by Franz Jedlicka
Many people want peace in the world. When it comes to world peace, there is a simple principle that applies to many things in life: you should learn from those who do things better than you. That means you can learn from the most peaceful countries in the world. Three important characteristics of these countries are: democracy, a consistent legislation of non-violence, and a high level of gender equality.
In this text I would like to focus on the second and third characteristic, since the importance of democracy for peacefulness is widely known.
My peace research, in which I have analyzed the legislation in all countries of the world regarding various forms of violence (Culture of Violence Scale), shows the following: Peaceful countries have banned ALL forms of violence by law. This is the case, for example, in most countries of the European Union. Violence in child rearing, violence against women, the death penalty, torture, judicial corporal punishment, and violence against homosexuals are all banned there.
A government that wants to show its citizens that violence is not a means of resolving conflicts in any situation must also enshrine this in legislation. The laws of a country are the basis for people's behavior and usually also the basis of their morality. Only an absolute ban on all forms of violence demonstrates a consistent policy of non-violence.
The most important thing from the perspective of peace psychology is the prohibition of child corporal punishment. A violence-free childhood is the psychological foundation of a peaceful society, but unfortunately corporal punishment of children is currently (2025) only banned in about a third of countries worldwide. Political actors who have understood this must act on this issue as quickly as possible, because it takes around twenty years for a non-violent generation to grow up. Information on helpful strategies can be found in the recommendations of the EndCorporalPunishment website and the free publications of the INSPIRE strategy. Neither the USA nor Russia nor other global players will probably become sustainably peaceful as long as violence against children is permitted there.

What applies to child protection also applies to violence against women: it must be prohibited by law, just like marital rape (spousal rape). How can a country be peaceful if beating women and children is already permitted? There is also an intersectionality between domestic violence against women and violence in child-rearing: they often occur together, and many people who experienced violence as children or observed violence between their parents repeat this behavior. They have seen with their own eyes that violence is a permitted means of resolving conflicts.
In addition to legislation regarding the forms of violence mentioned, equal rights for women is also an important factor for peace. The higher it is, the more peaceful a country is. This has also been proven statistically, for example by Valerie Hudson (and co authors). A lack of gender equality and women’s rights is a sign of "structural violence" (a term coined by peace researcher Johan Galtung). The same applies to the oppression of homosexuals and LGBTIQ+ people. The UN has also taken this insight into account: in UNSC Resolution 1325, it recommends the participation of women in peacebuilding processes, for example in peace negotiations.
Religions, for example "Religions for Peace", will only contribute to world peace if they support all three factors mentioned above: a democratic form of government, a consistent legal ban on all forms of violence, starting with a ban on child corporal punishment and a ban on violence against women, and gender equality. However, they will hinder world peace if they tolerate or even promote some forms of violence or discrimination that I have mentioned. Unfortunately, this is still the case with physical punishment in child-rearing and violence against women and homosexuals. Even the current Pope Francis has recommended the spanking of children several times. Without probably knowing it, he is thereby hindering his own peace mission. Unfortunately, many religions also hinder or even prevent equal rights for women.
Religious leaders and all other political actors who have not yet understood the negative effects of violent discipline should read the books and texts of Alice Miller, and those who have previously believed that people are fundamentally evil and must be brought back to the right path through severe punishment should read the “Seville Statement on Violence”, which was written by leading psychologists and says the opposite. The book "Humankind" by Rutger Bregman also proves the natural peacefulness of people.
What does this mean for the peace movement? It means that it will not be enough to demonstrate for peace on the streets. Activists in the peace movement must campaign for democracy, for a legal ban on all forms of violence, and for gender equality. This will require international activism, such as that carried out by Amnesty International. Especially men in peace movements must speak out clearly for equal rights for women, for example by supporting the HeForShe campaign or wearing the White Ribbon of the White Ribbon campaign, a worldwide movement of men against domestic violence.
The above factors must also be taken into account in development aid and development policy. The “Triple Nexus approach”, also known as the HDP Nexus, already recommends that development aid and humanitarian aid activities should be complemented by peacebuilding activities. For example, could the importance of raising children without violence always be emphasized in development cooperation?
Journalists can also play an important role in the issue of world peace. They should keep explaining the connections that I have listed here today. When it comes to authoritarian political leaders who also pose a threat to peacefulness, as experience has shown, journalists should try to research the childhood of these persons. Psycho-historical research, which has analyzed the biographies of politicians, has shown that warmongers and dictators themselves experienced violence in their childhood. You can read about this in Sven Fuchs's publications, for example. If this fact is recognized in time, it may be possible to prevent negative developments regarding peace. Unfortunately, it was overseen regarding Hitler, Putin and many other political actors who have started wars..
Finally, it is also about what people can do who currently live in a country full of violence. It will not be easy, but they should try to discuss the societal trauma of their country in self-help groups or sharing circles in order to work through it. There must be time and space in these groups to express grief, but there should also be discussions afterwards about how to break the cycle of violence in the future, especially if this cycle has already started in one's own family. The psychological term for this is "transgenerational trauma".
The psychological origins of hatred should also be discussed. It is understandable if hatred arises because oneself or one's own country has been attacked or oppressed. But it would be important to recognize the hatred that arose from violence or neglect experienced in childhood. And it is just as important to recognize the hatred that arises from envy or longing that one represses or suppresses. The psychologist Arno Gruen has written important texts on this, and George Lakoff's "Strict father model" is also relevant: it explains why people who had a strict father tend to vote for authoritarian politicians. This linkage has been examined already over seventy years ago under the terms "authoritarian character" and "authoritarian personality" (by Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Erich Fromm and Max Horkheimer).
But even peaceful countries have to be careful of negative developments that can endanger their peacefulness. One silent danger is the increasing violence in the media and on social media. Crime dramas and series are increasingly showing detailed violence. The result is that many people are becoming desensitized. News programs are apparently still following the old dogma that "only bad news is good news." Even in peaceful countries, people are being told that violence is normal, instead of reporting on the factors that strengthen peace: democracy, the activities of social associations and civil society, educational initiatives, an inclusive social and health policy, a balancing tax system that avoids excessive inequalities. And of course, computer games in which people can be killed and injured are to be rejected. Mostly they are being developed in countries where there is a higher culture of violence than in the European Union.
All the paths to world peace that I have mentioned are certainly not strategies that work quickly. Of course, for current armed conflicts there is the necessity for conducting peace negotiations: ideally, as I have already explained, by women. Mediation methods such as non-violent communication and empathy circles can also be helpful.
But in my opinion, anyone who strives for sustainable world peace must take into account all the points I have listed here, even if they only become effective in the longer term. And politicians who really pursue peace as their highest goal should try to learn from the most peaceful countries in the world.
This article has been published under a BY-ND 4.0 creative commons license, which means it can be re-published in other publications (even commercial) or on other websites, if you include the link to this website and if you do not alter the text.