The Pros And Cons Of A Liberal Peace

1158 Words3 Pages

Nowadays, the term “liberal peace” is used to picture the comprehensive set of policies characterizing the peacebuilding and state-building practices “[…] based on a perception of peace in which good governance, the promotion of human rights, the encouragement of civil society and a free market economy, and the advancement of the rule of law, and a viable and functioning state are crucial” (van Leeuwen et al., 2012: 298). The idea underlying the liberal peace is the Kantian formulation of perpetual peace: democratic states do not go to war with one another. This approach has been dominant and applied in conflicts affected states since the end of the cold war, however it was already applied in the 1970s and 1980s by the International Financial …show more content…

Local is linked to decentralisation to different levels of government, which better represents people at the grassroots; (ii) local agency promoted through grassroots movements, political parties and civil society, focusing on the empowerment of indigenous population; (iii) finally, the local is defined as something that changes in time and space, something fluid (Schierenbeck, 2015). The local is understood as the “everyday”. In other words, focusing on the local helps to shift the discourse of liberal peace from the rights to the needs, overcoming the inherent idea that imposing from above the former leads inevitably to the latter (Richmond, 2009). Following the case of Bolivia, it can be noticed that the local is understood in all the above-mentioned meanings: the central government was the promoter of the reforms, at the same time Morales itself and other government and parliament members were part of civil society organisations and indigenous groups; grassroots movements, civil society and indigenous organizations lobbied the government in order to influence the policy-making process; members of the old elites and latifundia fought back, not to see their private rights eroded. The boundaries between the groups were blurred, and the groups themselves were heterogeneous both socially and ethnically (Arditi, 2008; Bastidas, 2017; Wolff, 2012, 2013, …show more content…

Apart from the distinction between indigenous and non-indigenous, in Bolivia, these groups are fragmented within them. There are various indigenous groups, with different customs but also with different economic and social interests; non-indigenous are divided along similar lines. What is advocated as indigenous or local, is not neither always good nor bad, but it needs to pass a mediation between its different manifestations. While the local can be used as a tool to reach a more effective peacebuilding and to include the voices from below, if it is romanticised it could lead to perverse outcomes (Mac Ginty, 2008, 2015; Richmond, 2009,

Open Document