Positive Vs. Negative Peace
Following a discussion in one of IHR’s Social Justice Cafes, I decided to take a deeper dive into what the terms positive and negative peace entail and what countries across the globe are setting the standard for effective human rights practice. Peace, as we know it, can be defined as freedom from disturbance or fear of violence. So, how then can we have two separate types of peace? The answer is simple. Negative peace is more in line with the definition we are familiar with, implying a lack of disturbance or violence in everyday life. Positive peace takes things a step further by implementing systems and institutions to proactively combat the disruptions of peace before they arrive.
Positive Peace Index
According to the Positive Peace index, a rating scale defined by the attitudes, institutions and structures that create and sustain peaceful societies, 163 countries ranked from best peace practices to worst across the globe. Ratings are based on eight separate factors known as the eight Pillars of Positive Peace, which portray the tolerance level of the country as pertains to varying areas. The pillars are as follows, Acceptance of the Rights of Others, Equitable Distribution of Resources, Free Flow of Information, Good Relations with Neighbors, High Levels of Human Capital, Low Levels of Corruption, Sound Business Environment and Well-Functioning Government. All categories were based on a 1 to 5 scale with 1 being extremely tolerable and 5 being not at all tolerable. During my study, two countries stood at the opposite ends of these spectrums, Finland and South Sudan.
Finland ranks number 1 out of 163 countries on the Positive Peace Index scale with an overall 1.43 out of 5. This implies that the country is most tolerable and actively encouraging the eight pillars among its citizens. A closer look at this country’s practices will be taken later in the article. Coming in at number 163 out of 163 countries on the Positive Peace Index is the country of South Sudan, scoring 4.4 out of 5. A 2023 study done by Amnesty International dives deeper into the human rights violations that led to this score. The study showed grave violations to the right to life, movement, safety, refuge and food with over 40% of the population experiencing food insecurity. A report done the same year shows Finland had a number of installments of systems to proactively combat human rights violations including introducing a bill to protect indigenous people, providing support to Ukrainian refugees and expanding LGBTI rights. Although the country still experienced some shortcomings, it stands as a shining example to other countries on the list of how to implement positive peace in its human rights practices.
America and Positive Peace
So, where do we stand on the list? American exceptionalism would have you think we were somewhere in the top ten at the very least. On the Positive Peace Index score, the United States of America is tied with Spain coming in at number 26.5 out of 163. Good Relations with Neighbors and Acceptance of Rights of Others are the two pillars that scored the highest with 3.049 out of 5 (remember 1 being extremely tolerable and 5 being not at all tolerable). A study done in 2023 by Amnesty International discusses why the US received this score, highlighting instances of gender-based violence, legislation against LGBTQI communities and nationwide restrictions on reproductive rights. A deeper look at the way lower ranked countries address and administer positive peace may have the potential to move us up in the ranks.
An analytical approach to how nations are administering positive peace requires that we look at the ground level to see what is working for its citizens. In the category of Good Relations with Neighbors, Amnesty International reported extensive support to refugees in Finland although they did shorten the time they would provide international protection. On the other hand, and in the circumstances of the US, a new legislative ban was put in place against asylum seekers altogether. Another example can be seen in the category of Acceptance of Rights of Others, the other category in which the United States scored as being highly intolerable. In addition to a bill put in place to protect the indigenous of Finland, the country also pushed forth legislature to make gender recognition available for members of the LGBTQI community. In the US report communities experience increased violence based on their true or perceived sexual identity, anti-LGBTI laws increased as well as discrimination against citizens of perceived Islamic or Jewish origin after the October 7th Hamas attacks.
While the solution to creating more positive peace systems should be apparent to leaders of nation states, it is difficult to convince a country that their ways are not the way, and social engineering cannot be a top-down process. As a member of society, it is our duty to speak up against the smallest injustices that we encounter. Simply treating a human like a human can have vast outcomes on the difference in relations between neighbors and accepting the rights of others. In Samuel Moyn’s, The Last Utopia, the author speaks strongly about how universal human rights is an idea that simply does not exist, but that we all wish to strive for. In the words of my favorite professor, Jordan Kiper, I encourage human rights advocates to continue to “do the good work”. Whether that work is in discourse, research, instruction, conservation or simply observation.
The idea of universal human rights is attainable through implementation of lasting systems of positive peace. Negative peace has too long been the standard in our history. Those in authority in our government may not want to know what these positive systems of peace look like in our society today, but the discourse has already begun. It is possible that the future of positive peace begins right here with us.
