Nonviolence Now Podcast

<figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > S2E6 - IMF &amp; Economic Justice In this episode, Layal speaks with Steven Qi about how economic systems shape dignity, trust, and the possibility of nonviolence. They frame economic justice as a condition for peace rather than a technical policy debate. Steven explains how slowing global growth, rising debt, and labor market shocks translate into everyday precarity. People face unstable jobs, higher living costs, and shrinking opportunities. Trust erodes when institutions fail to protect basic livelihoods, as uncertainty replaces planning, and survival becomes the dominant concern.The conversation grounds macroeconomics in human experience. Steven compares sovereign debt to household credit card debt to show how fragile systems trap both states and people. Countries borrow to survive shocks. Poor terms and weak governance deepen long-term harm. When debt overwhelms capacity, social spending suffers and inequality hardens. Layal pushes the discussion toward responsibility and power. Together, they elaborate on how international financial institutions operate under constraints while navigating corruption, sovereignty, and political pressure. Steven challenges simplistic narratives about the IMF by claiming that global safety nets matter, even when imperfect, because collapse always harms people first.The episode also connects economics directly to nonviolence. Steven explains that stable economies reduce the conditions that produce conflict. Fair fiscal policy, accountable governance, and inclusive labor markets lower the cost of survival. As he put it, violence rises when systems fail to meet basic needs.The conversation closes with agency and hope, as Steven emphasizes community, youth leadership, and participation as long-term pathways to change. Caring sustains people through crisis, and action turns care into power. Economic justice becomes a form of peacebuilding when people stay engaged and refuse to withdraw from one another.About the GuestSteven Qi works as a country analyst in the African Department at the International Monetary Fund, where he supports analytical and research work on IMF country programs. His work focuses on macroeconomic stability, debt, and policy choices that shape everyday life across developing economies.He also serves as a curator of the Global Shapers Community Washington DC Hub, an initiative of the World Economic Forum that brings young professionals together to build leadership, solidarity, and collective action. Through this role, he works closely with youth-led initiatives that bridge policy, community, and global governance.Previously, Steven worked with United Nations agencies including UNFPA, where he focused on strategic communications, stakeholder engagement, and humanitarian affairs. Across institutions and communities, his work centers economic justice, trust, and participation as foundations for peace.TranscriptLayal Beyhum (host) 00:05Hello everyone and welcome to the Nonviolence Now Podcast brought to you by Pace e Bene, where we explore the principles of nonviolence, where it all started, and how it shows up in today's digital world.&nbsp;Hello everybody and welcome to the Nonviolence Now Podcast. It's Layal Beyhum, your host for today, and today we are greeting an exceptional, extraordinary guest and a really good friend of mine, Stephen Qi! Hi Steven, how are you?&nbsp;Steven Qi (guest) 00:37I'm doing well. So happy to finally be on this platform. I know this is something that we've had in the making for a while now. I'm super happy to be here. Super happy we're making it happen.&nbsp;Layal Beyhum (host) 00:47Steven is a country analyst in the African Department at the International Monetary Fund, where he provides mission-critical analytical and research support on key IMF country programs. He also serves as a curator of the Global Shapers Community Washington DC Hub, which is an initiative of the World Economic Forum. Previously, Steven worked with various UN agencies such as the UNFPA, where he focused on strategic comms, stakeholder engagement, and humanitarian affairs. Behind the titles, behind your position, who are you?&nbsp;Steven Qi (guest) 01:20Thank you so much for giving me an opportunity to be actually human, because the bio makes me sound like a type-A over-performing robot, which is a far cry from who I actually am. In reality, I'm half Japanese, half Chinese, really passionate about youth empowerment, because young people like us—young professionals like us—will one day grow up to be the shepherds of our society, of our living planet that we call Earth, in the future. And if we don't start from us, then we cannot break these generational shackles and really, really escape from history repeating itself. So super passionate about youth empowerment.But outside of that, you know, I love to cook, I'm an avid ballroom dancer—try to keep it up since college, but it's becoming a bit difficult. That's required a lot of, a lot of time, a lot of dedication, a lot of practice. Outside of that, I really like playing instruments, playing the piano. It's been hard again, finding time recently just to balance that work and my life. But I do want to get back into it more now that I have a bit more free time because I used to really enjoy experimenting with different types of music and see how to connect my own emotions with music and my own expression. I also like to write poems here and there. Besides from that—this is like really niche, but interior design or anything that's architecturally and artistically related are a passion of mine as well.&nbsp;Layal Beyhum (host) 02:50I really do hope you find the time to echo and channel the things you enjoy doing, be it expressing through poetry or through dancing or in whichever artistic form that you like. This episode today intends to unfold how economic structures promote peace, dignity, and the capacity for nonviolence.As global growth slows and inequality widens, many communities face worsening precarity, such as rising costs of living, mounting debt, shrinking social safety nets, and lack of dignifiable opportunities. Today we are granted the wonderful and exceptional opportunity to sit with you, Stephen, and unpack how international finance, fiscal choices, and debt policies can either entrench injustice or enable solidarity. And through the particular lens of Campaign Nonviolence’s call to transform systems of violence, we're going to be talking about and touching on how to pursue economic justice as a form of peacebuilding and how can it replace scarcity-driven fear with structures of fairness and participation. But right before we dive into these big concepts and this global narrative, let's start with the basic definitions. Where do we start?