Whose Voice Counts? Young people in peace and security research

 Reflections from the OGIP Research Event

Oftentimes young people are sidelined from decision-making and knowledge production in important areas of peace and security. At the end of 2023, OGIP hosted a virtual event to discuss the theme: “Whose Voice Counts? Young people in peace and security research”. The event celebrated the vital role young people play in peace and security research, as well as highlighting the barriers to young people’s contributions. OGIP’s platform is a place for critically engaged research from young people aimed at disrupting 'traditional' methods and voices of research; creating a space for young people to catalyse change and progress in the field of peace and security through artwork, poetry, interviews, podcasts, writing, photography or storytelling.

OGIP research contributor Katrina Leclerc from the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders (GNWP) chaired the panel discussion. Katrina was joined by some excellent panellists and performers, including OGIP partners, Dr. Amjad Saleem from the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Briana Mawby from the Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice, and Dr. Manal Benani from Sustainable Cooperation for Youth Peace and Security. OGIP research contributors, Marie-Jeanne Kenji Maghoma from LAGO and Nikita Yasmin Shah from Hyphen Poetry spoke and performed at the event showcasing some of the incredible research published in partnership with OGIP.

This blog is a reflection of some of the key themes discussed at the event, including the importance of diversity in youth research, co-creation and intergenerational research solutions and the challenges young people face in peace and security research

Reflections from panellist and performer, Nikita Shah

The event asked us to reflect on the important question of ‘Whose Voice Counts?’ in the context of young people in peace and security research. I found the event insightful and inspiring; hearing from peers and engaging in a meaningful exchange.

The discussions as part of the panel demonstrated the need to push beyond discussions of inclusivity and diversity and towards equity, equitable relationships and transformational change. The panel reflected on some important questions: how are we shifting power? how are we making space for others to take power? whose voices are we listening to?

Underpinning these questions is one more - ‘Why?’ To transform power we must continue to question who is visible, whose voice is heard and why we get to hear from some people and not others. Asking these questions will allow us to remove barriers. In the context of research, to achieve this transformational change we must think about who has access, who can contribute, who sets the research agenda, and what methodologies are being used to conduct research. Two ideas put forward by the panellists were the co-creation of research within the community and using story-telling as research.

During the event we considered whether there are more inclusive approaches that allow us to reconsider what knowledge looks like outside Western concepts of empirical evidence. One of the panellists, Amjad, highlighted that whilst research has traditionally focused on achieving the outcomes set by researchers, it is also important to consider what the barriers to access or parameters for inclusion/exclusion are. Research can be conducted in a manner that is not extractive, exploitative or inconvenient to local communities. It is important to break down power dynamics and enable research participants to become co-creators. This includes allowing them to set research agendas, as well as decide methodologies.

Another of the panellists, Maghoma, spoke about the role of storytelling and narratives in more equitable research. Creating space for vulnerability is a prerequisite to building trust and a safe space for people to share their lived experiences and their histories, and to create and grow culture. Storytelling techniques offer an opportunity for connection and a breakdown of power. Amjad added that this work requires humility. Co-creative and interventional solutions can often uncover complexities and details that do not fit traditional researchers' frameworks and tools of analysis. Some research methods require a trauma-informed approach, as well as practises that centre healing and rest. For many researchers and co-creators, this type of work bears a large emotional cost. Such deep work requires proper resourcing and support and should not be treated like a trend.

Towards the end of the event, I had the opportunity to recite my poem ‘Tonight we rest’ a product of my research project with OGIP. Tonight We Rest was an effort to capture the lived experiences of the Global Majority of Self-Identifying Women whilst they fought for justice, equity and liberation in their personal and professional lives within the sector. As I recited the words, I realised that these words, these messages, and these experiences still rang true so long after the original publication. Poetry, like many art forms, offers an opportunity to capture the feelings and emotions of people and to convey these through creative means so others can also experience and find meaning. Storytelling, in the form of poetry, art, music, movement or other allows us to really question ‘Whose voice matters?’.

Reflections from panellist and performer, Amjad

When I was asked to speak on this panel on the subject of inclusion and young people in peace and security, I reflected on the challenges posed by the topic and the difficulty of making meaningful change. I wanted to demonstrate that diversity is a positive disrupting force, particularly in the youth space. It provides opportunities for different ideas to be brought to the peace and security agenda. It helps us to realise that we are much more than a label; that our plurality and diversity are not divisive elements, but a celebration of an understanding of common humanity and universal principles. Being more inclusive allows us to engage with our communities in a different way - forging connections that go beyond superficial interactions.

Through inclusive action, we create a sense of belonging, support, and collaboration. We tap into the collective wisdom and energy that can drive change. Yet, as our discussions surmised, this can be difficult if there is no willingness to accept or understand that Intergenerational dialogue is about passing the baton. It must be about creating a space to dialogue, build trust and, above all, listen. We must listen to the voices of our communities, to the stories of those who are often unheard. We need to understand their needs, their hopes, and their dreams. Intergenerational dialogue is also about collaboration. No one person or organisation can solve all the world's problems alone. Collaboration is the multiplier of impact. When we come together, we can pool our resources, knowledge, and creativity to tackle challenges head-on.

The Global Youth Mobilisation initiative of the Big 6 Alliance - of which IFRC is a member - is an example of how we can create spaces for co-creation with young people and intergenerational dialogue. It allows us to create safe spaces for the sharing of ideas but also provides agency for young people to think of innovative solutions to local problems.

Events like these discussions are important to share these ideas and knowledge between different stakeholders. By creating these forums, we ensure best practices are exchanged and networks are created.

