variety of approaches, which are currently being used in the promotion of aspects of coexistence between peoples. Some social movements have defined themselves as promoting conflict resolution or conflict management. Conflict resolution or management is normally defined as bringing parties to the negotiating table. Other variants of conflict resolution refer to the various methods and approaches developed in two track diplomacy where the efforts have been developed to support the formal negotiations process by complimentary approaches such as promoting problem solving approaches and working towards building peace between communities. Numerous efforts are being made, largely by citizen based groups to create space for dialogue to improve coexistence between communities. The environmental movement for example is a classic example of extending coexistence to nature so that nature is seen as an aspect of our planetary existence. The gender movement is another example where the focus is on recognition, emancipation, and the struggle for equality and freedom. Typically, the concept of conflict resolution means the steps taken to promote political coexistence between different parties to a conflict.

Conflict Resolution was however too narrow for those who felt that the concept implied merely a negotiated settlement between parties to a conflict. This approach it was felt did not involve peace building between communities. Often negotiated settlements would fail if due care is not taken to sustain building efforts between the communities. This is why another concept was then introduced, called conflict transformation. Conflict transformation implied a wider concept where the critical aspect of conflict resolution is the transformation of social relations between groups and identities in society. Another concept, which came into vogue immediately after the Cold War, was the concept of conflict prevention. Concerned with the proliferation of internal conflicts and civil wars within states and wars between peoples within a state, conflict prevention was introduced to mean the prevention of conflict before violence actually occurs. A more sophisticated variant of conflict prevention was the reduction of violence in any point in the conflict cycle. However this concept was also confronted with terminological difficulties. There are those who argued that the term conflict prevention presents a negative connotation, suggesting that conflicts are endemic to human coexistence and therefore necessary in the course of human evolution. However, what the concept was meant to imply was the prevention of violent conflict.

Building the basis for coexistence. Photo Oliviero Toscani.

Political coexistence and community coexistence

Policy initiatives that have been presented to stem conflict between communities have been directed towards institutional management in the highest echelons of governments and in the hands of the political elites. The biases and prejudices of party politics and populist policy often entangle these policies. Policy initiatives to address community coexistence have been far less a priority. Much of the inter communal conflict that exists in society today are due to policy makers resorting to the easier and less resourceful method of initiating policy directed at the centre with the hope that the ‘trickle down effect’ would reform community institutions in grassroots levels as well. They address only the needs of political coexistence through the implementation of constitutional safeguards and side stepping policy making with regard to community coexistence. A distinction needs to be made between the promotion of political coexistence and community coexistence. Political coexistence means the development of systems of governance which can better accommodate ethnic diversity and pluralism. This means the search for constitutional forms of governance ranging from federalism to forms of autonomy and self-governance. It may also take the forms of different types of electoral systems, which can best accommodate and balance ethnic groups in a society.

What is however distinctive about community coexistence is that often different groups, whether they are ethnic, or religious share a common living space, and thereby have to define their relationship to each other. How these relations are developed, sustained and nurtured is a major challenge for the 21st century. For it is at the community level that perceptions are developed transmitted and socialised to the other. According to Mari Fitzduff, ‘Earlier definitions of the objective of community relations work seem to have primarily concerned themselves with emphasising the idea of a harmonious existence between differing groups with the intended goal of integrating the minority groups into the wider community as quickly as possible. Later definitions of objectives have put a far greater emphasis on the idea of equality of basic rights and opportunity for all groups, whilst simultaneously encouraging cultural diversity, as being preferable.⁶

In an assessment of Community Relations Work in Northern Ireland Mari Fitzduff argues, ‘It is increasing recognised that such work focusing on differences e.g. of a political or theological nature in some instances is likely to be limited, unless work designed to facilitate free discussion within communities is carried out productively. If such intra-community work is not done, which is often the case because of fear and intimidation and lack of available structures through which to do the work - mutual understanding work is more likely to produce defensiveness and be therefore less effective.’

