Obafemi Akintayo is a renowned scholar-practitioner with dual master’s degrees in Peace and Conflict Studies from the University of Oregon School of Law and the University of Ibadan. In this interview with RASAQ IBRAHIM,the Assistant Chair for Interreligious Dialogue and Peace at UO-UNESCO Crossings Institute offers expert analysis on contemporary peace building, exploring the possibilities and challenges of achieving positive peace in the complex global landscape.
How do you distinguish between the concepts of negative and positive peace in the context of conflict resolution?
Negative peace is essentially absence of direct violence no war, no armed conflict but it does not address underlying social injustices or systemic inequalities. Positive peace goes much deeper; it is the presence of justice, equity, inclusive governance, and social cohesion. It’s about building resilient societies where everyone has unfettered access to rights, dignity and unlimited opportunities. Without positive peace, negative peace is precarious and can easily collapse.
What factors contribute to the historical emphasis on achieving negative peace over positive peace in conflict resolution and peacebuilding initiatives?
Ending violence is urgent and visible, so international actors often prioritize ceasefires and peace agreements. These are necessary first steps but insufficient alone. The focus on negative peace is partly due to political expediency and funding patterns that favor quick fixes. Positive peace requires addressing structural issues poverty, discrimination, exclusion which are complex, long-term, and politically sensitive. It demands systemic change, which is harder to achieve and less immediately gratifying.
Can you provide illustrations of cases where negative peace was attained, but positive peace was not fully realized? What insights can be gleaned from these examples?
There are many post-conflict societies where violence has ceased but grievances persist inequality, corruption, and marginalization remain. These conditions can foster renewed tensions. For example, some ceasefire agreements have led to fragile peace without significant social transformation, resulting in cyclical violence. It’s a reminder that peace is not simply the absence of guns but the presence of justice and inclusion.
Considering the intricacies of modern conflicts, is the attainment of positive peace a feasible objective in the 21st century? What approaches or strategies might facilitate its achievement?
Yes it’s achievable but it requires a paradigm shift. The 21st century is marked by global interdependence, rapid social change, and new challenges like climate crisis and digital disruption. These demand holistic approaches that combine conflict resolution with social justice, economic equity, and participatory governance. Positive peace is an ongoing process, not a destination. If we commit to inclusive institutions, restorative justice, and genuine dialogue, positive peace can become a reality”
What specific methodologies and practices can peacebuilders and policy makers employ to promote positive peace in post-conflict settings?
First, integrate social justice into all peacebuilding efforts. This means not just mediating conflict but transforming structures that generate inequality. Second, foster inclusive governance—ensure marginalized groups, women, youth, and minorities have meaningful participation. Third, invest in restorative justice that heals relationships rather than merely punishes. Fourth, strengthen social cohesion through education and dialogue across differences. Finally, international actors must support long-term capacity-building rather than short-term interventions.”
In what way does interreligious dialogue engagement and dialogue contribute to fostering a culture of peace and what are the potential benefits for communities?
Yes, Interreligious dialogue play a crucial role in fostering mutual understanding and respect across diverse faith communities—critical for social cohesion in plural societies. It provides a platform to address historical grievances and build shared values grounded in justice and compassion. In many contexts, faith leaders are trusted voices who can mobilize communities toward reconciliation and inclusive development which are the essential components of positive peace.
Read Also: Stephen Akintayo transits GtextHoldings’ global expansion goals to me – GCEO Ahmad
What role do young people play in fostering positive peace, and how can they be effectively engaged and empowered to contribute to peacebuilding efforts?
Youth are both the most affected by conflict and the most vital agents of change. Their energy, creativity, and idealism can drive social innovation and hold leaders accountable. Empowering youth with education, leadership opportunities, and platforms for dialogue is crucial. When youth are included, societies are more resilient, adaptive, and hopeful for the future.
What signs or development give you hope that positive peace is attainable in the contemporary society, despite the existing challenges?
The growing global awareness that peace must be holistic is encouraging. Movements for racial justice, climate action, and social inclusion reflect demands for positive peace. Innovations in restorative justice and inclusive governance offer promising models. Most importantly, I see communities worldwide refusing to accept violence or exclusion as inevitable. This collective will is the foundation on which positive peace can be built.
What advice would you offer to global leaders on prioritizing peacebuilding efforts in the 21st century?
Don’t settle for the absence of conflict. Strive for societies where justice, equity, and inclusion are the norm not the exception. Positive peace is challenging but indispensable. It requires courage to confront uncomfortable truths and the humility to listen and learn from all voices. The future of global stability depends on this commitment.