Summary from the OGIP Team

Thank you Nikita and Amjad for taking the time to write on the blog about your reflection on the event and thank you to our panellists and participants that made the event a success. If you would like to hear more about the themes of inclusive action, co-creation of research and inter-generational solutions to issues in peace security, then you can listen back to the podcast of the panel event here.

If you were inspired by what you have read here and want to be involved in youth-led research that pushes for transformational change, we would love for you to be involved in OGIP’s research moving forward.

The two performances in the event were pieces created as part of previous OGIP Research Series. Our first performance was from Kenji Maghoma titled Rhythm and Legislation. This piece explores migration stories and reflects on the role culture plays in both conflict and peace building. The second performance was Nikitah Shah’s ‘Tonight we rest’ which reflects on the importance and benefit of rest. This piece speaks from the collective voice of self - identifying women of colour of varying ages and profession.

OGIP is excited to announce the start of our fourth Research series, and we are inviting our community to join us on this journey. If you are passionate about research, we need your ideas and perspectives to make impactful, transformative research. We are asking our communities to help us choose a research theme for the series so that our community can deep dive on a topic that is important to us all. Please suggest a theme here before the 30th of June 2024.

Biographies of contributors

Nikita Yasmin Shah is the founder of Hyphen Poetry which focuses on creative facilitation, research, evaluation and somatic healing. She is also a poet and dancer and has bridged her practice of art and professional work to develop a creative decolonial lens. Nikita is an OGIP research contributor and will be performing some of her work later in the event.

Dr. Amjad Saleem is the manager of the Volunteer, Youth and Education Development Unit at the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies based in Geneva, a global team focused on volunteering management, youth innovation and engagement, and education programming.

This originally appeared here

Trust Building — Part 1: The 4R’s of Building Trust

 This is the first part of a two part series looking at Trust and Dialogue.

Trust is in short supply

This blog is prompted by the feeling that currently global trust is in short supply. With many people across the world increasingly being anti vaccine and being susceptible to the misinformation that is being spread, a reluctance to take the covid vaccine and adhere to safety protocols signals a lack of trust in the system and those enforcing the system. This lack of trust is symptomatic of a wider global malaise where there is a massive trust deficit in society, with old institutions and positions such as bankers, journalists and politicians facing the brunt of this.

The 2021Edelman Trust Barometer has revealed that there is a trust paradox that despite an era of strong economic performance and nearly full employment (over the past two decades, more than a billion people around the world have lifted themselves out of poverty), the 4 major societal institutions — government, business, NGOs and media — are not trusted at all. This has been further exacerbated by a year of unprecedented disaster and turbulence brought on by the triple crisis of the Covid-19 pandemic , the economic crisis and the resulting social crisis that has been made worse by the global outcry over systemic racism and political instability. The infodemic around covid 19 has also contributed to this failing trust ecosystem.

the role of globalisation

The trust paradox is also worsened and defined by the process of globalisation which has disrupted the social fabric that helps individuals define themselves and assess their social roles. The shifts of the 21st century as a result of globalisation have upended traditional structures of authority, relocated centres of power and allowed a flood of perspectives on how life should be lived. These shifts have unanchored lives, challenging the traditional structures and networks that guided peoples’ behaviour in society, such as learning from the teachings of our forefathers, by trial and error and following the models of others. In times of rapid social change these networks are erased or shifted to a degree that they become unrecognisable. This frantic pace has unsettled people to such an extent that they yearn for agents of constancy to provide an oasis in the shifting sands of today. This unsettling has also led to a decrease in trust in the institutions that have traditionally played that role of an agent of constancy, mainly because they have failed to keep up the pace to address (Jurgensmeyer, Griego and Soboslai 2015).:

A Search for Social Identity — the increasing mobility of people and the ease of global communications seems almost to make it possible for everyone to live everywhere. As a result, huge new multicultural populations are emerging around the world that have mixed identities- grounded in their new homelands but in touch with countries of heritage. Thus today one’s social identity is fluid and often determined by changing global circumstances and remains a paradox.

Accountability — there is a global issue of authority. As the concept of the nation-state becomes diluted with globalisation, it is no longer clear who is in charge. This phenomenon is further exacerbated by disaffected nationalist regimes and movements that claim — but have seemingly lost — moral bearings.

Security — we see mass disillusionment with the system of sovereign, secular states. National unities have been challenged by division based on religious and tribal identities and new ideologies of nationalism have emerged based on the sectarian interests of religion.

This loss of trust means that we can also lose hope in imagined realities with public belief in many core aspects of “the system” disappearing around the world. The current COVID-19 pandemic is showing a new form of this loss of trust. As people reject official sources of information, they are increasingly turning to search engines and social media to inform themselves. This rising tide of misinformation and mistrust is threatening Covid-19 recovery, as people are deeply suspicious and hesitant about the Covid-19 vaccine. In fact, among those who practice poor information hygiene — in that they do not check their sources and/or ensure credible and factual information is shared — there is substantially less willingness to get the vaccine within the year of its first availability (59 percent versus 70 percent for people with good information hygiene)

four horsemen

In the absence of accepted referees of truth, new imagined realities can easily form in the algorithmic echo chambers, that fly in the face of facts rather than building on them, sometimes based on who is shouting loudest (Mahmood 2020). The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called this global wave of mistrust one of the “four horsemen” that “endanger 21st-century progress and imperil 21st-century possibilities.” (Guterres 2020)

This trust deficit also caused by a deficit in leadership has led to a wider trust within society, with a large portion of the rhetoric of distrust being deflected to immigrants or people who appear to be the ‘Other’. In America a large portion of the distrust against the ‘other’ has led to the #BlackLivesMatter movement which has exposed the fear against the Afro Caribbean community (Kendi 2020) and the distrust that the community has in the public institutions to be fair and just. It is this distrust of the public institutions like law enforcement that reinforces a vicious cycle whereby both sides are not confident in each other.

