In the common search for JustPeace, it is judicious to begin by asking fundamental questions that define the path in which the process towards understanding interplays with issues of natural justice. Invariably, the State finds itself at the center of any discourse that involves human desire for justice and peace.
Empirical truths indicate that the State monopolizes use of legitimate force and exercises coercion to ensure its legitimacy. The propounded notion of ‘nation-state’ is a fallacy, because the term denotes an assumption that a State comprises of a single nation, however natural law reveals that a State consist of many nations. In essence, one cannot actually recall a State that consists of only one Nation. Many nations exist within a State - with or without the consent of the people, thereby revealing the hegemonizing and homogenizing character, thus the seeds of State political violence.
Internal contradictions of the State is further uncovered within the dichotomy of its functions and structures. While its functions persuade the promises of its goodness for its beneficiaries, its structures ensure that they are never actually realized. After all, if a State were to fulfill all its functions and promises, there would not be any relevance in its continued existence. Consequently, roots of State structural violence germinate from within this ideology of exclusivity.
The casualty that unfolds from State political violence and structural violence is the collective decision-making process of the people. Since the interest and need of individuals or groups cannot be identical, the issue of collective decision-making process cannot be avoided if people want to co-exist together with mutual respect and understanding. Nonetheless, empirical truth reveals that State has usurped people’s decision-making capacity, particularly of indigenous peoples. In affect, it has obstructed a people, any people’s ability to determine their own destiny. This divulges the moral problem of politics.
Empirical truth shows that a State defines itself at the ultimate authority to define its territorial domain and to exercise its power within it, with no recourse to a higher authority. The ideology of arbitrary power brings the State into direct confrontation with indigenous people, the rightful owners to exercise their inalienable rights over their land and resources. Imposition of State on indigenous peoples renders its institution as unjust, and therefore unresponsive to the needs of the people.
While resolution with a State without addressing the question of justice is invalid because it contradicts the nature of truth, State consensus through elections does not guarantee truth either. Since the State usurps all powers of the people and assumes its role as the ultimate decision-maker, any agreement with the State without addressing the rights of the people will be an agreement of perpetual conflict. It is illogical to pronounce State as the solution to the problems, because it is precisely the institutions of a State and its arrogance of power, which first makes conflict unavoidable and perpetual.