&nbsp;Steven Qi (guest) 04:08I think it's a lot to unpack and I think at first sight it is something that people will say well this will require hours and hours of conversation and perhaps a PhD, I think that's what people think at first sight. But to be honest I think the fundamentals don't need a PhD to unpack. It really is—there is right now, in my opinion, there is a mismatch in the system and the people that it is supposed to serve. I think right now you have a lot of fragility, you have a lot of mistrust, right? Because in the age where people often discuss currencies denominated in each nation's national currency we often forget to discuss the currency that's denominated in trust.I think that in itself is more valuable than any currency in my opinion. But however right now we're lacking severely of that. But if we take it back to a more technical point of view right just like you mentioned globally growth is stalling. People anticipated a bigger rebound after COVID, which we've anticipated, and we saw some of that. However there is also a lot of structural weaknesses that was exposed through COVID that eventually resulted in some countries—especially developing countries—being hit the hardest. That also relates to the debt issues that you see it's being spoken a lot a lot especially in South America, especially in Africa, because during COVID you have a lot of extra budgetary spending that governments need to finance in order to respond to the shocks and that leads to a lot of borrowing. And unfortunately sometimes those borrowings are not done on the best of terms because there's a lot of structural weakness, there's a lot of governance weakness, there's a lot of corruption. Or sometimes if the institution itself is good, there's just a lot of spending that the government doesn't have enough fiscal space for and all that compounds into the years that we have after COVID that creates a very a very sustained but acute debt issue for a lot of countries. So when you have a country that's facing debt issues it's just like a person having a lot of credit card debt, right? Sometimes people tell me, “Oh, you know, this is a country's fiscal health, economic, it feels so high level.” That's how I felt, I saw in the beginning, and then the more I work in this field the more I learned it the more I realized countries are just like humans, you know. It's basically like us taking out credit card debts, too many credit card debts, we can’t repay it, and then we have to pay those crazy APRs. I don't know what's the rate like in Lebanon, but in the US sometimes it can go up to like 29%. It's insane.Layal Beyhum (host) 07:00We've spoken not so long ago about what global growth is looking like and it's projected to slow down from 3.3% in 2024 to 3.2% in 2025 and potentially to 3.1% in 2026, please correct me if I'm wrong, with advanced economies growing around 1.5% and emerging market and developing countries just above 4%.Can you elaborate just a bit on that? How do we translate this to human terms? What are the things people need to be worried about or what are the key takeaways from that study?&nbsp;Steven Qi (guest) 07:39You see a lot of growth slowing, but what does that mean for us, right? I think that means risks are becoming riskier. Experts would like to say risks are tilted to the downside, but I'm like, let's speak in human terms, right? Risks are about to become, the risks are about the compound, and the reason we're seeing a lot of this slowing of growth is because we have a lot of uncertainties. And as much of an adventurer as I am personally, I think as a society, we don't like uncertainties, we like certainty. People like to know, like you said, that their money can be withdrawn whenever they like it, because it is their money, right? People like to know that their jobs will be stable. People like to know that their prices, aka inflation, they don't have to pay three or four times for just a carton of eggs within the span of three months. People like to know that their basic livelihood is being protected and safeguarded.However, with this uncertainty, people don't know that, and when we don't know that, we tend to retrieve within ourselves protectionism, and that's not what only people are doing, that's what countries are doing too. And very unfortunately, you know, you have a lot of major economies in this world that are leading, who are once the shepherds and champions of globalization is now calling for more protectionism. And, you know, we can have a separate conversation about, you know, the pros and cons of globalization, of protectionism, but I personally, I'm a firm believer in the economics of scale and opportunity costs. I think if one country is better at doing something, it should do that thing, and instead import other things at a lower cost instead of not having to pay twice or three times the capital cost to do something that it is not necessarily good at. That's my personal opinion. I'm happy to discuss that. But just to go back to your question, you know, what happened? There's also a lot of labor supply shocks. There is a gap between young people and the labor market. We see a lot of people say—we see a lot of jokes, a lot of memes on Instagram, on LinkedIn, saying, “Well, in our parents’ and our grandparents' age, we can just get a haircut, put on a good suit, walk into a company, and then get a job, get a good paying job that can make me buy a house in a year, right? Like, all I need to do is go in and say, I'm a hard worker. I'm a fast learner. Here we go!”Layal Beyhum (host) 10:15They tell you, “You need to knock on doors, you need to grab that CV and just present yourself, put yourself out there to the world—Steven Qi (guest)A firm handshake!Layal Beyhum (host)&nbsp;—show them that you want to work. And yeah, a firm handshake, big wide smile, and show them that you're here for it. Yeah, no.&nbsp;Steven Qi (guest) 10:29The reality is very different, exactly, right? Like, you know, I'm having a conversation with my friends. I always wanna bring myself out of that technical term and speak like a real human being, because how do we relate? How do we relate big high-line data like inflation, like, you know, like fiscal adjustments, consolidations, balance of payment issues into everyday occurrences. People are not gonna relate to those words, but essentially, it's very simple, right?It’s like what we discussed, you know, what are the prices of your eggs? What are the prices of your milks? How, or just to summarize, how much effort do we have to put into lifting? And has that effort been compounded recently? And I think the answer is pretty self-evident, is a lot of us has been feeling it's been harder to live, quite frankly. It's been harder to live, it's been harder to do the things that we thought was once, you know, that once should be, I wouldn't say easy selling, but once should be a natural progression. Like, you know, if we put in years and decades of ourselves in schools to get advanced diplomas, the natural progression should be to have employment. But now we're seeing even, you know, PhDs, not being able to secure proper employment. I mean, of course it depends on the field, on the sector, but let's say international development, which is a sector that's been decimated recently because of the funding cuts leading from the United States to begin with. You know, those are the things that are very, very difficult.