Negative Peace, Positive Illusion: Why the Absence of War is Not Peace

Peace is commonly understood as the absence of war. When violence subsides, ceasefires hold, or conflicts freeze, stability is assumed. Yet this understanding is increasingly misleading. The absence of armed conflict does not necessarily indicate the presence of peace – it often signals a temporary or managed quiet.

This commentary examines the limits of negative peace, where violence is suppressed but the political, economic, and social conditions that generate conflict remain intact. Frozen conflicts, authoritarian stability, and post-conflict orders built on elite bargains may reduce immediate bloodshed, but they frequently reproduce insecurity beneath the surface. Structural inequality, political exclusion, and institutional illegitimacy continue to operate, rendering such peace fragile and reversible.

Drawing on peace theory and contemporary global dynamics, the piece argues that positive peace – grounded in justice, inclusion, and accountable governance – is not an abstract moral ideal but a strategic requirement for durable stability. Without addressing the structural and cultural drivers of violence, peace becomes a pause rather than a process.

The analysis challenges policymakers and peacebuilders to rethink how peace is defined, measured, and pursued – to recognize that silence, on its own, is not security.