Building the basis for coexistence: education

An attempt to release the child from the confines of the ethnocentric straightjacket and to awaken him to the existence of other cultures, societies and ways of life and thought. It is intended to decondition the child as much as possible in order that he can go out into the world as free from biases and prejudices as possible and able and willing to explore its rich diversity.⁷

As the twenty first century draws to a close, countries the world over are preoccupied by the challenge of finding new and improved ways to educate their citizens for living in diversity in the next millennium. There are over 2 billion children who will inherit the earth.

The right to education is a fundamental right recognised by all countries. It is however a fact that still a majority of our children is without proper schooling and facilities. Therefore building a basis for coexistence is that every child has to have access to education and participate in making decisions about her education. Education and learning is a principle means of learning to live together. This means that the school becomes a major institution for teaching coexistence, multicultural learning. The International Commission on Education for the 21st Century in its report on education for the 21st century outline the 4 pillars of education, of which Learning to Live Together is identified as a central challenge. (See Introduction Education)

How can we inculcate the respect and need for existence and the need for coexistence amongst school children? The process of educating about coexistence needs to occurs on every level, from the informal level ranging from teacher’s colleges, to schools themselves; to community groups; governmental organisations to media and corporations; and all the informal modes including families, celebrities, writers and poets. It is clearly challenging in culturally diverse societies to reflect satisfactorily the needs of all socio-cultural groups in the curriculum. Adapting a common core curriculum to local needs and traditions is of vital importance, but potentially divisive. If social sciences and humanities curricula are to adequately reflect international, national and local concerns in today’s increasingly pluralistic, multicultural societies, curriculum development processes need to become more democratic, adopting decentralized approaches which permit input and participation by all interest groups.

Multicultural education is a viable means of social engineering drawing students to appreciate the plural societies from which they come.⁸ Teaching and learning are always cultural processes in that they encompass the dynamics of a particular social fabric. Although students learn better using examples drawn from their own cultures -retaining their own culturally specific examples-⁹ there is a growing need for multicultural education as an agent for helping to defuse deeply held mindsets, biases that have been infused by the conditioning of the environment of a particular culture as being an integral part of that person’s perception of self and others. However, if multicultural education is to succeed in its aims it cannot be a mere ad hoc program implemented at critical junctures of a conflict in a lame attempt to reconcile differences between conflicting social groups but should be a long-term project. Multi-cultural education deals directly with identity. Just as peace education was a reaction to Cold War politics, multicultural education should be looked as an essential tool developed to stem ethnic conflict.

An important instrument in promoting coexistence education is the curricula. At the end of the 20th century, it is more or less universally recognised that curricula should be open, active, flexible and intercultural. But the translation of this ideal into meaningful reality into schools and classroom is an enormous challenge in all countries. A core curricula needs to be adapted to local conditions and take account of local identities. It also requires a participatory approach to curriculum development. The stakeholders need to be enlarged beyond the policy makers in the Ministries of Education and be included and specialised education personnel, parents, teachers, community leaders, religious leaders and the students themselves.

The need for a policy shift

Conflict exists on every level of human behaviour - however this is not always reflected as a determinant in policy making. The fact that conflicting perspectives exist need to be legitimised and ways of living together must be found despite these differences. Whilst many people are involved in coexistence work, these initiatives are not always reflected at the policy level. Politicians, governments and opinion leaders must accept that coexistence is a legitimate goal. One suggestion is to set up a special department or Ministry of Coexistence in all countries as Ministries of Environment were set up in the 1970s.

Learning to live together does not fall from the sky. It is clear that coexistence is learnt behaviour, which requires a sustained process of learning both at school, within the communities and in society as a whole. This requires structures, and institutions which sustain and enhance coexistence through a multitude of projects and programmes. Further, it requires financing such efforts and a commitment by the central government. An excellent example of such efforts is the work of the Community Relations Council in Northern Ireland. Here the government commits resources to the Council to promote community coexistence. Such a model needs to be repeated in other countries. There needs to be government commitment and resources provided for the Council to be effective.

Another form of legitimation is through the work of municipalities and local government bodies. These institutions are in the front line of coexistence work. They are located in spaces where many communities live together. Here much can be done to develop understanding, through a variety of schemes and programmes. They can range from the provision of resources for supporting community centres where all communities can come to learn and play. They could be in the provision of encouraging games and sports amongst the various communities. There can be programmes for learning other languages, to encouraging encounters between the two communities and learning about each others history. Municipalities and local government bodies are also democratically elected bodies, which have the power and the resources to provide substantive support for community building work.