&nbsp;I think on my side in the US, the labor market has also been tough for young people. You have a lot of graduates right now who are having a hard time finding jobs. And you have quite a labor market that's interesting enough, becoming very opportunistic. You have a labor market that's very much kind of like becoming like the stock market, which to me, that's a bit alarming. A labor market should be a place where it is meritocratic, where your, in the ideal world, it should be 100% meritocratic, but it should be places where your skills are matched, right? But now it's becoming like the labor market is also almost like a shadow of where the biggest blue chip companies in the US are deciding the world is going to go next. You know, a year ago, there were, oh, two years ago, they were saying, “If you have a CS degree, your life will be set.” But look at now. If you have a CS degree, you can barely find a job. Five or six years ago, they said, “You should become a consultant for Deloitte, for McKinsey. You know, you'll be fine. You'll be set for life.Layal Beyhum (host)&nbsp;Absolutely.&nbsp;Steven Qi (guest)But look at it now. All right, AI is demolishing that field and leading to massive layoffs. Now, do you see that leads to what I was talking about earlier, uncertainties. So on my side, I think I can summarize through the labor market example that I’ve just given you and through the funding cuts, which are all affecting, you know, the futures of young people in this country. Not to mention the political, of course, the division, but that's a whole other bag of worms in itself.&nbsp;Layal Beyhum (host) 13:47If we were to sum up how does today's global financial climate translate into everyday precarity across developing and developed countries? Let's talk about the everyday problems that people on all sides of the world today are facing—surviving?&nbsp;Steven Qi (guest) 14:04Surviving? I think I can summarize it into three things. The first one is a declining trust in institutions. People no longer trust their governments, people no longer trust their representatives, and people no longer trust each other.And that's not, that's not unique to—okay, let me just say this is not a phenomenon that's not only privy to countries like the US or EU, or is not only prevalent to countries like Cambodia, Thailand, Syria, Lebanon. It is prevalent in every single country that I've been to and the people I talk to is the erosion of trust. Trust is declining dramatically. Number two, if we want to translate into everyday precarity would be uncertainty, which I spoke a little bit about earlier. Uncertainty in terms of where the country's going to go, uncertainty in terms of where our future is going to go because so many things are uncertain and uncertainty in terms of you cannot make concrete plans because now people are feeling like you can make a plan for the future, but by the time you get there, everything has changed.&nbsp;Layal Beyhum (host) 15:09There are no guarantees for anything.&nbsp;Steven Qi (guest) 15:10There's, there is no guarantee for everything which—that is the status quo to begin with, right? We should know in life is never guaranteed.However, there used to be a time where, you know, if you make a plan and you work hard towards that plan, you can get to your goal. But now it's becoming a story of you can make a plan, you can work hard towards that plan, but by the time you finally get there, you realize that, oh, you no longer have a plan because everything that you base yourself on is completely gone, you know. Take example of someone who got an advanced degree to get a job, only to find that the organization made a decision that somehow the AI, AI can do a better job than them. See, that's a very opportunistic-side perspective from the company's perspective, but for people that translates into uncertainty.&nbsp;I think the third, last but not least, the point I want to bring up is the creation of bubbles that is exaggerated by mass media. In 2025—we're almost to 2026 now—for the past 20 years, we see the rise and the proliferation of the internet, of the social media. It has given us more access, access to more information than ever. It has connected the world. But now I see a worrying trend that we're done with connecting and now we're segregating. We're segregating in a sense where social media, internet, and the algorithm, underlying algorithm that allows us to stay connected to this world are classifying us only with people who we relate to and agree with. You see that very clearly on Facebook, on Instagram, what we call X now, you will only see the things that you want to see. And that creates division, that creates fragmentation. And that's the very thing that is against a country, a community, our individuals being more developed and connected.&nbsp;This is a segue, but one of my idols is, his name is Dag Hammarskjöld. He is the second secretary general of the United Nations. With a leader like him, you had a UN that accepted people from the constituency they represent. You had a UN, that despite being in the middle of the Cold War, that the UN was effective. You had a UN that under his leadership, peacekeeping and peacebuilding actually grew by over 200% and the peacekeepers were actually doing their job. Leading off the wall, then you have Rwanda like a couple of decades or later. But that's the kind of UN that should be created for this world. And as someone who is in the system right now, that's the kind of system I'm hopeful for now that the secretary general election is coming up next year. But I don't want to bet all of my hope on someone else solving our issues. So that's why I also have my second hat being the curator of the Global Shapers community, it’s really bringing young people together. Because I truly believe when we're stronger, we're stronger together. We're always stronger together, especially with the way the world is right now. We need to bring more talented young people together and build a community where we can support one another.&nbsp;Steven Qi (guest) 18:29And that's how we catalyze our talents. And I've seen that happen. And I was a bit doubtful in the beginning. I was like—because I became a bit of a pessimist to be honest, a year after I joined the UN system, because I saw the best and the worst of what the UN can do realistically. And I was like, wow, is this it? And then, you know, I joined the Shapers and I brought people together and I realized, wow, it is real and it is possible. And seeing, you know, one of the examples I can give is one of our Shapers, through joining the Global Shapers in DC got into Stanford because she had the support of other young professionals in our community for one of the most exclusive master's programs. And she was also able to visit Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, to join the MISC Global Forum, completely expenses covered by the Saudi government. And that wouldn't have been possible without young people coming together, sharing resources, and genuinely supporting one another. That's how we lift each other up by not counting on institutions and systems because those systems don't serve us. They serve themselves. Right. So we only can count on us and our community. I think that community-building is becoming more and more important.