There is an irony here as trust is often seen as something warm and fuzzy and not quantifiable. Yet trust also makes us feel safe and comfortable. So whilst trust is dismissed from the professional sphere as being something not tangible, from a leadership perspective it is still seen as a much valued trait and value. Leaders who cannot inspire trust cannot lead; there will be no followership.

The reason for there to be some much reluctance to professionally consider this whilst acknowledging its personal trait is that trust can be seen to be a leap of faith. It is based on one’s own worldview and experience that involves taking some risks, because whilst trust takes a long time to build, it can be broken very quickly. When times call for fundamental change, trust is often hard to come by. Yet it is clear that trust is essential to developing relationships with individuals. So the message is clear: To be trusted, one has to be trustworthy!!

Building trust is the essential foundation for building healthy communities. It inspires changes in individual lives and interpersonal relationships which in turn can catalyse social action and legislative changes (Corcoran 2010). Building trust has to start from the individual perspective as the most needed reforms in our communities require levels of political courage and trust based collaboration that can only be achieved by individuals who have the vision, integrity and persistence to call out the best in others and sustain deep and long term effects. Without trust, true collaboration is unattainable. From history, the likes of Mandela, Ghandi and King worked off social capital based on trust.

The Trust Quotient

In this light, it is worth exploring the ‘Trust Quotient’ which has been developed as an online self-assessment tool to measure an individual’s ability to garner ‘Trust’ (Maister, Galford and Green 2000). Whilst the tool is itself useful, what is more useful to consider are the attributes behind the ‘Trust Quotient’: credibility, reliability, intimacy and self-orientation. The equation identified below is thought provoking as it makes the concept of trust more practical and also posits the notion that the idea of trust is very much linked to the individual and dependent on the level of one’s own self-orientation.

The Trust Quotient (Maister, Galford and Green 2000) thus has one variable in the denominator and three in the numerator. The three numerator variables improve trustworthiness, whilst the denominator can reduce trustworthiness. Increasing the value of the factors in the numerator increases the value of trust. Increasing the value of the denominator — self-orientation — decreases the value of trust. The Trust Quotient provides a scientific, analytical and actionable framework for how we help organizations and individuals improve their businesses and lives. Thus, Trust is a consequence of good behaviour, not an ingredient, and while it takes decades to build it can vanish overnight based on the ego and self-orientation

Exploring the attributes in more detail, one sees that:

Credibility is about rating “what you say and how believable you are to others.” In other words, you must be and sound credible if you are asking others to follow your lead. Credibility also comes from integrating spirituality and a language of faith into what you say and do.

Reliability measures “actions, and how dependable you appear.” The actions need to follow up words. Do you ‘say what you do and do what you say’? So people need to know that you will come through for them.

Intimacy considers “how safe people feel in sharing with and being with you.” So often we are emotionally distant from others but we need to create opportunities to ensure that leaders do keep their emotional distance from their followers, but when you are presented with confidential information, you need to keep it so. It is also about keeping trust that God’s Plan for you is the best plan. That no matter if you are facing something positive or negative, it was chosen for you and you can handle it;

The fourth characteristic, self-orientation, refers to personal focus, e.g. yourself or others. What the equation shows is that too much self-focus will lower your degree of trustworthiness. It is important to demonstrate a strong ego but if your power is all about you, then few will follow. Self-Orientation refers to the focus of yourself. Self-orientation, which sits alone in the denominator, thus is the most important variable in the Trust Equation. A person with low self-orientation is free to completely and honestly focus on the other person — not for his own sake, but for the sake of the other person. Thus “Lowering self-orientation” can improve trustworthiness. When all you focus on is helping prospects, they trust you more. Ego is a common enemy that is a main impediment to learning and the cultivation of talent. With success, it can blind us to our faults and sow future problems. In failure it magnifies each blow and makes recovery more difficult. At every stage, ego holds us back (Holliday 2016).

Thus the Quotient and understanding its whole attributes may serve as a check on those of us who may think we are trustworthy, but perhaps may not be credible or reliable. Or we may be too self-absorbed to notice our deficiency. Building trust is ultimately about people.

The 4R’s

Living the four Trust Values is the best way to increase your trustworthiness. So how would one work to build those 4 trust values? How can we develop trust through building credibility, intimacy and reliability and reducing self orientation?

In my opinion, this can be done with building the 4 R’s of Trust building:

Take Responsibility

The first concept on ensuring trust and developing credibility is about taking personal responsibility and recognising that we individually need to work on, contributing towards the 4 trust attributes. The individual step will be to begin with ourselves with a values integration to model the change and be the catalyst for change we want to see. Change comes from taking courage to challenge the status quo and those that perpetuate fear and distrust. Taking responsibility is not just for the select few but for everyone (men and women) to step forward to take the lead in overcoming division.

Taking personal responsibility also means moving beyond victimhood to overcome burdens that can destroy them in order to give them a new lease of life. The concept of victimhood is extremely important for many who due to historical / colonial perspectives as well as the experiences of migrants to the west is one of being under siege (Hussain 2014).

The historian Yuval Harari has explained that the shift of human beings’ from small family social units, to nations and ideologies gathering millions owes a great deal to our ability to invent and then believe in stories (Harari 2020). In other words, having common “imagined realities” — that allow us to believe in invisible constructs as a way of organising ourselves. Hence there is a need to reconstruct the narrative of the community that is one that moves away from victimhood and takes responsibility for addressing social change to address concrete cause-and-effect relations (Harari 2018)

Build Relationships

How can we expect the people we serve to trust us, if we are not willing to trust them? How can we trust them if there is no engagement with them? The second pillar is about engagement and outreach. Studies conducted in Sri Lanka after the end of the conflict by the Asian Foundation, found that there was a lot of mistrust between the various faiths largely because there was no day to day engagement between the various members of the communities (The Asia Foundation 2011).

