Peace as a Practice of Everyday Life: An Interview with Paul Galles
In this Peace Dialogues in Luxembourg interview, Paul Galles reflects on peace as a daily practice rooted in dignity, education, social justice and democratic responsibility. In conversation with Omid Attar, he explores how Luxembourg can move beyond coexistence towards meaningful relationships, how children can experience peace from their earliest years, and how disagreement can remain constructive.
About Paul Galles
Paul Galles is a Member of Luxembourg’s Chamber of Deputies for the Christian Social People’s Party (CSV) and an Alderman of the City of Luxembourg responsible for education and youth. His background includes a doctorate in theology, eleven years as a Catholic priest and social engagement with Young Caritas.
The responses express Paul Galles’s personal reflections and do not represent the official position of his political party, the Chamber of Deputies, the City of Luxembourg or any other institution.
1. Peace and your personal journey
Your journey has connected theological reflection, social engagement and political responsibility.
Question — Omid Attar
What does peace mean to you today, and which experience in your life has most challenged or changed your understanding of it?
Answer — Paul Galles
For me, peace today means far more than the absence of war, violence, or conflict. Peace is an attitude towards others and, at the same time, a societal task. It begins where we acknowledge the dignity of another person—regardless of their background, religion, beliefs, or life story.
My eleven years as a Catholic priest have deeply shaped my understanding of peace. In Christian thought, peace is not simply tranquility or harmony. The biblical concept of Shalom describes a state in which relationships flourish: between people, within society, with creation, and with God. Peace means that life can unfold.
However, through my social work, I have also learned that good intentions alone are not enough. It is not enough simply to help people; we must also ask why they need help in the first place and which societal structures give rise to injustice.
My political work has further broadened this understanding. I have been particularly shaped by encounters with people suffering from war, displacement, and political oppression. When one engages with Ukrainian children forcibly taken to Russia, or with people fighting for freedom and democracy in Belarus, peace becomes a very concrete issue.
In doing so, I have arrived at a key conviction: peace and freedom must not be played off against each other. A peace based on oppression is not true peace.
Perhaps the most significant shift in my understanding is that I now view peace less as a static state and more as a process. Peace is never finally achieved; it must be constantly created anew—through listening, justice, courage, forgiveness, and political responsibility.
2. Peace in everyday life in Luxembourg
Luxembourg is not experiencing war, but peace in everyday life may also depend on how people experience their neighbourhoods, workplaces and relationships with public institutions.
Question — Omid Attar
Where do you see peace being built in everyday life in Luxembourg, and where does it remain fragile? Could you describe a situation that helped you recognise the difference between people simply living alongside one another and genuinely living together?
Answer — Paul Galles
In many respects, Luxembourg is an extraordinary social experiment. People of widely varying nationalities, languages, religions, and cultural backgrounds live together in close proximity. This diversity presents a tremendous opportunity, yet it does not automatically generate social cohesion.
For me, there is a fundamental difference between coexistence and living together. Coexistence implies tolerating one another and avoiding mutual disturbance as much as possible. Living together, on the other hand, means building relationships, assuming shared responsibility, and seeing ourselves as part of the same society.
In my work in Luxembourg City, I see just how important tangible spaces for interaction are—places such as schools, day-care centers, youth clubs, sports clubs, neighborhood initiatives, and public squares.
A school, for instance, is not merely a place where children learn mathematics or languages; it is also a place where children from diverse social and cultural backgrounds learn to live together. It is a setting where familiarity can grow out of unfamiliarity.
3. Peace education from childhood
Your responsibilities in education and youth place you close to the settings where children first encounter difference, cooperation and disagreement.
Question — Omid Attar
What should children have the opportunity to learn and experience from their earliest years in order to live peacefully with others? How can schools cultivate dialogue, critical thinking and respect for differences without asking children simply to conform or avoid disagreement?
Answer — Paul Galles
I believe that the foundations of peace are laid very early—long before a person understands political or philosophical concepts such as democracy, human rights, or justice.
A child must first experience that they are valuable—that they are heard, that their feelings are taken seriously, and that there are other people who possess that same dignity.
From this, skills develop that are crucial for peaceful coexistence: empathy, self-confidence, tolerance for frustration, the ability to handle conflict, and a willingness to take responsibility.
Children should be able to experience that their opinions matter. They should learn to listen to one another, develop rules together, work through conflicts, and accept decisions—even when those decisions do not always align with their own wishes.
I would go even further: a school that aims to foster peace must itself be a place where children experience peace. This applies to the tone of interaction, the relationships between adults and children, and the question of whether every child feels a sense of belonging.
Peace cannot be taught in isolation; it must be experienced.
4. From assistance to equal participation
Your work with Young Caritas and your European work concerning people in exile offer different perspectives on solidarity and inclusion.
Question — Omid Attar
What helps migrants, refugees and other people at risk of exclusion move from being recipients of support to becoming recognised contributors to society? What can Luxembourg learn from your experience about building peace through participation rather than assistance alone?