Donor organisation and foundations need also to be sensitised. The Abraham Fund is one of the leading foundations doing this work, supporting over 200 hundred initiatives on coexistence between the Jewish and Arab populations each year. (see case-study)

The principled method used by the programmes of the Abraham Fund seems to be to encourage encounters between the two peoples and two cultures. These encounters are encouraged at a variety of levels. Given the level of hostility, misperceptions, and trauma that the peoples have experienced these encounters are not easy and have to be managed with great facilitation skills.

It has been very clear to me in my very brief visit to Israel that the support for these grass roots efforts and initiatives has influenced the politics of coexistence. In fact these grass roots efforts will be the necessary building blocks for the politics of coexistence.

These encounters between the two peoples are not easy. Although the two peoples have lived as neighbours, many do not know or understand each other’s history, culture, and traditions. Therefore these encounters may result in the following dynamics:

• Confrontation: stating ones grievances and complaints;

• Understanding that each side has a point of view which needs to be recognised;

• Reconciliation where a higher understanding may be reached and friendships begin to be formed;

• Transformation where relationships of equality are manifested in the elaboration of joint projects at the level of the community.

The significance of the projects is that it promotes encounters and the two sides experience the transformation. A significant aspect of the projects is that the formulation and implementation of the project requires the participation of both sides. Therefore a prerequisite for funding a coexistence project is the requirement that both sides are represented in the decision making process.

Conclusion

Promoting positive coexistence between states and between peoples is a major challenge for the 21st century. There are fortunately today social movements, which have begun to grapple with these issues, both at the international and national level and at the political, and community level. What we are have argued is that political coexistence to be successful requires investment in coexistence at the community level. We need to accumulate the experiences, and the energies of a variety of citizen based movement, and build a multi-faceted approach to these issues. Social movements necessarily work on aspects of coexistence and it is the combination and the cumulative effects of these movements that will create the space for coexistence.

A principle pillar for coexistence is the education system. The education system requires a major paradigm shift in focus where living together in diversity becomes a principle value in the education of the child. We need to invest heavily in our children. This means that our attitudes towards education require fundamental reassessments where education should be seen as an interaction between the community, the school and the child. It is the relationship, which can create space for tolerance and the acceptance of diversity. Investments in the education of the child are a solid investment in ensuring a world safe for difference.

Notes

¹ Hugh Gaitskell, ‘The Challenge of Co-existence’, 1957 p.8

² The New York Times, 14 October 1959.

³ These ‘Five Principles,’ announced by Mr. Nehru at the Conference of Asian -African countries at Bandung in 1955, were accepted by all powers represented, including Communist China. They have also been incorporated into treaties made by India with its neighbours including Soviet Union and China.

⁴ Identity and collectivity p.122 Jabri

⁵ Jabri p.123

⁶ Mari Fitzduff (1991) Approaches to Community Relations Work. Community Relations Council, Belfast

⁷ Parakh B.(1986) The concept of Multicultural education. In S. Modgil, G.K.Verma, K.Mallick & C.Modgil(Eds.) Multicultural Education The Interminable Debate. S.Modgil London: Falmer Press, p.16-17

⁸ p.10

⁹ Geneva Hayp.9

*Kumar Rupesinghe joined the State of the World Forum as the director of the Coexistence Initiative after spending six years as secretary general of International Alert (UK), an NGO mandated to prevent and mitigate violent internal conflict. Previous to this, he served as director of the program on Ethnic Conflict and Conflict Resolution at the International Peace Research Institute. Kumar was appointed Co-Coordinator of the Program on Governance and Conflict Resolution at the United Nations University, Tokyo. A native Sri Lankan, he was intimately involved in the political life of his country and engaged in many efforts to seek a solution to the national conflict between the two communities in the country. He is a prolific writer, author and editor of over 25 books and numerous articles.

next  

Feedback please to j.verhoeven@euconflict.org