Thus it all starts with getting to know the other. In some cases it is about breaking bread or having a cup of tea with the other. It is about getting to know the ‘other’, lean their culture and traditions and share a meal with them. This requires the practice of humility, because it involves listening to what they have to say.

Building trust has to be about reaching out to ‘the other’ to include everyone and listen to everyone, to dispel the misinformation now infinitely magnified and exaggerated by the Internet. So we all need to do more to build those bridges and relationships with people. There is no magic formula to build those bridges rather just to be humble, with an ability to listen, build relationships with diverse communities, learn and understand from the others. Building relationships is hence about dialogue. Dialogue to understand, respect and accept has to be the intention.

Dialogue is a responsibility. Dialogue is a process of exploration and coming to know the other, as much as it is an example of clarifying one’s own positions. Therefore, when one dialogues with others, what is desired is to explore their ways of thinking, so as to correct misconceptions in our own minds and arrive at common ground. This common ground is the desideratum of all dialogue, and lays the groundwork for mutual cooperation based on the principles of faith in God and good relations with neighbours.

Ensure Respect

Building relationships is about ensuring respect for others. One of the key components of this is to ensure a space for dialogue that is safe is built where what is discussed is not only kept confidential, but more importantly that the spaces are kept welcoming. For example, if there is a need to build trust with religious leaders or representatives from other faiths, one should not shy away from integrating an intentional space for prayer or other rituals.

It means that there should be a clarity about the agenda. Respect is earned by standing firmly to our principles and not compromising.

Respect is also about doing what you say and following through. We need to be true and honest about what can be done and not done which also means following through on promises.

Always Reflect

Self-reflection and self-assessment are very important to understand where you go wrong and as well to acknowledge the past to learn from it. An Arab emperor once said ‘Take account of yourself before you are taken account of’. Acknowledging the past can only be done if a safe space is created, an outreach is done and people are treated with respect.

So where does this leave us with trust?

Living the Trust Values

Trust should not be second-best to accountability. It’s not good enough to say, “Trust us”. It’s not about corruption, political influence, paternalism and hypocrisy but there is a need to put in place the checks and balances that are visibly functioning and that give people a reason to trust you. If you want to reduce your self-interest, you need to put a check on those human and organisational tendencies. This requires self-reflection and humble correction.

It requires dialogue which can transform individuals in societies in a way that increases true social cohesion. Dialogue is important because it strengthens trust and understanding, and enables real relationships to be built across differences.

the importance of dialogue

Dialogue is an important tool in the context of outreach and gaining respect and understanding. migrant integration efforts. The two way process of mutual accommodation can only take place if both “sides” have a deeper understanding of the needs, perspectives, desires, fears, and priorities of the other. It is not just about understanding what the other is saying, but what they really mean. Hence dialogue is an effective approach to strengthen social cohesion within culturally and religiously diverse societies because it allows people to maintain their various identities while still finding common ground .

The aim of dialogue is to overcome misunderstandings and dispel stereotypes in order to gain better mutual understanding, to build trust. Rather than necessarily agreeing on a point of view, dialogue is about recognising and developing mutual respect so as to build sustainable relationships. By focusing on common needs, dialogue builds bridges and transforms human relations. It fosters deeper understanding, so that even though disagreements may persist, an appreciation for the perspectives of the other can emerge. I intend to go more deeper on dialogue in the second part of this blog

not a hotline

Trust is not a hotline. Trust is not an auxiliary, There is much to reflect on and also to take responsibility for in terms of creating safe spaces for dialogue and engagement. Whilst there is much that is outside the control of individuals to affect and that remains within a circle of concern, there is still much within the circle of influence where there can be direct impact. Thus individual responsibility is an obligation to respond proactively to the tensions of our world by working actively and methodically to ameliorate them, so as to replace instability with stability, hostility with friendship, and animosity with alliances.

These alliances are about bridging social capital between communities that are a strong enough consensual basis for trust that takes into account cultural difference (Putnam 2000). We need to develop that so-called ‘thin trust’ that binds us to those we do not know and with whom we have limited first hand dealings, to go along with the ‘thick trust’ that develops from personal familiarity. Thus there needs to be more of an opening up of physical and virtual spaces where individuals and communities can come together, free from the restraints imposed by pre-determined (and biased) agendas (Yaqin and Morey 2016). This comes from understanding that multicultural environments are key to celebrating difference in the practices of everyday life.

Trust building through shared endeavour and mutual vulnerability requires a willingness to be open to understanding the lifeworld of another. This most certainly does not mean that one needs to agree with its every detail, nor to, in some way, concede something essential in oneself. It does however need to understand where other ideas are coming from — historically and intellectually. In other words, the doors need to be kept open, not slammed shut. The history of Islamic civilisations is a testimony to this celebration of multiculturalism.

So how do we build the trust that creates the ideas and institutions that will allow us to live together as the global tribe? Using the Trust Quotient buttressed by the 4 R’s of Trustbuilding, one can create a safe space for critical self-reflection that allows one to reach out to treat the other with respect and to understand trust enables communities to move towards a common good of peaceful existence with each other.

rebuilding the shattered mirror

The famous Victorian explorer Sir Richard Burton (Among other exploits, Burton managed in 1853 to gain entry to Mecca and Median as a pilgrim, helping to communicate the complexity and richness of Islamic culture to Victorian Britain.) once wrote that ‘All Faith is false, all Faith is true: Truth is the shattered mirror strown In myriad bits; while each believes his little bit the whole to own’ (The Kasidah of Haji Abdu El-Yezdi). In his mind, he meant that you will find parts of the truth everywhere and the whole truth nowhere. This concept of the ‘shattered mirror concept’ enables us to see that ‘each shard reflects one part of a complex truth from its own particular angle’ (Appiah 2006).