Answer — Paul Galles
People coming to Luxembourg bring more than just challenges; they bring knowledge, cultural experiences, professional skills, ideas, and personal stories. Our task is to give them the opportunity to contribute these abilities.
In concrete terms, this means access to education, language learning, employment, associations, forms of democratic participation, and social networks.
But it also means not merely asking people about their needs, but involving them in decision-making.
5. Social justice and the foundations of peace
Your work on the European Social Charter addresses the relationship between social rights, democracy and justice.
Question — Omid Attar
How do unequal access to housing, education or meaningful work affect social peace and trust in Luxembourg? When resources are limited, what principles should guide decisions about whose needs receive priority?
Answer — Paul Galles
I am convinced that social justice is an essential prerequisite for lasting peace.
A society may appear calm on the surface yet be marked by deep injustices. When people consistently feel they are not getting a fair chance, are not being heard, or are excluded from fundamental opportunities, mistrust arises.
This mistrust can be directed at institutions, political leaders, or other social groups.
In Luxembourg, we see this particularly clearly regarding the housing issue. Those who cannot find affordable housing despite being employed experience a contradiction between our country’s economic prosperity and the reality of their own lives.
The same applies to education. When a child’s social background significantly influences their educational opportunities, we must ask ourselves whether we are truly living up to our commitment to equal opportunity.
The European Social Charter reminds us that social rights are not merely a voluntary supplement to political and civil liberties; they are fundamental to a democratic society.
6. Shared principles in a diverse society
Luxembourg brings together people with different languages, convictions and ways of life. Shared belonging does not necessarily mean sharing the same beliefs.
Question — Omid Attar
Which shared principles can help people build peace across these differences, and how can those principles be developed without imposing the worldview of the majority? Has your experience changed the way you approach this question?
Answer — Paul Galles
I consider it a mistake to believe that a peaceful society can only emerge if its members share the same convictions.
Luxembourg, in particular, demonstrates that people with diverse languages, religions, cultural traditions, and ways of life can shape a society together.
The crucial question, therefore, is not: How do we get everyone to think the same way? Rather, it is: On what foundation can people live together peacefully despite thinking differently?
For me, this foundation begins with the inviolable dignity of every human being.
From this, other principles follow: freedom, equality, the rule of law, mutual respect, solidarity, and non-violence.
These principles do not require us to hold the same religion or worldview. Instead, they create a common framework within which diverse convictions have their place.
My theological background has influenced my thinking on this issue. The Christian faith ascribes to every person a dignity that does not depend on achievement, origin, or social status.
7. Political disagreement without hostility
Democratic life requires disagreement, criticism and sometimes protest. A peaceful society must make room for these, rather than equating peace with silence.
Question — Omid Attar
From your experience in municipal and parliamentary life, what allows strong disagreement to remain constructive instead of turning into hostility? Can you share an example of dialogue across opposing positions, including what it achieved and where its limits became apparent?
Answer — Paul Galles
Democracy thrives on dissent. A society in which no one voices disagreement anymore is not necessarily peaceful; it can also be a society where people are afraid to express their opinions.
That is why I consider it crucial to distinguish between conflict and enmity.
A political opponent is not a personal enemy. They may represent different interests, set different priorities, and reach different conclusions. Yet this does not mean that their dignity or democratic legitimacy should be called into question.
In my work at both the parliamentary and local government levels, I frequently see just how difficult this distinction can be. Politics operates under public pressure; media outlets and social networks often reward polarization, outrage, and simplistic dichotomies.
Precisely for this reason, democratic politics requires a culture of respect.
For me, this culture begins with a simple attitude: I must be willing to acknowledge that others may have arrived at a different conviction for serious reasons.
8. Advice for a future peace institute
I am developing a proposal for an independent, non-profit institute in Luxembourg devoted to peace, dialogue and mediation, connecting research, education and practical community initiatives.
Question — Omid Attar
Drawing on your experience, which unmet need should such an institute address first? In particular, what feasible initiative could it develop with schools, municipalities or associations to nurture peaceful coexistence from childhood, and how could we tell whether it was making a useful contribution?
Answer — Paul Galles
I find the idea of an independent peace institute in Luxembourg interesting, particularly if it succeeds in linking academic insights with concrete societal initiatives.
However, I would caution against viewing such an institute solely as a venue for academic reflection or international conferences.
Its particular added value could lie in fostering peace as a practical skill for everyday life.
In my view, a particularly meaningful starting point would be peace and democracy education for children and young people.
For instance, I could envision a program developed in collaboration with schools, day-care centers, youth centers, and municipalities.
This program could help children and young people resolve conflicts non-violently, understand diverse perspectives, recognize prejudices, and practice democratic decision-making.
Another key focus could be supporting educators in dealing with conflict, discrimination, and social polarization.
Given its linguistic and cultural diversity, Luxembourg would even have the opportunity to develop innovative models that could be of interest to other European societies.
However, such an institute would need to work closely with existing organizations rather than creating parallel structures.
And it would need to evaluate its success.
Comments