One of the important tasks of the 21st century is redefining social concepts. I would like to start redefining the word "peace". The main question here is whether peace means the absence of war. In other words, if a country is not involved in a war, do the people of that country live in a green peace?
Definitely no. This definition of peace belongs to a few centuries ago. In the twenty first century peace has to be defined otherwise. For example the devastating situation of Aids patients in the world, specifically in African countries is more dangerous than guns and bullets.
Pursuant to a report of Unicef, in the year 2006, the number of children under fourteen years of age who are suffering from Aids is 2.1 million. These children will lose their lives although their country is not involved in a way.
Shirin Ebadi is an Iranian lawyer and defender of human rights. In 1975-79 she served as president of Tehran's city court, but was forced to resign after the 1979 revolution. In the 1980s, she founded the Association for Children's Rights, and was briefly jailed for her exposure of plans to assassinate dissidents.
Among her books are The Rights of the Child: a study of legal aspects of children's rights in Iran (1994), The History and Documentation of Human Rights in Iran (2000). She was awarded the Nobel peace prize in 2003. She published her autobiography, Iran Awakening: From Prison to Peace Prize (Rider / Ebury, 2007)
Also by and about Shirin Ebadi in openDemocracy:
Nazila Fathi, "Shirin Ebadi and Iran's women: in the vanguard of change" (30 October 2003)
"A single family: Shirin Ebadi speaks"
(17 June 2004)"
America and human rights"
(6 September 2004)
In some fifty poor countries such as Chad, Guinea Bissau, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Afghanistan and Somalia, one of every six children dies before reaching the age of five. The cause of death is not having access to health, vaccination, clean drinkable water and malnutrition. These children do not lose their lives to bombs, they die of extreme poverty. This is why we need a new definition of peace. Peace means serenity. One can only feel serene if one's human rights are not violated and one's integrity is protected. Obviously a human being who does not have access to education due to extreme poverty, or who has been sentenced to imprisonment for expressing his/her opinion does not enjoy serenity and does not live in peace. The same is true about a person who has lost his/her home and lives on the streets. Peace can only be permanent if it is based on two principles - democracy and Social Justice.
In authoritarian societies, whether religious or political, where votes of people don't count, where any opposition voice is silenced with bullets and imprisonment, peace cannot be permanent.
The other principle of peace is social justice. Peace cannot be established in a society where a big class distinction exists. We can only be happy if our neighbours are not suffering from hunger. How can we hope to establish worldwide peace when 75% of the wealth of the world is in the hands of 1% of the population of the world?
Pursuant to a report of the International Labour Organisation published in 2004, one hundred and 26 million of the children of the world are engaged in performing dangerous work. Social justice should be regarded not only at the international, but also, at national levels.
History proves that a society where a big gap exists between the rich and the poor will not be peaceful. In America, the total wealth of one per cent of the population equals the total wealth of the remaining 65%. In a country like India, millions of people are born homeless. They get married on the streets, live on the streets and die on the streets, whereas the most expensive and luxurious hotels and homes exist for only five per cent of the population.
Democracy should be redefined too. In its classical meaning, democracy means the government of the majority. But a majority who wins in free elections does not have the right to govern as it wishes. Let's not forget that most dictatorships in the world have been elected democratically, meaning by the majority of the vote of the people. Like Hitler. Therefore, winning elections does not guarantee democracy. The majority that gains power through free elections should observe the framework of democracy. Now what is the framework of democracy?
Shirin Ebadi was in attendance at the meeting of the Nobel Women's Initiative (NWI) in Galway, Ireland, on 29-31 May 2007
Also in openDemocracy from the NWI:
Isabel Hilton, "War, peace, and women: lessons we have failed to learn" (1 June 2007)
Nadwa Sarandah, "Nothing is impossible, the difficult takes longer" (1 June 2007)
The framework of democracy is human rights law. In other words, the majority who has won power can only perform within the framework of the laws of human rights and cannot violate such laws. No majority in power can use religion as an excuse to oppress half of the population of society, in other words women. The oppression that women in Iran are suffering at the present is an example of such excuse. No majority in power should have the right to prevent freedom of speech with the excuse of ideology. Like what has happened in Cuba and China. No majority in power should have the right to limit political freedom, like the United States of America that does not permit the activity of communist parties and limits their work, opening or in secret.
In light of the above, governments do not gain their legitimacy through votes of people and voting boxes. They gain their legitimacy through votes of people and respect for human rights. Excuses for violation of human rights such as cultural relativism, religion and ideology are not acceptable. Human rights have been derived from religions and civilisations and can be applied to any civilisation and culture.