The United States President Dwight Eisenhower once said: “Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of their way and let them have it.” Wow! Aren’t these words by one of the greatest politicians of the 20th century the most meticulous reflection of what the current administration of this nation is doing in real life? Yes, the government of Sakartvelo has truly bent over backwards to maintain peace in this land, even when the flames of war seemed dangerously imminent.
On the other hand, peace cannot happen without certain prerequisites that must be included in the process. Governmental effort is one thing—but naturally existing conditions and preconditions, such as cultural and ideological structures, are something entirely different. These can be identified as the characteristic features of a given society, tending to suggest a particular model of peaceful conduct. This includes values, beliefs, attitudes, and officially perpetuated societal and institutional patterns that favor peaceful existence in general, and conflict resolution efforts and skills in particular.
With all that in place, it becomes not only imaginable but also achievable to handle differences between conflicting parties—openly and unrestrainedly sharing peace-oriented resources with one another. Ignoring the impact of ideology on the peace process and its substantial components can be catastrophic for any society and its government. Such denial may negatively influence a potential peace agreement and jeopardize the prospect of peacebuilding efforts.
It is generally accepted that leftist, reformist, and progressive regimes tend to have a sharper inclination toward instigating peace arrangements than rightist, traditionalist, and conservative administrations. Yet, this notion could be debated in the case of Georgia’s current government. Judging by its cultural stance, real-time behavior, and the ideology it is poised to implement, one might conclude otherwise. Despite its being traditionally oriented, it is hard not to feel grateful for everything this government has undertaken to keep the country steady and resolute on the complicated path of building and upholding a peace process—even as flimsy and fragile as it may seem.
On the other hand, exaggerated cultural and ideological grandiloquence could place the participants in the peace process in a state of limbo. It may serve as an obstacle on the thorny road to peace, harboring the latent power to ignite new rounds of violence—something that has not always been easy to avoid in the country’s recent history.
Therefore, if the cultural and ideological strengths we possess as a nation can contribute positively to keeping our peace-loving people out of harm’s way, those merits must be upheld and utilized to the utmost of our national ability—so that we may survive. Doubts are high, and fears are real, that the well-constructed but precarious peace process in this land can be maintained solely through cultural and ideological means. Ignoring the powerful and ever-present geopolitical and strategic variables would be unwise. Yet, one thing is certain: the cherished environment of peace—so essential for future development—will never be sustained without our people’s and leaders’ spiritual balance and cultural dedication to the ongoing peace process. This must come in addition to political acumen, diplomatic skill, and relevant educational assets.
Op-Ed by Nugzar B. Ruhadze