Distrust comes from the fact that we consider that ‘our little shard can reflect the whole’ and that our little truth is the whole truth. Building trust is about understanding that for the common good, each of us (with our faith and spiritual teachings) have a bit of that shard of broken glass. These small shards of glass which, require careful positioning to create a compelling mosaic that will allow us to live together as the global tribe we have become.

Trust building starts with all of us individuals and then grows with the communities in which we live and work. This snowball effect can only come through daily practice of the Trust Quotient and being mindful of the 4 R’s of Trust Building.

A second part of this blog on dialogue will be printed soon

this originally appeared here

Works Cited

Sahgal, Neha, and Besheer Mohamed. 2019. Pew Research. 08 10. Accessed 05 10, 2020. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/08/in-the-u-s-and-western-europe-people-say-they-accept-muslims-but-opinions-are-divided-on-islam/.

Abdullah, Arif Kemil. 2014. The Qur’an and Normative Religious Pluralism: A Thematic Study of the Qur’an. London: International Institute of Islamic Thought.

Abu-Nimer, Mohammed. 2018. “Alternative Approaches to Transforming Violent Extremism — The Case of Islamic Peace and Interreligious Peacebuilding.” Transformative Approaches to Violent Extremism — Berghoff Handbook Dialogue Series (Berghoff Foundation) (13).

Allawi, Ali A. 2009. The Crisis of Islamic Civilisation. London: Yale University Press.

Alshammari, Yousef H. 2020. Inside Arabia. 2 April. Accessed May 30, 2020. https://insidearabia.com/coronavirus-in-arab-gulf-states-symptoms-include-range-of-xenophobia/.

Amarasuriya, Harini. 2020. The Wire. 30 May. Accessed May 30, 2020. https://thewire.in/south-asia/sri-lanka-covid-19-demonisation-minorities.

Appiah, Kwame Anthony. 2006. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: W.W. Norton.

Aydin, Cemil. 2017. The Idea of the Muslim World. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Corcoran, Rob. 2010. Trustbuilding: An Honest Conversation on Race, Reconciliation and Responsibiity. University of Virginia Press.

Edelman. 2020. 2020 Edelman Trust Barometer Executive Summary_Single Spread without Crops. Edelman.

Finnbogason, Daniel, Goran Larsson, and Isak Svensson. 2019. “Is Shia-Sunni Violence on the Rise? Exploring New Data on Intra-Muslim Organised Violence 1989–2017.” Civil Wars 21 (1): 25–53.

Gardener, Scott, and Jonathan Evans. 2018. “In Western Europe, familiarity with Muslims is linked to positive views of Muslims and Islam.” Pew Research Centre. 24 07. Accessed 05 01, 2020. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/24/in-western-europe-familiarity-with-muslims-is-linked-to-positive-views-of-muslims-and-islam/.

Gudavarthy, Ajay. 2017. The Wire. 20 Dec. Accessed June 01, 2020. https://thewire.in/communalism/india-muslims-safest-enemy.

Guiso, Luigi, Paola Sapienza, and Luigi Zingales. 2006. “Does Culture Affect Economic Outcomes?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20 (2): 23–48.

Guterres, António. 2020. “Secretary-General’s remarks to the General Assembly on his priorities for 2020.” UN. 24 January. Accessed May 01, 2020. https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2020-01-22/secretary-generals-remarks-the-general-assembly-his-priorities-for-2020-bilingual-delivered-scroll-down-for-all-english-version.

Harari, Yuval. 2018. 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. London: Jonathan Cape.

— . 2020. Yuval Harari’s blistering warning to Davos. 24 Jan. Accessed May 2020. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/yuval-hararis-warning-davos-speech-future-predications/.

Holliday, Ryan. 2016. Ego is the Enemy. New York: Penguin.

Hussain, Musharraf. 2014. Musharraf Hussain. 4 12. Accessed May 25, 2020. https://www.musharrafhussain.com/trust-building-in-society-what-can-muslims-do/ .

Jurgensmeyer, Mark, Dinah Griego, and John Soboslai. 2015. God in the Tumult of the Global Square: Religion in Global Civil Society. Univ of California Press.

Kendi, Ibram. 2020. The Atlantic. 12 May. Accessed June 1, 2020. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/ahmaud-arbery/611539/.

Khaleeli, Homa. 2016. The Guardian. 8 Aug. Accessed May 4, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/08/the-perils-of-flying-while-muslim.

Kotecha, Sima. 2013. Quarter of young British people ‘do not trust Muslims. 25 Sep. Accessed 05 20, 2020. http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/24204742/quarter-of-young-british-people-do-not-trust-muslims.

Mahmood, Jemilah. 2020. “The trust deficit in humanitarian action — does going local address it?” IFRC. 20 February. Accessed February 21, 2020. https://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/speech/trust-deficit-humanitarian-action-going-local-address/#:~:text=About%20two%20weeks%20ago%2C%20UN,imperil%2021st%2Dcentury%20possibilities.%E2%80%9D.

Maister, David, Rob Galford, and Charles H Green. 2000. The Trusted Advisor. London: Simon & Schuster.

Mujahid, Abdul Malik. 2003. Can We Trust Muslims. 01 April. Accessed March 05, 2020. https://www.soundvision.com/article/can-we-trust-muslims.

Ortiz-Ospina, Esteban, and Max Roser. 2016. Trust. Accessed May 2020. https://ourworldindata.org/trust.