&nbsp;Layal Beyhum (host) 19:51It is important for us to come together, of course, yes. Since you are inside the IMF today, with the best and the worst that you've seen, realistically, is there anything that can be done to promote some sort of stability without having to sacrifice any more equity or deepening social tensions?&nbsp;Steven Qi (guest) 20:14Yes. And the answer I can back—I'm behind this answer 100%, yes, yes, and yes. I know, like, hear me out. I know that people—the word IMF, in the interviews of people like us is a very sensitive word. It's a very sensitive word.And that's the kind of doubt I had as well when I first entered this is this role. And people often see the IMF as a coercer of international economic order. And to be honest, they give us a lot more power than we can actually observe, which is kind of interesting. But it's like, you know, sometimes I wish we are as powerful as you say we are. But the reality is very different. The IMF, I think, at its founding, in its articles of agreement, has a very important mandate, and it's a crucial mandate is to be the global financial safety net for countries. Because if you don't have a global financial safety net, countries go into bankruptcy, they either have to get bailed out from the private sector with crazy amounts of unequal terms, or they descend into anarchy. And at the end of the day, people get hurt.I do fully recognize on the other hand, you have the argument of, “Well if you have a global safety net, just like humans, then countries can also abuse it.” And that has happened before, where we have the balance between, well do you bail out the country and let it stumble along for a couple years more, or do you leave the country to his own devices and let the people suffer? Right. Like, if I ask you this question, I'm not trying to put you on the spot but let me ask you this question right, because that's a question, that's a decision that we have to make almost every single day.&nbsp;You have a country that comes to you asking for an IMF program, you know the country is not doing well from all the technical data from all the political considerations, and you know the government is corrupt. However, you also know that people are suffering. Do you bail them out? Or do you leave them to their own devices, because if you bail them out, Option A, you bail them out. You know they're going to be fine for maybe a year or two but they're going to come back to you eventually because it's a systematic issue unsolved. Option B, you do nothing. And either the country goes into bankruptcy, or it has to get some really bad terms from a private bank like Goldman Sachs or Blackstone, and then people suffer regardless, right. How would you make that choice?&nbsp;Layal Beyhum (host) 22:55I mean, first of all, you need to see if the country is willing to comply because sometimes the IMF can propose things and they're not really realistic or tangible for the state as well. It's really a complicated question of whether one should choose to take action or not.I think the first thing is to see if both parties have the will to collaborate or contribute because the IMF does put its terms and conditions, but sometimes these conditions are far from realistic to be met. And so countries are unable to comply and then they choose not to opt for it and then years down the line it's just worse. So what do you do at that point? They have less leverage to negotiate and then IMF has the winning hand. So it's a bit more complicated than that.&nbsp;Steven Qi (guest) 23:43No, 100%. I agree. It's something that you cannot say in a black and white term, and I don't think this is something that should be black and white.There is one common misunderstanding that I want to clarify on the IMF conditionality is a lot of times people think that we can impose programs upon countries or we can impose conditionalities upon countries. We tell them you either do this or else. I can tell you very realistically from—because I'm in that area, department myself. I work directly with countries and country programs. Africa is the continent where we have the most amount of IMF programs. I can tell you with 100% confidence, the number one, we can't impose any kind of conditionality on any country. There's, people say, “Oh, you know, you, you design a conditionality that's impossible to be met to begin with. And then you know the country is going to reject it. So you wait until their situation deteriorates.” That is not even legal. We can't even do that because every single time we design conditionalities is not just us, we are overseen by so many mechanisms within the building that cross checks everything. We have very clear structures on what we can and cannot do. We can meet a minister. We can present, if they request—Oh, first of all, they have to request a program. We can’t go down and say you need a program. No, we can't do that. They have to come to us and be like, “We are officially asking for an IMF program.” And then we say, okay, then let's work with you. Let's design a program. We can present them with the conditionalities. If they don't like it, they'll reject it.And there's the criticisms of, you know, of course, social spending is being cut and that—I've seen that fully happen before, but I’m very also happy to see that now in today's age, we're fully moving away from that because social spending cuts comes from a result of irresponsible government spending. The government is spending too much either because of corruption, because of security issues, or because of weak governance. And sometimes the reason why the social spending needs to be cut is because we are in negotiation with countries and we say, “Can you please, like, you know, stop paying your civil servants so much, stop paying for their Mercedes, stop paying for their armed guards? A secretary does not need two secretaries.” And they will say, “No, we can't. We're not going to do that.” And then the government says, “But we can cut social spending.”Right. If in a perfect world we want to tell them, “Hey, listen, just stop being so corrupt. Get your stuff figured out.” I won't name the country, but there's cases where, for example, you know, we pushed for laws that would publish the public officials’ assets—asset declarations. Asset declaration publication. We push for that to become a law in those countries. Never happens because they will always say no. So I know this is a very long winding answer, but really for us to be able to execute amended properly, we need country governments that also will work on itself from the ground up on issues like weak governance, weak institutions, and corruption because we can't work with country governments to advance sustainable economic growth if the people that we work with does not even have the best interest of those countries at heart.If we can impose conditionalities, if we can just tell them, “Hey, we know you're corrupt. Get out of here. Get someone else.” Firstly, that would be such a violation of national sovereignty, which will never happen. Secondly, this would be inconceivable, but we do need good people in government that’s willing to work with the international community. Because as much fault as people are firing upon the international community these days—I read dozens and dozens of books on the founding of the United Nations. Yes, it was not perfect, but it did save millions of people and it saved countries from economic ruins and that's for a fact.