State and JustPeace

The realization of JustPeace cannot be achieved unless the dilemma of the State is adequately addressed within any political process of negotiation. This is fundamental since the State is a creation of a reality through the prism of a political class, which has a beginning and perhaps even a predictable end. From this standpoint, State is a theory that serves ideological and material interest of the powers that be and it is their prerogative since they are mindful of the artificial conditions that forced its creation. 

State formation was decisive in constructing a State-identity, which assumed significance by giving the society a new and hegemonic identity by obliterating and suppressing all alternative forms of identity. In effect, State-identity led to degrading the ‘other’ in order to legitimate past and present realities. Eventually, State formation built strong political structures which were superimposed from above; replacing existing structures of governance. Redefining the problem of State formation is a societal affair primarily because it invented States where they did not exist. 

State-building involved processes of selecting and recomposing past events to create chosen traumas and chosen glories of an imagined State. To uphold the sustenance of this ideology and to provide concrete manifestations of its existence, it was a necessity for the State to take absolute control over how territorial space was defined and organized. Subsequently, it defined the parameters of inclusion and exclusion, which was neither organic nor natural but an arbitrary process of identifying who was included and excluded from the defined territory. 

State formation inevitably involved defining State-identity around State-territory, which in many cases had been imposed. Consequently, identities of nations and peoples were fragmented along State-territories. Hence, redefining the question of State-identity and reestablishing the political identity of the nation or people seeking to liberate itself, is fundamental in any situation of political movement for sovereignty. The question of territorial space is naturally at the heart of any freedom movement. 

Tragically, with territorial integrity being a vital criterion for what constitutes State sovereignty, the discourse around shared overlapping boundaries had been almost non-existent. There were only two successful cases of post-colonial independence movement from 1947 to 1991. With changing shifts in State sovereignty, there is growing need for people sovereignty and shared boundaries to assume the axis for human survival.

History has shown that territorial integrity has never been an end in itself and that it is meaningful only so long as it safeguards the will and interest of the people. Therefore, the contradicting elements of territorial security and human security need to be addressed from the standpoint of the will of the people. However, the fear of mutual recognition becomes acute and critically expressed in times of peace for which, such recognition is in fact a pre-requisite!