Wars begin in the minds of men

NEW SRI LANKA: Addressing the 61st session of the UN General Assembly, President Mahinda Rajapaksa said that his Government is committed itself towards a "New" Sri Lanka where every Sri Lankan can live in peace, dignity and self-respect. He also recalled some meaningful words contained in the Constitution of UNESCO: "Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed."

These simple words have a great meaning. They reflect the idea that the individual is the locus of intellectual thought and cultural/political conditions. The words speak of the notion of individualism.

However, some social and political leaders believe of collectivism that holds the group more important than the individual and that the individual must subordinate himself or be subordinated by force to the goals and wishes of the leader of the group.

A local political big-wig once captured this thought perfectly: "This everybody-going-his-own-way stuff results in conflict and division." Although this gentleman is well respected in political circles on both sides unfortunately, it is precisely his way of seeing the situation that has helped to cause and lengthen one of the world's bloodiest conflicts in our own country. It's not that people are too individualistic in the modern world.

It is that they are not individualistic enough. That is, they are not taking responsibility for their self-development and welfare and therefore expect others to do so under some banner of collectivism. As a result, envy and conquest too often replace merit and self-improvement. Because there is strength in numbers, this "unselfish" view of things leads to group wild strikes and gang warfare-i.e., directly to the darker side of collectivism.

Whether we're talking about our own present conflict, the tribalism of African states, or the mechanisms of theocracies in the Middle East, collectivism creates and drives conflict. Once started, it also makes it extremely difficult for conflict to conclude.

Yet in all the pro-peace campaigns, we seldom hear any mention of the need to get the negotiators to retreat from their collectivist systems.

Ask any conflict-resolution advisor why he would not urge the conflicting parties to embrace individualism as a peace-promoting philosophy? Why, he would say such an attitude would be so selfish! Yet, if contemplated deep enough one would realize that without adequate individualism, conflicts do worsen.

Both guilt and justice become matters of the collective. Without a steady focus on individual rights as political pillars, all rights become collectivized.

For example, if you have trouble with your neighbour, the moral code is to deal with him as directly as possible based on the facts of the situation. In many other parts of the world, though, it's just as good to deal with any old member of his group, regardless of the facts.

Hence, if you have a complaint and cannot find the man responsible, then you take it out on his family, his village, his church, or his country. We see this in the Middle East, Central Asia, parts of India and everywhere.

In those places, the members of your enemy's group are likely to feel the same way about you and yours. Thus, cycles of revenge and collective retribution replace institutions of individual justice and redress. When it gets bad enough, entire nations go up in flames and down in ruins.

But how are we to encourage people to get along if their basic orientation remains collectivist in nature? How do you grow a better tree with a rotten root? It would be nice to see the whiz kids among peacemakers devote more thought to the subject.

But some people already have. For instance, Richard Goldstone, one of the "observers" of the Bosnia war crimes tribunal, nailed it when he said a few years ago, "If there is no individual accountability, then there is only tribal accountability." He ought to know. He was from South Africa. He had seen it from the inside out, decade after bloody decade.

If the political leaders want to help reduce conflict, then they should junk their collectivist orientation. They should throw out their theories of ethnic or religious diversity neo-tribalism. They should discard their recycled socialism.

Instead, they should work to explicitly promote the political philosophy of individualism and the institutions that can preserve it. Remember -collectivism has been the scourge of the 20th Century and would devastate the 21st if not defeated as a philosophical and political ideal.

If we are to make President Rajapaksa's "New" Sri Lanka become a reality, we must be Sri Lankans and Sri Lankans only. We do not need to carry brand tags of race, religion or political party. Such a philosophy will foster individualism and independence. And it would foster a form of society that gives the individual choice and dignity.

Each person would be able to question the views and actions of the leaders and would be a deterrent against the formation of absolute control and dictatorship. It's time for us to more consistently emphasize it.