&nbsp;Layal Beyhum (host) 27:54But I've equally have had professors in my humanitarian action courses where we've talked about the fact that there has never been more simultaneous humanitarian disasters happening. And that a lot of humanitarian disasters are political and at many instances, the UN is at fault lines because donors have a political say in what is going on. So there are two sides, but definitely good people have the intention to decide how it is that they want to proceed and how it is that they want to choose to either boycott or endorse whatever is going on on the ground. And that in itself is an entire challenge, but just not to deviate from that, just giving my take on what you had to say. And I'm so happy you shared it with us because it is as well necessary to try not to villainify the international institutions and look at things at their core because as much harm as we can see today, there is equally a lot of good going and happening because of that. Now, in what ways does nonviolence directly intersect with economics?&nbsp;Steven Qi (guest) 29:09Everything, everything. Oh my goodness, I'm so happy that we're touching on the subject because it's normally to say nonviolence and economics. People think economics is like models, supply, demand, graphs, linear regressions, statistics. How does that have to do with peaceful living? How does that have to do with nonviolence? Nonviolence both from the perspective of individuals, from communities, and also society. And I think there's everything that has to do with it.Instability and violence at the country level happens when the country, unstable, but all of these things ties to economics. Economics is the very foundation of which our society functions. Economics is not only tied to money, economics is tied to work, to labor, right? Economics is tied to trade. Everything that we have around us, the clothes that we wear, the phones that we use, our houses—the very material, the cement that builds them—is the result of trade, of production, and those are all economics. So where does it intersect?&nbsp;Well, if you have a country that has a good economic strategy that: number one, encourages responsible fiscal spending by the government; number two, has proper oversight on governance and structural issues; number three, is engaged in good trade, then that minimizes its opportunity cost and maximizes its returns; and number four, creates opportunities for the labor force, you have a society that is stable. And number five, that the country doesn't take on too much debt, but that goes into responsible fiscal spending. That's like, they're tied together, right? But then you have a country that is stable. And I'm not just pulling this out of my hat that—this is not a conspiracy theory. The history speaks for itself, economics, which one of the reasons why I like it is because there are hard numbers. Yes, sometimes even numbers can lie. But you know, what doesn't lie? When you go into the street and talk to people. “Hey, you know, how's life recently?” Right? Like, yeah, like if that person just graduated, you know, “How's the job hunt coming along?” And you will have your answer. Violence happens when those things are not being met.&nbsp;Layal Beyhum (host) 31:37Do you think that participatory budgeting, debt justice campaigns, and social spending floors become potential tools for peace?&nbsp;Steven Qi (guest) 31:46Social spending is essentially when the government spends money on the country—social spending floor is we have a specific budget where the government must spend, let's say, $500 million on social protection mechanisms. Debt justice campaigns, those things can be either grassroot or they can happen on a ministerial or an executive level. Debt justice campaigns essentially goes around if a country is in acute debt distress, either domestic or external debt. Domestic meaning that money is borrowed within the country. External means that money is borrowed from outside of the country. You can have debt justice campaigns that promotes awareness, that promotes proper responsible fiscal spending from either grassroots level, like students, like young professionals, or any citizen who cares about this topic.Or it can come from a ministerial level, which is more formal, like the G20 common structure on debt restructuring, which one of the countries that I work on, Zambia, is the first country to undergo the G20 debt restructuring framework. So those are the three levels. Participatory budgeting, I think from my experience, is when citizens actually participate in deliberative democracies, where citizens in a unit of communities have a say on how the nation prioritizes its fiscal budget, not just ministers, but also citizens have an actual say. So on that end, I do believe 100% they can be tools for peace.Some people might call me a socialist. They're like—I thought it was crazy, but apparently, you know, it does happen. If I call for good health care, I'm called a socialist. If I call for, you know, if I call that a nation should have a budget dedicated to maintaining, what's the English word for it? When children don't have families and they go to...&nbsp;Layal Beyhum (host) 33:55Orphanages?Steven Qi (guest) 33:55Orphanages—thank you! I'm called a socialist. When nations should maintain a budget for food banks, I'm called a socialist. And again where the argument is coming from, people will say, “Oh well you are promoting free ridership, you're promoting people to just sit on their butt.” I believe you need to find a balance either way. I've seen—I've lived in seven countries my entire life, in the east, in the west, like Japan, Canada, France, Switzerland, United States, China, and I've seen how—both sides of the extreme. But for nonviolence to intersect with economics on the topic of peace, you need that balance in the middle where you say, “Listen, the whole the whole point of having a government is the government as public servants—you know literally it’s in the word public servants—we are serving our people, where we need to design systems and structures as a country that as part of our responsibility and our mandate to provide health care for our citizens, to provide safety in our defense, to provide opportunities. Otherwise where is our tax money going? But why do we have a country to begin with? If we if we go from the argument of hyper individualism, that's borderline anarchy because we no longer need a nation. What's the point of a country?Layal Beyhum (host) 35:15Exactly.&nbsp;Steven Qi (guest) 35:16Right. But now the problem is, like you said, for Lebanon, for example, or many other countries is, you have a country, but it's not doing a job. Then what’s the point of ministries? Right. What's the point of having a national budget? What's the point of keep paying taxes? So I think that's what really grassroots nonviolence really comes in is you need to bring awareness on things like community participation and deliberation because—I spend all these things, I feel like I'm blaming it all on the governments, but you know, bring it back a little bit, us as citizens also have a responsibility. And unfortunately, in this day and age, citizens are becoming less informed by choice.