Putnam, Robert. 2000. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.” In Culture and Politics, by L Crowthers and C Lockhart. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ramadan, Tariq. 2012. The Arab Awakening: Islam and the new Middle East. London: Allen Lane.

Roknifard, Julia. 2019. Al Jazeera English. 25 July. Accessed May 01, 2020. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/growing-threat-sectarianism-malaysia-190719110108799.html.

Sabharwal, Gita, and Liam Chinn. 2012. Asia Foundation: Notes from the Field. 11 07. Accessed 07 07, 2013. http://asiafoundation.org/in-asia/2012/07/11/new-survey-in-post-war-sri-lanka-examines-ethno-religious-relationships/.

Saleem, A. 2016. “Muslim-State Relations in Sri Lanka: A Challenge for Post-Conflict Reconciliation.” In Muslim Minority-State Relations. The Modern Muslim World, by R (eds) Mason. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Shah, Sabir. 2019. The News PK. 09 May . Accessed May 09, 2020. https://www.thenews.com.pk/amp/469047-attacks-on-shrines-of-revered-sufi-saints-continue.

Specia, Megan. 2017. The New York Times. 24 Nov. Accessed April 01, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/24/world/middleeast/sufi-muslim-explainer.html.

Suleiman, Omar. 2020. Al Jazeera. 20 May. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/india-sri-lanka-coronavirus-stigmatise-muslims-200519134939934.html.

The Asia Foundation. 2011. National Values Survey 2011, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Report, Colombo: The Asia Foundation.

TMV. 2020. The Muslim Vibe. 20 May. Accessed May 21, 2020. https://themuslimvibe.com/social-issues/community/aya-hachem-uproar-as-some-plan-to-withdraw-fundraisers-based-on-sectarian-differences.

Weaver, Matthew. 2020. The Guardian: UK News. 18 May. Accessed May 25, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/may/18/woman-shot-dead-blackburn-named-aya-hachem.

Yaqin, Amina, and Peter Morey. 2016. “How do we build trust between cultures?” Knowledge Quarter. October. Accessed May 2020. https://www.knowledgequarter.london/how-do-we-build-trust-between-cultures-by-amina-yaqin-and-peter-morey/.

Younis, Mohamed. 2015. Gallup. 12. Accessed 05 2020. https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/187664/perceptions-muslims-united-states-review.aspx.

Zajac, Anna. 2014. “Between Sufism and Salafism: The Rise of Salafi Tendencies after the Arab Spring and Its Implications.” Hemispheres. Studies on Cultures and Societies (Instytut Kultur Śródziemnomorskich i Orientalnych PAN) 29 (2): 97–109.

After the elections — What next for reconciliation and trust building?

 

A couple of friends asked me to reflect from a peace building perspective what should the new US administration be looking at in the immediate aftermath of the elections. Ironically this is something one would be doing in a country going through post conflict rebuilding. I never thought it would be as applicable in the US and other similar contexts as it is in post conflict contexts. Using what has been learnt from reconciliation processes in other contexts, here are a few lessons that should be thought about to bring about healing in the US not only for the new political administration but also individuals and society.

As peacebuilders, whenever we are dealing with a country that is going through a post conflict reconciliation process, despite the international community’s insistence to hold elections as a sign of democratic stability, there is always scepticism that elections hold the path towards bridging gaps within and between communities. This is because elections always bring out the most basic and innate differences and then celebrates victory and loss thereby perpetuating the hurt and anger. Hence often the propensity for violence is heightened after an election rather than calming it. As we always try and prepare for having learnt from other mistakes, the new team coming in should not underestimate the fact that the previous team has created an ideology that will outlive it and created the systems that perpatuate this. This ideology if unchecked, unaddressed, and marginalised will fester and come back at the next elections with a bigger vengeance. Hence it is not about winning or losing or lauding over the ‘other’, but reflecting where the work has to be done and addressing the real concerns not only of your ‘supporters’ as well as those who voted against you. These are the warning signs for the new administration in the US to be aware of.

Now that the elections are over, the real and hard work starts

However, regardless of whether the context is US or Sri Lanka or anywhere else, now that the elections are over, the real and hard work starts. Following a fractious electoral campaign of misinformation, insinuations and personal insults, relations between communities can be and are at an all time low. Trust will be in short supply, with a massive trust deficit in society, with old institutions and entities such as bankers, journalists and politicians facing the brunt of this. In addition, at the moment there is now a trust deficit between the ‘winner’s and the ‘losers’, as well as with different communities especially in the US. This trust deficit also caused by a deficit in leadership has led to a wider distrust within society, with a large portion of the rhetoric of distrust being deflected to people who appear to be the ‘Other’. The loss of trust means that we can also lose hope in imagined realities and where public belief in many core aspects of “the system” is disappearing around the world. As people reject official sources of information, they are increasingly turning to search engines and social media to inform themselves. In the absence of accepted referees of truth, new imagined realities can easily form in the algorithmic echo chambers, that fly in the face of facts rather than building on them, sometimes based on who is shouting loudest (Mahmood 2020).

Building trust is the essential foundation for building healthy communities.

Building trust is the essential foundation for building healthy communities. It inspires changes in individual lives and interpersonal relationships which in turn can catalyse social action and legislative changes (Corcoran 2010). Building trust has to start from the individual perspective as the most needed reforms in our communities require levels of political courage and trust based collaboration that can only be achieved by individuals who have the vision, integrity and persistence to call out the best in others and sustain deep and long term effects. Without trust, true collaboration is unattainable. From history, the likes of Mandela, Ghandi and King worked off social capital based on trust. Building trust is the start to work on healing and reconciling the fractures between and within the community.

So how do we build trust and reconcile with communities?

