The Contradictions after the “Peace Rally”:
Power, Politics, and the Illusion of Unity
By Kirit Thanarat
The idea of rallying for peace may sound appealing, particularly to those who sincerely desire it. Calls for unity, reconciliation, and national stability resonate deeply in any society. However, when such calls emerge from those deeply entrenched in power struggles—those who corrupt, those who oppress—should they still be taken at face value?
As the campaign period unfolds, a so-called “peace rally” has drawn significant attention, not just for its sheer size but for the political weight it carries. While its organizers claim it is an act of national unity, its timing and execution suggest otherwise. The presence of hundreds of thousands, mobilized with precision, demonstrates something far beyond an ordinary assembly. To politicians, this is not just a peaceful gathering—it is a projection of power, a reminder that their support can determine electoral outcomes.
Religious Solidarity or Political Leverage?
This is the reality of religious influence in politics. While cloaked in the language of faith and harmony, such movements often serve as tools of political leverage. Politicians who witness such numbers—who see the extent to which religious institutions command their members—are compelled to take notice. The implied message is clear: support our interests, or risk losing the votes we control.
This extends beyond mere endorsements. In a high-stakes election, a bloc of several hundred thousand votes is not just an asset—it is a kingmaker. That is the true power of religious solidarity: it does not simply provide moral guidance but ensures direct influence over governance. Any candidate who wishes to secure such backing knows that aligning with these groups is a political necessity.
Defending the Embattled: A Shield Against Criticism
Yet the rally’s timing raises deeper concerns. Some observers note that while it presents itself as a gathering for peace, it also functions as a defensive barrier for embattled figures facing public scrutiny. The president’s recent opposition to impeachment calls against the vice president—despite accusations of betrayal of public trust—further fuels these suspicions.
Is this truly about justice, or is it about preserving a crucial political alliance? The groups behind the rally are not merely advocating for peace—they are also defending a figure who remains at the center of controversy. The question then becomes: are they seeking genuine national unity, or are they using the language of peace to protect those in power?
The Paradox of Their Strength
If one is to be blunt, the rally was a demonstration of power, not peace. And if this is truly about power, then why stop at peaceful demonstrations?
Movements that claim victimhood while amassing influence often follow a historical pattern. At first, they seek legitimacy through peaceful means—mobilizing numbers, pressuring politicians, demanding recognition. But history has shown that when such movements perceive themselves as besieged, they often escalate their tactics.
If they are truly oppressed, as they claim, why not take their struggle further? If endurance is no longer enough, why not follow the logic of those who justify holy war? Many radical movements have used similar rhetoric—claims of persecution, struggles against injustice, and the belief that their cause is divinely sanctioned. If they truly see themselves as under siege, why not raise the sword and fight “in the way of God”?
Imam Khomeini, the architect of the Iranian Revolution, made this clear:
“Those who say that religion is separate from politics understand neither religion nor politics.”
If these rallies are truly about faith, then they are also about power. Khomeini further emphasized:
“Islam is not a religion of pacifism. Islam is a religion of activism and revolution.”
If these demonstrations seek to uphold justice, then they should also demand sacrifice. But instead of a true struggle for righteousness, what is presented is a carefully calculated display of force—one that ensures influence without risking direct confrontation. Sorry to quote Khomeini, but the struggle for peace and unity is not driven by peace and unity alone but the struggle for righteousness, truth, and justice- words far from those who defend the status quo.
A False Peace: The Illusion of Unity
To those who truly seek peace, unity, and justice, this contradiction is evident. While some may be fooled by the slogans of “peace and unity,” others see a different reality—one closer to the facts on the ground.
The Bible itself warns against those who preach peace while serving hidden interests:
“They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace.” (Jeremiah 6:14)
This passage reflects a deeper truth—peace cannot exist where injustice is tolerated. When the powerful call for peace while shielding corruption, their message is not one of harmony but of control.
Similarly, Proverbs 11:9 states:
“With their mouths the godless destroy their neighbors, but through knowledge the righteous escape.”
The rally may proclaim itself as an effort to heal divisions, but what it truly represents is the calculated use of religious fervor to secure political gains. The question remains: does this movement genuinely seek justice, or does it merely seek to consolidate power?
Compare that spectacle to the rallies in Yemen, where those facing bombardment, starvation, and war do not beg for unity with their oppressors. Instead, they chant:
“We do not care—make it a world war.”
This is not an endorsement of war but a recognition of reality. When oppression is real, the response is not to hold rallies calling for a fragile peace. The response is resistance, confrontation, and an unwillingness to compromise with those in power.
Those who call for “peace” while securing political deals, while shielding those in authority, while ensuring their movement remains unchallenged—these are not revolutionaries, nor are they truly oppressed. They are participants in the very power structures they claim to challenge.
Beyond the Facade: What Comes Next?
This is the underlying question: will this rally remain just another show of force, or will it eventually escalate? History has shown that movements with such rhetoric do not remain passive forever. First, they present themselves as peaceful. Then, they make demands. And when those demands are not met, they sharpen their message—and, if necessary, their weapons.
If this rally is truly about justice, then it must eventually demand sacrifice. Because no movement that seeks to wield power—whether religious or political—rests on words alone.
As the campaign period continues, the public must critically assess what is happening. Is this truly a call for peace? Or is it the opening move in a larger political game? If their demands are met, will they be satisfied? Or is this just the beginning?
True peace is based on justice, not silence. And for those who claim to be oppressed, peace is never given—it is seized.