&nbsp;Layal Beyhum (host) 35:55Yeah.&nbsp;Steven Qi (guest) 35:55I can tell with confidence that in the United States, the amount of people that read has been in decline, just like the middle class. I think the middle class, I think the middle class in 1971, 61% of the Americans live in middle class household. In 2023, that was down to 51%.Interestingly enough, as the middle class vanishes, so does literacy, right? And if citizens aren't informed, if citizens don't care, we are giving the institutions a get out of jail free card. And at that point we have no one to blame about ourselves.&nbsp;Layal Beyhum (host) 36:33Yeah. What responsibilities do wealthier nations bear amid this imbalance, and how can they share the risk rather than export it?&nbsp;Steven Qi (guest) 36:42Neocolonialism in a nutshell, right? I think colonialism is here and well and is alive. I want to be also at the same time realistic. I don't want to give, from my perspective, I don't want to reiterate talking points that are just empty and doesn't make much sense. Like, oh, you know, the developed countries have a bigger share of responsibilities and, you know, the ESG, they should definitely do it. We have been doing it. No, let's look at the facts. The facts is developing countries are still being exploited because the world is very ruthless. Whoever has more powers dictates the terms. That's it.That's as simple as that. Whoever has more power dictates the terms. That power can be economic power, military power, societal power, social power, economic power. Because if you have power, you can coerce other people to do the things that you want them to do. And that's exactly what's happening right now. Wealthy nations, they know that. Because the wealthier the nation is, the more power that they have relative to their peers. And unless you have a government who is conscious, morally conscious, but that is utopia, right? You have, I can say every single government in this world only has their own best interests in mind. And that's not overstating. That's just reality. Every single national government only has their own best interests in mind. And they wouldn't, every single national government would throw other people under the bus if it means advancing their own interests.&nbsp;So I think that's where international, that's where international institutions come in, in the ideal term. That's where the importance of international institutions come in is to serve as a convener, to serve as a middleman amongst countries and say, “Let's not just care about your interest alone as a country. Let's care about the interest of our shared humanity.” And I think that is a beautiful thing. Because otherwise I see a bad road that we're going to go down if we only care about ourselves and our own countries. Because having an international institution—a functioning international institution—a dysfunctional international institution is one that is fully controlled by whoever that's paying the most. And unfortunately, that's happening right now.So from a functional international institution—that has happened before in the past, in the UN's history, where you have a secretary-general that is a charismatic leader that is not afraid to take his or her ground, it happens. Through political maneuvering, through political economy, and a lot of side-channeling, you do channel opportunities and capital and redistribute it. So everyone benefits. But that also needs parameters. That needs a parameter where there needs to be respect for a certain level of autonomy in international institutions. And I'm not going to get too technical, but you see the erosion of that autonomy through earmarked versus non-earmarked funding, for example.&nbsp;Steven Qi (guest) 39:53So number one, you need a respect of a certain amount of autonomy. And number two, you need accountability within these international institutions. And number three, you need less barriers in these international institutions, not in the sense of less barriers of, oh, we should just let everyone in. But no, in a barrier, in the sense of equitable barrier, in the sense of the international institutions needs to be plugged into the people that they serve. They cannot be just based in some country, like Paris, for example, and operate far, far away from the constituents they are supposed to be serving. That doesn't make sense.So those three things come together, goes into why I think wealthier nations need to bear greater responsibilities in the sense of being more equitable. But I think that cannot be achieved if you don't have a functioning international, if you don't have a functioning network with international institutions that promotes and delegates that responsibility.&nbsp;Layal Beyhum (host) 40:56To tie the knot between what we were initially talking about when we were talking about how does nonviolence intersect with economics and we said that you mentioned the importance of citizens having the duty and the obligation to respect and abide and at the same time contribute to while at the same time the governments and institutions have the role to protect, provide, and assist people in the process. So since we managed to talk about the latter, let's look at the former.So what can grassroots movements, youth, and local communities do besides awareness campaigns, maybe transparency drives or solidarity finance to build a fair economic order from what we're dealing with today with all the budget cuts? Have you seen anything? Is there a nice example you can put out and talk to us about it, share it with us or something hypothetical that you've been thinking about maybe as you being part of the youth, as you being part of the youth?&nbsp;Steven Qi (guest) 42:12No, 100%. I think for me, the priority lies in erasing the gap between grassroots youth participation advocacy and actual executive decision making. I'm thinking a bit too long term here. I know, like, for example, everything that we're facing right now in our societies globally are very acute problems that requires that it needs to be addressed immediately. I know the way I think is I leave that to the experts for better than that. And I know my brain function better is on building long term road maps and structures that will be sustainable, that will prevail and that will benefit generations.And on that, you know, on bringing together youth and grassroots communities, I say we need to really—we need to nourish and what's the right word to do this—we need to nourish and we need to grow the next generation of leaders from the grassroots level. And we've seen that happening because right now we have advocacy that's happening on the grassroots level and then after a while it dies off. The executive sphere is very much still isolated from the rest of the society. What we need really is societies, communities