Firstly we need to take responsibility. Building trust in the post-election stage is about taking personal responsibility and recognising that we begin with ourselves with a values integration to model the change and be the catalyst for change we want to see. This has to start by acknowledging that there are no winners and losers in this election. Engaging in victory and loss will perpetuate the hurt and anger and this needs to be understood and stopped as a starting point. We have to have the courage to challenge the status quo and those that perpetuate fear and distrust. Taking responsibility is not just for the select few but for everyone (men and women) to step forward to take the lead in overcoming division. Taking personal responsibility will also means moving beyond victimhood and ensuring that to overcome burdens that can destroy people in order to give them a new lease of life. Moving beyond the victimhood is about addressing the victory and loss mentality.

We will need to build the relationships with the ‘other’, especially those who are hurting and are angry at the moment, to include everyone and listen to everyone, to dispel the misinformation now infinitely magnified and exaggerated by the Internet. Very often, we exist in comfort in our echo chambers without willing to or actually listen to different points of view. Dialogue to understand, respect and accept has to be the intention. Thus it all starts with getting to know the other. In some cases it is about breaking bread or having a cup of tea with the other. It is about getting to know the ‘other’, understand their lived experiences through learning their culture and traditions and sharing a meal with them. This requires the practice of humility, because it involves listening to what they have to say. This is true community engagement.

We will need to do more to build those bridges and relationships with people. There is no magic formula to build those bridges rather just to be humble, with an ability to listen, build relationships with diverse communities, learn and understand from the others. Building relationships is hence about dialogue. Dialogue is a process of exploration and coming to know the other, as much as it is an example of clarifying one’s own positions. Therefore, when one dialogues with others, what is desired is to explore their ways of thinking, so as to correct misconceptions in our own minds and arrive at common ground. This common ground is the desideratum of all dialogue, and lays the groundwork for mutual cooperation based on the principles of good relations with neighbours. How much are we willing to engage in dialogue with the ‘other’ to build that relationship and understand how to move forward to build the trust?

Building relationships is about ensuring respect for others. One of the key components of this is to ensure a space for dialogue that is safe is built where what is discussed is not only kept confidential, but more importantly that the spaces are kept welcoming. It also means that we should not be seen as hypocritical when demanding respect or showing respect unless we are prepared to reciprocate. We cannot call out oppression and injustice by one side and not another. That respect has to also acknowledge the past so as to create a better and stable future. Acknowledging and working toward a shared understanding of history has to be the goal. Acknowledging the past can only be done if a safe space is created, an outreach is done and people are treated with respect.

Lastly we need to continuously reflect. We need to be humble enough to continuously have checks and balances to see where we are going wrong and where we need to correct. We need to reflect on the fact that those who are hurting will continue to hurt and be angry if they are not genuinely looked into. We can not afford to isolate and marginalise this hurt and anger and to indulge in activities that will perpetuate that.

Trust is not a hotline

Trust is not a hotline. Trust is not an auxiliary, it is core to our mission and purpose to bridge gaps and increase understanding. What the election has unearthed is “a clash of cultures”, by pointing to the increasing hostility and animosity between cultural / geographical / ideological regions. This is really a clash of trust or clash of mistrust that has been fed by a lack of relationship, understanding of each other and ultimately respect of differences. There is much to reflect on and also to take responsibility for in terms of creating safe spaces for dialogue and engagement . Whilst there is much that is outside the control of individuals to affect and that remains within a circle of concern, there is still much within the circle of influence where there can be direct impact. Thus individual responsibility is an obligation to respond proactively to the tensions of our world by working actively and methodically to ameliorate them, so as to replace instability with stability, hostility with friendship, and animosity with alliances.

We need to bridge social capital

These alliances are about bridging social capital between communities that are a strong enough consensual basis for trust that takes into account cultural difference (Putnam 2000). We need to develop that so-called ‘thin trust’ that binds us to those we do not know and with whom we have limited first hand dealings, to go along with the ‘thick trust’ that develops from personal familiarity. Thus there needs to be more of an opening up of physical and virtual spaces where individuals and communities can come together, free from the restraints imposed by pre-determined (and biased) agendas (Yaqin and Morey 2016). This comes from understanding that multicultural environments are key to celebrating difference in the practices of everyday life.

Keep the doors open

Trust building through shared endeavour and mutual vulnerability requires a willingness to be open to understanding the lifeworld of another. This most certainly does not mean that one needs to agree with its every detail, nor to, in some way, concede something essential in oneself. It does however need to understand where other ideas are coming from — historically and intellectually. In other words, the doors need to be kept open, not slammed shut. There is a need to delve deeper into analysing structures of violence, not only the symptoms to understand the root causes of the problem. This requires the safe spaces for the honest reflection to be undertaken with respect and responsibility.

The famous Victorian explorer Sir Richard Burton once wrote that ‘All Faith is false, all Faith is true: Truth is the shattered mirror strown In myriad bits; while each believes his little bit the whole to own’ (The Kasidah of Haji Abdu El-Yezdi). In his mind, he meant that you will find parts of the truth everywhere and the whole truth nowhere. This concept of the ‘shattered mirror concept’ enables us to see that ‘each shard reflects one part of a complex truth from its own particular angle’ (Appiah 2006).

Distrust comes from the fact that we consider that ‘our little shard can reflect the whole’ and that our little truth is the whole truth. Building trust is about understanding that for the common good, each of us (with our faith and spiritual teachings) have a bit of that shard of broken glass. These small shards of glass which, require careful positioning to create a compelling mosaic that will allow us to live together as the global tribe we have become.

Trust building starts with all of us individuals and then grows with the communities in which we live and work. The question remains whether we are brave enough to take that step?

