Training Peaceful Imaginations

This past week Defence Minister Lindiwe Sisulu explained further her proposal to introduce voluntary national service into the military as a way to instill patriotism and discipline in young “angry” youth who, Sisulu alleges, are behind the service-delivery protests within South Africa. Sisulu stated that “The unemployed [have] no hope, no prospects that their lives will get any better. If we can harness this energy [of protest] and turn it for good, like all other countries use their defence force for, I think we will benefit.” The hope, in other words, is to provide some form of productive activity within the lives of those who are young and who are unemployed who perhaps do not have the skills needed to be employed.

Julius Malema and the ANCYL have praised this proposal. According to the Cape Times, Malema states, “As the ANCYL, we have been calling for this programme for a long time. We would want the minister to ensure that no young person is turned away when the programme starts. It must start as soon as possible.” What’s more, the ANCYL president suggested that the ANCYL leadership attend the military training for an intensive two-week stint.

The opposition has since raised concerns, not about the minister’s proposal, but about the ANCYL’s interest to participate and receive an intensive two-week militarized training. The Democratic Alliance defence spokesman David Maynier commented that this decision risked the politicising of the SANDF that could undermine its principle of non-partisanship. In other words, the concern is that the SANDF could become or could be seen as being a tool for the ANC.

Let us take a step back. Let us look at what this proposal means.

The interest from Sisulu’s part is that opening the doors for those who are young, angry, and unemployed into voluntary military service may provide an opportunity to build skills in these youth while also teaching them about discipline. This surely is a good thing.

These skills, however, are not the only thing that is instilled in these young people. When one becomes part of the military, voluntarily or not, one learns the tools and tactics of how to be successful in the field of battle. The military teaches and trains how to settle differences and arguments by killing one’s opponents, and how to be successful in doing so. Employable skills and discipline are potentially some of the bi-products of its training regime. The main goal or purpose in military training, however, is to learn the tactics needed in how to be successful in killing. What’s more is that killing is taught as justifiable in certain circumstances, especially when sanctioned by one government in opposition to another government.

The imaginations of those who join the military machine become formed and shaped as to what options are available in dealing with conflict, even with difference itself. In other words, through their training, soldiers are taught that killing and violence are necessary tools when defending one’s country and oneself, and when attempting to overcome conflicts.

Our imaginations give us the ability to think creatively. Our imaginations allow us to think of ways as to how to overcome potential challenges.

The imaginations of these soldiers are shaped to believe what is realistic and what is unrealistic, what is possible and what is not possible, and what to do when things are not possible or realistic. In other words, the training that soldiers received dictate the style and level of engagement during different modes of conflict. The message engrained is that when a situation becomes too perilous one must protect oneself and one’s country with the use of force and violence.

The imagination that is shaped, however, does not only last while in the military but follows the person in how they see and deal with difference and conflict in society as well. Imaginations where violence and killing are seen as tools in achieving one’s desires and in dealing with one’s foes will continue to affect how these soldiers see, interpret, and understand situations in the society they will be a part of.

Slavoj Zizek provides a good reminder: “At the forefront of our minds, the obvious signals of violence are acts of crime and terror, civil unrest, international conflicts. But we should learn to step back, to disentangle ourselves from the fascinating lure of this directly visible ‘subjective’ violence, violence performed by a clearly identifiable agent. We need to perceive the contours of the background which generates such outbursts. A step back enables us to identify a violence that sustains our very efforts to fight violence and to promote tolerance.”*

Violent imaginations, or imaginations shaped with the belief that violence can solve the conflicts and issues of society, already enjoy a prolific existence. Have we, however, sought to shape peaceful imaginations? Have we attempted to form imaginations that find solutions to conflicts and social ills through peaceful means rather than through the use of force and violence?

Peaceful imaginations also need to be trained. To be a creative problem solver and to be someone who resolves conflict peacefully requires training. It requires that one’s imagination become open to solutions that are not always obvious. It requires that one’s imagination is willing to continue to search for other ways of dealing with conflict without falling into the option we know so well and which we have regularly used.

Is it possible to instill skills and discipline without shaping an imagination grounded in violence? What if we worked at harnessing the energy of the angry, unemployed, young person in teaching her how to be an active peacemaker in our communities? What if we walked with the young, angry, unemployed person in teaching him the skills and the imagination needed in order to deal with violence, crime, injustice, in a way that demonstrates peace. What if we walked with communities and worked together to find ways of harnessing the creative energy of the young (and old) to find solutions to the very things they are angry about in the first place? What if we demonstrated what we would like in the future now – peace, not violence; resolution to conflict through peaceful and respectful means, not through intimidation and violent methods?

Together we can build and train peaceful imaginations, imaginations where peace and justice walk hand in hand.

What I find distressing is that none of the political parties seem concerned about training violent imaginations. Perhaps the church needs to arise and train imaginations for peace.

* Slavoj Zizek, Violence (London, U.K.: Profile Books Ltd., 2009), pg. 1.