that operate in such a way that encourages more and more young people to enter the executive decision making level and then change it from within. Because right now you have, if I were to describe, you know, the executive decision, the minister, the ministries, or the power center in many countries is like a swamp. It's self-recycled, it's self-enclosed, it's self-circulating. You have the current cabinet members, you have the civil servants, and they operate in their own realities and within each other. They have operate with their own network insulated from the rest, oftentimes from the rest of the society. But imagine hypothetically if communities, they say it takes a village to raise a child, right? But if that community, if that village really does a good job of raising this future generation of youth and those youth eventually has that power and has that support to claw their way and drain the swamp you have people who are fresh, who have fresh ideas, you have people who are not brainwashed by the institutions and you have people who really know, really want what's best for the country and we need more of those people in decision-making places and really breaking that barrier, making sure more people like you, Layal, gets to enter those spheres of decision making, all those rooms and sit at those tables. I think that's where real change happens because you need people, at the end of the day you need people to do things and you need people that cares and if you don't have people that cares nothing's going to change long term.&nbsp;Layal Beyhum (host) 45:26What about AI replacing people at that point?&nbsp;Steven Qi (guest) 45:31This might be a hot take from me, but I think there's going to be a, there's going to come a time where we are, society is going to take a 180 and then focus on everything that's human. I think at one point society is gonna have enough, just like the dot com bubble, this is my thesis. One point society is gonna have enough and then businesses and everyone and everything is gonna start promoting like crazy human centric. So I'm not, you know, I just, I'm just trying to tough it out until that day comes, how about you? What do you think?&nbsp;Layal Beyhum (host) 46:05That's one beautiful way to look at it. As you said, people must remain at the center of everything and to be able to do that, we need to keep on reading, we need to stay engaged, we need to be involved.If you'd like to leave with one thought, what would it be?&nbsp;Steven Qi (guest) 46:21Don't stop caring. I know it's hard to care sometimes, I get it. It's hard to care when we don't, it's hard for us to even find a job. It's hard to care when you feel like, what's the point when nothing we do is going to matter, when the environment is entirely against us. It's really hard, it's even harder to care when sometimes even our closest people will speak against our ambitions and our dreams.And I know it's easier said than done, but I keep on saying this, I don't ever stop caring because the great leaders of human history, in human history, the great leaders of the past, all of them have faced hardships and trials and tribulations of their own kind. And now in our age, this is our term to face a trail of trials and tribulations that's unique to our generation. When we stop caring, we lose. When we don't stop caring, and I say this with full confidence that there is going to be a day that the sun is going to shine on us again. And because we care, we know what to do. Caring is the blueprint that will get us out of this mess eventually, because it's not so much more than just caring, it's caring for ourselves, taking care of ourselves, taking care of our loved ones, our communities, but also caring about what goes around us, being informed, caring about the future. Caring is hope. And having that is incredibly, incredibly crucial.&nbsp;Layal Beyhum (host) 47:55Thank you so much Steven for sharing that with us, but that only hope is quite significant to the extent that it can actually help us move forward. So let's use it as a moment of potentially some sort of daily gratitude or affirmation to never forget that without caring, we cannot move forward. And without people, we cannot live our lives. And without communities, there is no point of existing. So what's the point of living, if not together? Of course, please.&nbsp;Steven Qi (guest) 48:28You summarized this so beautifully. What's the point of living if we're not together? I will say one thing that we cannot just care. Caring, care itself is a stationary, it's a stationary power. But we also need to, when we see the opportunity, turn that care into action.&nbsp;Layal Beyhum (host) 48:50Absolutely.&nbsp;Steven Qi (guest) 48:51Care by itself does not solve things. Caring by itself sustains us, but we also need to transform the care into power when the opportunity arises. I think that's where the catalyst is. Caring is the first step, but the second step is always, which I think is more important, is when the time comes, transfer that care into power into change.&nbsp;Layal Beyhum (host) 49:19Thank you for joining us on the Nonviolence Now podcast. We hope today's episode left you feeling inspired. If it did, don't keep it to yourself. Share it with your friends and community. Together, let's spread the word about the power of nonviolent action.

Countering disinformation goes far beyond fact-checking. It demands patience, persistence, and hope. Digital non-violence refuses outrage as currency, because it centers human voices,  builds trust slowly, and treats truth as a shared responsibility.

In this episode, Layal Beyhum and Tiffany Saade examine how artificial intelligence alters governance, security, and power. They move past hype and focus on risk, responsibility, and institutional readiness. The conversation treats AI as a political and security issue rather than a neutral technology. Tiffany draws on her work in AI security and threat intelligence to explain how governance lags behind deployment. Systems scale before accountability exists, and states adopt tools without defining responsibility. Layal challenges the idea that AI governance is universal by pushing the discussion toward inequality and geopolitical imbalance. Who writes the rules, who benefits from automation, absorbs harm when systems fail are the spine behind their discussion. The episode makes clear that governance choices embed power whether acknowledged or not. The conversation grounds theory in context. Tiffany highlights how countries like Lebanon face AI exposure without decision-making power, claiming that exclusion from global governance increases risk.. When policy frameworks lag, states outsource power without safeguards. The episode concludes with the acknowledgement that AI governance must move upstream, security must shape design, and policy must act before deployment.

E3- Migration & Policy  In this episode, Layal and Pablo examine migration as a structural reality rather than a recurring crisis. They challenge the tendency to frame mobility as an emergency and argue that movement is shaped by political systems, economic inequality, climate pressure, and historical rupture.

