A clear trend that can currently be observed in Western politics (and the traditional media): real peace cannot be achieved as long as there is a demand for the other party to first accept one’s own values and moral principles. So why is it so difficult to openly promote peace today? Or more precisely: why, even though there is constant Peace-talk, are concrete cooperative and diplomatic initiatives so scarce?
This reality invites the reflection on something deeper than current conflicts: a change in the way we conceive of political action. Peace seems to have become a secondary objective, subordinate to the search for moral superiority. Those who defend peace without clearly pointing to an “enemy” run the risk of being labeled naive or imprudent.
Table of Contents
From diplomacy to moralism
Classical diplomacy valued pragmatism, agreements and compromises. Today, however, many political leaders seem to feel more comfortable in the role of moral guardians than as facilitators of dialogue. Political language no longer seeks so much understanding as the clear differentiation of the “other”, making the adversary something more difficult to accept or understand.
This position, which places the adversary as the “absolute evil”, complicates any diplomatic effort. The problem: calling for a ceasefire or defending dialogue is easily interpreted as weakness or naivety, thus hindering intercultural cooperation and sincere attempts to achieve peace.
Are we prepared to give up the comfort of always being right in exchange for true mutual understanding? Leonard Glab Frontera, 2024.
The role of the media: War as normality?
The media, adapted to a dynamic of constant attention, tend to highlight the conflict more than the silent and complex search for diplomatic agreements. The problem here: war offers clear images and immediate emotions, while negotiations require patience and nuance, a more difficult story to explain, which creates an environment in which those who talk about peace must face a public opinion that can sometimes be hostile or skeptical of their arguments.
Political and social pressure towards firmness
In addition, there is considerable internal pressure (almost strategic) to show firmness in the face of any conflict. In a context of constant public surveys and social networks that rapidly amplify opinions, political leaders may feel that opting for moderation is risking their credibility or popularity.
The German philosopher Jürgen Habermas (linked to the historic Frankfurt School of critical theory) has already warned about how, in our society, moral presentation often overrides rational argument. This is particularly visible in certain political discourses that prioritize absolute justice over the pragmatic search for an end to violence, thus hindering real solutions.
Unfortunately, the military escalation (inflated budgets) of several governments has taken center stage in the political discourse, displacing diplomacy, as if it had to be the first and only option. Recent statements by European leaders, suggesting the elimination of “red lines” or the strengthening of military capabilities, are indicative of a stance that sees confrontation as more natural than negotiation.
The need for reflective silence
The key point: In the midst of these discourses and tensions, there is significant space to reflect on the direction we are taking as a society. Perhaps the key is not only to question whether peace is possible, but to ask ourselves if we are willing to make the effort necessary to achieve it: to listen, to understand, to cooperate and to engage in dialogue beyond our own certainties.
The important thing is that peace is not achieved by accident, but a continuous effort that requires courage, humility and empathy.
