How do we know if we have met our objectives?

Helping those know they are close to achieving their objectives is one of the hardest tasks in guiding the execution of any planning process. Of course, it is this very issue that results in the failure of the initiation of any planning efforts. The questions, “What is it that we want to do, why, and how will we know when we have achieved the desired outcome of our planning efforts?” are basic “show stoppers.” Poorly executed military operations often are a result of not knowing how to plan for an exit strategy based on the answers to similar questions.

The approach to metrics (measuring outcomes) must be considered at the outset of any planning process. Therefore, we have come up with the following questions in sequence designed to help us evaluate our planning for sustainable peace rule sets:

1. What is each principle?
2. How do we define it?
3. How do we measure it?
4. How do we test it?
5. How do we see it?
6. How do we use it?
7. What are the results when it is applied or used?

To see how we are thinking about approaching these questions let’s look at the rule Mercy (I refer you to a previously written albeit abridged definition for Mercy in this blog). The desire for mercy is an act of courage – for it is fear that leads us into failed strategies. Theologians would attribute this to our human condition of sin.

The desire for mercy is the beginning of a journey with others. The journey begins when we enter into the life story of the one offered mercy – the one whose wounds are being bound – the one whose story is allowed to be told and is reflectively heard – the story that causes us to ask the questions concerning how the wounding came about in the first place and what actions can be taken to prevent further wounding? This takes courage.

Previously stated, compassion is but one aspect of mercy and justice the other. It is possible to offer compassion as well as render justice without mercy. Often we offer compassion with no regard to being merciful – e.g.; a doctor treating an illness with little regard for the human dignity for the patient, or the casting of a few coins to an impoverished person without stopping to connect with the one who is in need. It takes time to enter into the journey of mercy. It is not easy.  We will discover ourselves changed by the experience when we take the time to enter into a journey.

How do we measure acts of mercy in our planning actions? Well, one way might be to evaluate whether programs allow for people to feel safer and encouraged to offer themselves to others. Another might be to evaluate the way people are listening to one another – simply look at the opinion pages, observe our national political debates or attend a city council meeting to see the behavior offered. The bottom line test is whether or not the rate of wounding of persons and communities is rising, leveling off or decreasing.

This is how we are currently thinking about how to approach measuring the rule sets we have chosen in the process of planning for sustainable peace. The journey is just beginning and we need your input. How to measure our rule set is the major task before us. 

Justice

For conversation here, I want to speak to two forms of justice: retributive and restorative. The first form of justice is grounded in fear, whether personal / private or communal. The bottom line of retributive justice is to seek out the offender and remove him or her from society that “I may feel secure.”

 

The second form of justice seeks to restore to its rightful place the humanity (human dignity) of both the victim and the offender. This is not to get the offender of the hook. The offender has to acknowledge wrongdoing and make restitution towards the victim. Restorative justice is an act of love for every human person involved and works to over come the fear that turns into anger, which ultimately gives birth to hatred.

 

What if those involved do not desire to be restored, you may ask, or in the face of the facts and truth do not feel responsible? What if those with diminished humanity do not want to be restored? Then restorative justice ensures that parties are protected from themselves as well as the community. In either case, justice must pursue a path that restores and redeems the human person as well as the community. Restorative justice does not mean or demand a return to previous relationship as if nothing has happened.

 

Two examples of restorative justice:

 

1. Current analysts and policy makers in our American prison system base our nation’s future prison requirements on the level of illiteracy at the third grade level; for example, for every third grader today who are not able to read at the third grade level will likely end up in prison by age eighteen. Acts of restorative justice would focus on improving the literacy level for all third graders.
2. The end of Apartheid in South Africa without a civil war between black and white South Africans is a tribute to black South African leadership’s desire to embrace the human dignity of all. This did not preclude the need to hold persons who committed atrocities accountable for their actions. In all cases attempts where made to restore the human dignity of offenders and victims.

 

Bottom line: There are two forms of justice, one where people get what they deserve (retributive) and one where people get what they need (restorative). 

Mercy

Desire for others what you desire for yourself. Mercy is an action taken on behalf of another. In this way it is an operational and not a static affair. One has to act to be merciful. But, the prerequisite for mercy is humility or the capacity to set aside your own interests if at least momentarily. I will write more in depth about humility later, as it is also one our rules for planning for peace.

Think of Mercy is the container for compassion and justice(two of our rule set operations); whereas the act of humility is the key to unlocking the container. Inside this container are the acts of compassion and justice. Here is how it works. Begin first with compassion and then turn to matters of justice. Acts of compassion are basically bandaging the wounds of people. In this process of bandaging wounds the one acting asks the other how the wounding happened and listens to the story told.

In the hearing of the story, it becomes crucial to understand the context of the wounding so that you begin to ask the question: “What needs to be done to ensure we do not need to bandage others in the future?” This question is a systemic question in search of understanding either what social policy has been violated or what social policy needs to be updated and our created.

I hope you can see the potential for the interrelationship of compassion and justice when seen in this framework. Next I will unpack a bit more the acts of justice, as we understand it. 

Coming soon will be the questions we need to ask ourselves regarding how we can begin to understand how to measure success.  

What are the Rule Sets?

P2: Planning For Peace takes the Just Peacemaking theory to generate rule sets to guide our planning process. By turning the nouns into verbs, we seek to turn theory into practice. Our framework, based on several ingredients, becomes a framework for listening: desire for mercy; a vocation of humility; responding out of compassion (willingness to engage suffering honestly); doing justice as an act of love for the other (seeking to restore victim and victimizer in new relationship); inviting; seek to be concrete and particular (dignity of persons); and seek to understand the historical formational contexts. These are our proposed rule sets.

In the coming weeks we propose to take each rule set, unpack it and present it to you the community. We hope that you will be able to help us gain greater clarity in understanding each rule set and how best to use it (ruler) as a means to measure success.

 

What is Just Peace (Just Peacemaking)?

Just Peacemaking asks Pacifists to fulfill what their name implies (peace making) and calls Just War theorists (often miss-identified as hawks) to identify what must be tried before “last resort” of engaging in war and define “intention” of using force to restore a just and lasting peace (see Just Peacemaking: Ten Practices For Abolishing War, edited by Glen Stassen. The Pilgrim Press, 2004 for further study). Just Peace takes seriously our conflicted human relationships and need for honest conversation with all parties of community. Bottom line: Just Peace seeks to work through actions that restore community as a counter to our often-preconditioned retributive human response (Retributive Justice).