In this episode, Layal speaks with Rivera Sun about how civil resistance in the United States is shifting form and strategy. Rivera traces the long tradition of nonviolent action in the United States. Movements have always used boycotts, strikes, and refusal to reshape power. What feels new today is the speed, scale, and coordination of resistance in response to rising authoritarianism. The conversation focuses on economic noncooperation. Layal and Rivera examine campaigns that target corporations and billionaires who enable authoritarian power. From Tesla boycotts to subscription cancellations, people withdraw consent from systems that profit from repression. Purchasing power becomes political power. The episode also addresses state violence and immigration crackdowns. Rivera describes how communities protect one another through nonviolent intervention, accompaniment, and public refusal. Ordinary people step between armed authority and vulnerable neighbors. They reclaim law through collective presence. The conversation closes with endurance. Resistance requires discipline, care, and imagination. Nonviolence sustains movements when fear and fatigue set in. Humor, creativity, and solidarity rehumanize everyone involved. The episode argues that this generation resists for a livable future built on dignity, democracy, and shared responsibility. About the Guest Rivera Sun is an author, activist, and strategist working at the intersection of nonviolent action, culture, and social change. She has written multiple books and novels, including The Dandelion Insurrection and the award-winning Ari Ara series, where the aspects of resistance, justice, and collective power through storytelling are contested. She serves as the editor of Nonviolence News and works as the program coordinator for Campaign Nonviolence. Rivera also sits on the board of the Backbone Campaign and on the advisory board of World Beyond War. Her work supports movements that use disciplined nonviolence to confront authoritarianism, militarism, and economic injustice. Across her writing and organizing, Rivera focuses on building durable movements rooted in creativity and collective care. She brings historical perspective to present struggles while grounding resistance in hope and human dignity. Visit her website: store.riverasun.com

Season Two of Nonviolence Now begins on the shores of the Mediterranean. In this opening episode, Layal Beyhum reflects on migration, blame, and the global distortion created by polarized narratives. This season will examine how radicalization spreads in divided societies—and how nonviolence operates not as passivity, but as strategic resistance from within institutions, civil society, and government. Before we analyze the spiral, we choose to step outside of it.

Join us for a compelling discussion that touches on coping with activist stress, preventing burnout, healing trauma. In this joint (and season finale) episode of The Nonviolence Now podcast with The SuperHumanizer podcast, Layal Beyhum unfolds the challenges of navigating activism in both online and offline spaces with Dr. Hani Chaabo and Katherine G. Bogen M.A. In this episode, they share their personal experiences as activists and professionals and offer practical coping mechanisms and well-being remedies to help individuals heal and overcome the pressures of the online war.Music: Horns and Happiness by mosesharrisjr, https://pixabay.com/users/mosesharrisjr-44001257/

Join Alisha for a “museum tour” as they delve into a wide variety of queer artistic expression and illuminate each one as a unique form of nonviolent action. From inventive dance forms to personal portraits to anonymous journalism to one hell of a jacket, get a sampling of what pride has meant over space and time.&nbsp;Music: Horns and Happiness by mosesharrisjr, https://pixabay.com/users/mosesharrisjr-44001257/

In this episode of Nonviolence Now, Layal and Alisha sit down with Bianca Castro, deputy lead of Roots, an initiative by Greenpeace, to talk about the global youth response to the climate crisis. Bianca shares her journey—from Fridays for Future to analyzing international climate policies—and breaks down the difference between climate activism and climate justice.Discover how nonviolent resistance has been used to challenge environmental destruction, like the successful fight against fossil fuel exploration in Portugal, and how Roots is bringing people together through Climate Justice Camps and innovative approaches to financing social movements.&nbsp;Follow along: Instagram @roots.people / @climatejusticecampLearn more: climatejusticecamp.com / poweredbyroots.orgMusic: Horns and Happiness by mosesharrisjr, https://pixabay.com/users/mosesharrisjr-44001257/

Recorded in November 2024, during the heated conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, Layal is joined by Professor Felipe Daza, a human rights defender and nonviolence strategist actively working on the ground to support movements. Together, they delve into the struggle for rights and justice across regions. Highlighting case studies such as the Israel-Palestine conflict, holding multinationals accountable, Spain’s housing crisis, the 'be like water' movement, and more, this episode uncovers how communities are resisting authoritarianism with innovative strategies and lessons from past movements.Music: Horns and Happiness by mosesharrisjr, https://pixabay.com/users/mosesharrisjr-44001257/

Amidst growing debates on digital activism and media control, Layal explores how the Arab Spring not only reshaped the Middle East but also set the foundation for today’s alternative media landscape. From Tunisia to Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Syria and beyond, the episode breaks down how Gene Sharp’s 198 methods of nonviolent resistance played out on the ground—and why their impact is still unfolding today.Examining military defections, mass strikes, and the rise of citizen journalism, Layal connects the dots between the viral footage that fueled revolutions in 2011 and the reality that today, 52% of U.S. TikTok users now rely on the platform for their news. With personal insights from Lebanon’s 2019 protests, stories of underground digital organizing, and the evolution of resistance in a hyper-connected world, this episode unpacks the Arab Spring’s lasting legacy on media, activism, and the fight against authoritarianism.Music: Horns and Happiness by mosesharrisjr, https://pixabay.com/users/mosesharrisjr-44001257/

From Gandhi's movement to the US civil rights movement, into their influence around the world and its digitalization through the Arab Spring, Layal &amp; Alisha show the evolution of nonviolent actions with current global movements.Music: Horns and Happiness by mosesharrisjr, https://pixabay.com/users/mosesharrisjr-44001257/

Discover the concepts of nonviolence through the lens of prominent thinkers like Henry David Thoreau, Étienne de La Boétie, Jean Paul Lederach, and global scholars. With co-hosts, Layal &amp; Alisha, explore how these diverse perspectives converge on the principles of love, truth, and justice to achieve social and political transformation without resorting to violence. Music: Horns and Happiness by mosesharrisjr, https://pixabay.com/users/mosesharrisjr-44001257/