Structural peacebuilding begins with us, here

This presents a process of transforming unjust and unequal structures that cause violence to become peaceful structures. This process is known as structural peacebuilding.

To demonstrate this process of structural peacebuilding, this follows two narratives. The first one is on the Sumilao farmers who conducted a hunger strike to dramatize their plight and struggle against landlessness. The second narrative is on the People Power revolution in 1986 which toppled a dictator. Both narratives exemplify the alteration of systemic violence such as economic exploitation, landlessness, and political oppression to a more equitable resource sharing and broadening of democratic space. They also show the reconfiguration of social structure which embeds the durable hierarchical relationships among groups (e.g. landowners, farmers, state) in a social system.

What make a violent social structure are these hierarchical relationships and vertical inequalities that impede the satisfaction of basic human needs. Unless these kinds of exploitative relationships and inequalities are eradicated, a utopic system like structural peace will not arise. The main difference between structural peacebuilding and structural peace is that the former is a means while the latter
is an end.

While the hierarchical relationships among groups are enduring and strongly embedded in a social system, structural peacebuilding needs to create social strain, conflict, and disequilibrium among groups to make the relationships more horizontal. It entails an action that is a purposive and cognitive behavior and tasks. The first task is networking which links to outside of the oppressive structure. The second one is mobilization which is characterized by a collective action to challenge the unjust and unequal relationships and social arrangement. The third task is political education which can adopt Freire’s conscientization.

The application of psychological elements to structural peacebuilding include a sense of sacrifice and shared spirituality, practical tactics in facing the enemy, and leadership roles. Tangentially, this lays out the future research direction of structural peacebuilding and how psychology can contribute to that.

Both narratives have illustrated the struggle against structural violence of hierarchical relationships between the landowner and farmers and structural violence under authoritarian regime.

What the Sumilao farmers and People’s Power in the Philippines showed are models of structural peacebuilding. It demonstrated that structural peacebuilding through active nonviolence is possible in the midst of frustrations, disappointments and other options to pursue. Indeed there is a point and small victory in the struggle against structural violence. The Tiananmen Square in China, pro-democracy protest in Myanmar in 2007, Tibet demonstrations in 2008, Bangkok's standoffs in 2009 and 2010 are testimonies and cases that the tough work for structural peacebuilding in various contexts continues. The narratives have inspired me to engage in peacebuilding.

This pursuit, admittedly, is daunting. Would you join me? We can not simply be audience watching the events unfold. We have to take part. Come!