Works Cited

Appiah, Kwame Anthony. 2006. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: W.W. Norton.

Corcoran, Rob. 2010. Trustbuilding: An Honest Conversation on Race, Reconciliation and Responsibiity. University of Virginia Press.

Guiso, Luigi, Paola Sapienza, and Luigi Zingales. 2006. “Does Culture Affect Economic Outcomes?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20 (2): 23–48.

Harari, Yuval. 2018. 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. London: Jonathan Cape.

— . 2020. Yuval Harari’s blistering warning to Davos. 24 Jan. Accessed May 2020. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/yuval-hararis-warning-davos-speech-future-predications/.

Mahmood, Jemilah. 2020. “The trust deficit in humanitarian action — does going local address it?” IFRC. 20 February. Accessed February 21, 2020. https://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/speech/trust-deficit-humanitarian-action-going-local-address/#:~:text=About%20two%20weeks%20ago%2C%20UN,imperil%2021st%2Dcentury%20possibilities.%E2%80%9D.

Ortiz-Ospina, Esteban, and Max Roser. 2016. Trust. Accessed May 2020. https://ourworldindata.org/trust.

Putnam, Robert. 2000. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.” In Culture and Politics, by L Crowthers and C Lockhart. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Yaqin, Amina, and Peter Morey. 2016. “How do we build trust between cultures?” Knowledge Quarter. October. Accessed May 2020. https://www.knowledgequarter.london/how-do-we-build-trust-between-cultures-by-amina-yaqin-and-peter-morey/.

This originally appeared on Medium

Remembering Easter Sunday Victims and Moving Forward

A speech given by Amjad Mohamed-Saleem at an interfaith memorial service held in Geneva on the 5th of May 2019. The event was organised by the European Centre for Sri Lankan Community.

I have been asked to say a few words as a means of a welcome. What does one say at such a sad and sombre occasion? It’s been two weeks since this terrorist attack on our country and our people. Yet after two weeks, I like many of you are still in pain. My heart weeps at the violation of the innocent in the safest and sacred of places during a holy day; remembering God in His House. They were not allowed that respect or the safety and security that comes in being in a place of worship. Nor were those guests in the hotels, afforded the basic of respect that a host offers a guest, that you are safe in our paradise island.

However, I am spiritually comforted by the fact that those innocents who were killed on 21st of April are in a better place than those terrorists who perpetrated this vile act because they went against the teachings and the basic spirit of the Divine: to know and love each other and to enjoin the good. Those terrorists will not know the peace that the innocents will feel.

Over the last few weeks we here in Geneva have been meeting quite frequently at different places of worship to pray and remember those who have passed. It is in the prayers and companionship of others that we find solace and in fact it is such strength of inter faith cordiality that our country Sri Lanka has not yet managed to blow up, because the faith leaders have come together to hold the peace.

Coming together in prayer is the minimum we can do from where we are in Geneva and we should do not only to be a support to each other during this time but as a comfort and a beacon of hope for the future in Sri Lanka, a future that is uncertain and fearful, and a future where we need to and want to ensure mistakes are not repeated as in the past because we know how bad these can turn out to be especially as the emotions of grief evolve to the emotions of anger. That anger needs to be channelled constructively because in the fog of terrorism we hear and see things that are done in the name of national security that challenge the notion of human dignity, as there are calls for introspection and accountability.

The Muslim community (and I say this as a Muslim) is going through this introspection as well as accountability; hurting, scared and fearful and collectively thinking that we did not do more to remove those weeds of hate and we need to do more. This will forever live with us as a badge of guilt of what if?

Yet there is a collective introspection and accountability that we need to do as a society and country as to not only why we didn't do more to prevent this type of violence; or do more collectively to tackle conditions for young men and women who are capable of such hate and do more to tackle the incitement to violence and hate. Our history in Sri Lanka shows us that young men and women have continuously been the victim of and perpetrators of such type of violence fed by the context of that time and this is something we need to really and honestly reflect on. History keeps on repeating itself and we seem to not have learned.

We realise that calls for introspection and accountability needs to be done also within the paradigm of humanity. if we want to avoid the radicalisation of another generation of youth who are angry at the injustice and inequality, then we need to be humane and just in how we deal with this sensitive situation and with the communities who have suffered as well as those who might be suspect.

As members of dialogical faith traditions who have a lived experience in Sri Lanka we need to hold onto that notion of rising together like a phoenix. We need to collectively ensure that voices for tolerance and inclusivity are not silenced; that our democracy and decency are not broken or that we are unable to turn this moment into co-existence and not disharmony.

This is the hope that we must give Sri Lanka especially from living outside. This is what we need to do collectively as the community here in Geneva and the message to be sent to Sri Lanka to break out of the silos of parallel communities. We have met more times in the past week than perhaps over the last year. This needs to change as we need to come together at all our cultural and religious gatherings to know each other, to understand each other and to respect each other that in our diversity we have many commonalities that unite us as Sri Lankans, because if we do not know each other then we will not be able to understand each other. It just requires one person to stand up and walk across with the hand extended.

This is the hope we offer to those who were affected on Easter Sunday that we will not allow their plight to be used to justify exactly what the terrorists wanted. We will not allow divisive forces to break us. As Muslims embark on the Holy Month of Ramadan which embodies the spiritual need to empathise with the downtrodden, the victims and those who have suffered whilst praying for peace and compassion, our prayers for this Holy Month is for God to bless those who have passed and to protect those who have survived; we pray for peace and justice to be brought to the country and for sanity to prevail; we re dedicate ourselves towards working for peace and justice for all communities.

in ending my speech, i just want to remind myself and others that for us to truly build from the tragedy of Easter Sunday, we need to remember these words from Martin Luther King Jr:

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

This originally appeared in The Island